HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 06-05Meridian City Council Meeting June 5, 2001
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:35 P.M. on Tuesday June 5, 2001 by Mayor Robert D. Corrie.
Members Present: Cherie McCandless, Ron Anderson, Mayor Robert Corrie, Tammy de Weerd, and Keith Bird.
Others Present: Ken Bowers, Brad Watson, Tom Kuntz, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Dave Bowman and Shelby Ugarriza.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Tammy de Weerd X Ron Anderson
X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird
X Mayor Robert Corrie
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Item 3. Presentation for Kiwanis Leadership / Service Awards:
Item 4. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of April 3, 2001, City Council Workshop:
B. Approve minutes of April 10, 2001, City Council Special Meeting:
C. Approve minutes of April 17, 2001, City Council Meeting:
D. Proposed Agreement with ACHD – Meridian Fire District Station Right-of-Way dedication on North Ten Mile Road:
E. Tabled from May 15, 2001: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 01-009 Request for Conditional Use Permit for planned development to include office, retail and industrial
for proposed Treasure Valley Technical Center by Meridian Freeway Associates and DBSI Industrial Limited Partnership – ¼ mile east of Linder Road, north side of Overland Road:
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: PP 01-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 23 building lots and 3 other lots on 9.24 acres in an R-4 zone by Hubble
Engineering for proposed Ashford Greens No. 6 – Black Cat Road, north of Cherry Lane:
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 01-008 Request for Conditional Use Permit of 3 residential lots to be developed as subdivision, pool, clubhouse and recreation area in
an R-4 zone for Packard Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC – north of East Fairview Avenue, west of North Eagle Road on North Hickory Way:
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 01-005 Request for Conditional Use Permit for gasoline facility consisting of a 3,612 square-foot canopy over 5 multi-product dispensers,
cashier’s kiosk and parking lot improvements in a C-G zone for Fred Meyer Gasoline Facility by Dakota Company, Inc. – 1850 East Fairview Avenue:
I. Development Agreement: AZ 00-026 Requested amendment to Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order and Development Agreement for Kodiak Development:
J. Development Agreement: RZ 00-008 Requested amendment to Development Agreement for Devlin Subdivision No. 2:
K. Approve bills:
Item 6. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
Tabled from May 15, 2001: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 01-009 Request for Conditional Use Permit for planned development to include office, retail and industrial
for proposed Treasure Valley Technical Center by Meridian Freeway Associates and DBSI Industrial Limited Partnership – ¼ mile east of Linder Road, north side of Overland Road:
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: PP 01-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 23 building lots and 3 other lots on 9.24 acres in an R-4 zone by Hubble Engineering
for proposed Ashford Greens No. 6 – Black Cat Road, north of Cherry Lane:
Item 7. Ordinance No. : ZA 01-001 Request for consideration of amendments to Title 12, Chapter 6, “Planned
Development”, and Title 11, Chapter 17 “Conditional Uses” of Meridian City Ordinance, along with related changes by Primeland Development:
Item 8. Ordinance No. 01-918: RZ 00-008 Request for rezone of 5.17 acres from L-O to R-4 by J-U-B Engineers for proposed Devlin Place No. 2 – south of Devlin Place between Sunburst
Subdivision and Sunnybrook Farms:
Ugarriza: It’s Ordinance No. 01-918.
Corrie: Okay. If you will read Ordinance No. 01-918 by title only at this time.
Ugarriza: Ordinance No. 01-918. An ordinance finding that Dan Wood is the owner of certain real property have made a written request for rezone of the classification for real property
on the north side of Cherry Lane east of Ten Mile Road Meridian Idaho that lies within the boundaries of the City of Meridian from L-O, limited office district, zoning district to R-4,
low density residential district as defined under Meridian City code section 11-7-2c. Repealing all ordinances, resolutions, or parts there of in conflict herewith and directing the
City Engineer to add said rezoning designation to the official maps of the City of Meridian Idaho.
Corrie: Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to have the Ordinance 01-918 read in it’s entirety? Okay. Council, I’ll entertain a motion on the Ordinance No. 01-918.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve Ordinance 01-918. A request for rezone of 5.17 acres from L-O to R-4 for proposed Devlin Place No. 2 with suspension of the rules.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion was made to adopt Ordinance No. 01-918 with a suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote please.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 9. Continued Public Hearing from May 15, 2001: RZ 01-003 Request for rezone from R-4 to C-C for Partition Specialties, Inc by Ronald and Coleen Schaub – 1315 North Meridian Road:
Corrie: Item No. 9 is a continued Public Hearing from May 15, 2001. This is a request for rezone from R-4 to C-C for Partition Specialties Inc. by Ronald and Coleen Schaub 1315 north
Meridian Road. At this time I will open the continued Public Hearing and have staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. This was continued in order to give the applicant a chance to be here and address some of the comments that we had. One of the comments was that it appears
that they are currently operating without a Conditional Use Permit or without the property being rezoned. It doesn’t appear to be operated as an office. The Planning and Zoning Commission,
their recommendation was to not agree to the C-C zone that was requested but to allow an L-O which would allow an office and hopefully they’re here and they’re able to address some of
the comments that have been made.
Corrie: Thank you. Is the representative or owner here?
Unidentified: Yes.
Corrie: Come up. Give your name and address please.
Schaub: Ron Schaub, 376 Wilmington Drive Meridian Idaho.
Corrie: I guess, nothing but questions we had in reference to --. You’re requesting a C-C and the Planning and Zoning said L-O. Comments?
Schaub: The only reason we applied for the C-C zoning originally is the property next to us was (inaudible). A very low impact family owned business. (inaudible).
We have 1 and a half-staff members. (inaudible). L-O is fine with me. We have no other intent of using that space other than a home for our computers and salesman and a secretary. I’m
there in and out so often. I don’t even know when I’m in town anymore. I was out of town the first time this was heard (inaudible). My 12 year old took the message that you called from
the best that I could gather. We were unaware of the fact that we were even on the (inaudible).
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Sir, are you doing any fabrication or any delivering or receiving out of that?
Schaub: No. Everything that we buy --. We don’t buy anything that’s shelf stock or sell anything that is shelf stock. As an example we – our main business is the big (inaudible) walls
in the convention centers like Boise Center on the Grove. (inaudible) Everything that we order has to be fabricated and is built directly on the job sites. It is impossible for us to
inventory anything. We get a couple of UPS shipments now and then and maybe a couple of Airborne shipments, maybe of blueprints. We fabricate nothing. We stock no inventory other than
little parts on our service criteria. I travel so much anymore, in the original applicant I think I put 1 and a half or 2 and a half people. I’m kind of that half person unfortunately.
I forget where I live most of the time. I do a lot of work all over the northwest. We’re one of the few companies that do convention centers (inaudible). We really are like a mail order
house I guess. (inaudible). Three computers, copy machines. I hope I’ve answered. We fabricate nothing. We sell nothing out of that –
Bird: You have no walk in trade, then? You’re strictly a contract business?
Schaub: Right. The only time anyone would ever walk in is maybe an architect now and then to say –
Bird: To check , yeah.
Schaub: We sell nothing out of our facility. This has been a home business for me for about 14 or 15 years. I frankly got tired of going home because I knew I had to deal with calls
(inaudible).
Bird: I understand. Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De weerd.
De Weerd: I’m not sure what day it was, I think we’ve had this continued a couple times now. When it was first noticed to the public, several of your neighbors came, or several
neighbors to that piece of property came and mentioned that there is traffic generated from this and commented about pick ups and trailers that had been using the alleyway. One of the
neighbors was concerned about his fence being taken out by one of these trailers. That is why we wanted you here. So you’d have a chance to –
Schuab: When we bought the property it took about 3 months just to tear it and gut it. I had both of my tool trailers there and a flat bed. Maybe that – We haven’t that I’m aware of
done any damage to any fence. I know all of the neighbors on this side of the street. I’ve never talked to any of them behind us. I’ve never had one comment made to me personally from
anybody that we’re creating an issue. As far as I know, I do have a couple of installers, but all the trailers are stored up
at the Meridian Storage facility. Outside of the original about 2 months that it took me to really go in and paint and tear and gut and carpet and junk and stuff, not that I’m aware
of. Once in a while – I have a truck sitting out back there right now that’s one of our work trucks that goes all over. It’s going to be in Nebraska here in 3 weeks. We have outside
storage for our vehicles. It’s towards Kuna. We rent four spots out there and that’s basically where everything stays. I am in the property right now using it. I couldn’t afford to not
use it at $900.00 a month. I’ll play stupid and ignorant. I’ve told everybody at the P&Z zoning the same comment that I’m not here to lie or deceive anybody. You can’t hide what we do.
From the main street and there we are. My wife and I and our project manager are there. We have about 2 cars there. I can’t wait to get through this process to pave the alley and to
get this stuff beyond where we want to be and not use the front at all. I don’t know of any issues with the fence and the stuff in the back. I’m ignorant to that, sorry.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Have you read the recommendations?
Schuab: I have. We’re in full agreement with all of them. I would like to just bring it back up again, is the sidewalk issue. I have no problem putting a sidewalk in, but it will be
the only sidewalk in that area there. I was told at the P&Z when we were here last time that it’s going to come out when they do the widening of the street. So, it’s a temporary thing.
To me it’s just a waste of money, but obviously we’ll put it in if it’s part of the compliance. As far as the other recommendations with the alley and the parking, we want to do that
anyway. We need that. That will help simplify I think a lot of the issues. I’m just on a hold pattern too with some of the landscaping we want to do, not knowing what has to be accomplished
and if it’s approved. I wasn’t going to spend the money obviously to do all the improvements not knowing where we were going.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public who’d like to issue testimony on this item?
Peters: My name is Gene Peters, 1323 north Meridian Road. I live next door to the property from Mr. Schuab. I’m certainly not against Ron moving in there or doing business out of there.
I was here last time and the other neighbor was also here. He’s not able to be here tonight. I’m here just to say my main concern is with the alleyway. Whether Ron knows it or not, there
is a lot of traffic of his that goes the full length of the alleyway, all the way from Maple to Cherry everyday.
I’m not home everyday but I even see it in the evening. Last Friday, whatever was going on there was a semi that tried to take the alleyway to unload stuff in the back alley. The reason
I know that is I was out in the back working in my own yard. I have nothing against anybody going in the alley. My main concern is that I think the alley’s being used to keep the dust
down and son on. Our request for paving the entire alley ought to be considered. We all use that alley but I’ll tell you it’s seldom. The alley is there mainly for the trash pick up.
I have a travel trailer and another trailer in the back that I get out periodically. Usually in the fall of the year. Other than that, no one uses that alley except they will be using
it. Did I not hear that there’s not very much traffic? Or did I not hear that?
De Weerd: That’s what he said.
Peters: There’s trailers and trucks every single day in and out of that place. Like I say it don’t care about that but I want to make it clear that there’s a lot more traffic there than
meets the eye. There has been stuff going on in the garage other than 3 months ago. That’s fine. I’m not here to lie either as I heard him say. I want to be a good neighbor and I want
to have him do his thing but I do hope you folks will consider the request for a full alley paving for dust purposes and so on. You’re talking about fences being taken out. The neighbor
next to me was concerned because he’s seen guys come through and nearly miss his corner posts. Apparently he has never been able to talk to Ron. I very seldom see Ron. I’m not beside
talking to him when I do see him. I’m sure we can discuss some of this too.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: So, Mr. Peters, your main concern is the dust that’s created by the traffic in the alley.
Peters: Yes I am.
De Weerd: So, they’re traveling the whole length of the alley?
Peters: Oh, yes. There’s seldom when anybody will come through when it won’t be one way or the other and it’ll go all the full distances because of the trailers they’re towing. It isn’t
just coming in off of the south entrance and coming in and driving out. It’s the full alley that they’re using. I guess it shows the alley right there from Cherry to whatever that is.
I guess that’s Maple on top on the north end.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you. Is there anyone else who’d like to issue testimony at this point? I guess, Ron we need to have you answer those questions that he brought to us.
Schuab: Well, I need to address with my projects with my staff to find out what they are doing. I think Gene said I’m out of town quite a bit so it beats me. I can’t answer that. I don’t
know anything about the semi. I was out of town all last week. We had a semi come in and it was for the Boise Rec Center but I don’t know how it ended up there. Unless there was a miss-routing
shipment. It was all the sports equipment for the Boise Rec Center. There’s no way you could even material handle all of that. It’s a full 45-foot semi. Again I don’t know. I can readdress
that. I’m unaware of that much traffic but I am out of town quite a bit. So, I’ll readdress all of that. It’s not our intent to have a whole bunch of traffic going up and down that back
alley. I do have (inaudible) crew but, I don’t know why they’re there with all that stuff all the time. I’ll readdress that in staff meetings on, mine’s Friday.
De Weerd: I guess the main concern sounds like the dust that is kicked up from the traffic that is back there. So, the neighbors when they came in first requested that the whole
alley be paved from Cherry Avenue to whatever that other street up is.
Schuab: Is it Washington? Maple?
Bird: Maple.
De Weerd: So, what are your thoughts on that.
Schuab: I don’t know if I can afford to do it.
De Weerd: Would you like us to postpone this so you can (inaudible)?
Schuab: I would have to get some costs on that.
De Weerd: To talk to your staff and find out –
Schuab: I can readdress the traffic issue with them there on Friday. The dust issue obviously, I guess if the paving is what it’s going to take to do this, I ultimately will have to
do it. It’s obviously a cost issue too. It may determine whether or not we keep the property or sell the property. If it’s not advantageous for us to put that kind of money into that
piece of property. Especially for the convenience of others.
De Weerd: I certainly understand that.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess, this is an observation of mine. It doesn’t seem like we can impose a condition to have somebody pave an alleyway and pave property that’s not even theirs. It does
seem pretty obvious to me that you are not aware of all the traffic that your business is generating and sending up and down that alley. It seems like a simple matter to me that you
ought to talk to your people and tell them to quite using that alleyway.
Schuab: I can put that into effect.
Anderson: That would solve a lot of these neighbors concerns. Obviously we’re hearing from the neighbors and the staff that there’s a lot more activity and vehicle traffic than what
you’re aware of. I guess, you know it’s going –
***End of Side One***
Anderson: For us that we’re going to have to address with you if you don’t address it with your staff first.
Schuab: I can surely do that. I mean, it’s one of my rights with my name on the paycheck. I can deal with all that and implement that too and dictate that that no longer happens. Then
we can work it out.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Okay. Then you’re going to talk to them and --?
Schuab: I will mandate it of my staff.
Corrie: Okay.
Schuab: That all traffic, when traffic is used with the trailers, comes only one way period. I can also readdress how much traffic and find out exactly what is going on out there.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Okay. Anything else?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Shari.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to make sure that Mr. Schuab knew that he is not legally operating there and these requirements are requirements prior to operating. That they need
to have the drainage done and get the pavement in and meet all these requirements. Ada County Highway District requirement was to pave from their north property line to Cherry but not
north of there. I don’t know if there’s any kind of cooperation among the neighbors that could help pay for the remainder of that. I know when Mr. Peters came in, it was a requirement
of his rezone in order to have commercial property to pave the alley up to his property and to and through his property. I don’t know if there’s any interest in trying to cooperate with
that. I just don’t want this to turn into an enforcement problem where we’re forced to go out there and start some action because you’re not complying with the ordinance. I just want
to make sure that you do need to get working on these things and shouldn’t be operating until that’s complete. Then if the L-O goes through it is only for an office use. No manufacturing
of any kind.
Corrie: Any other, Council, questions or testimony in the Public Hearing?
Anderson: (inaudible) one more question of Shari, then. Was there a temporary C-O or anything signed?
Stiles: No. We don’t issue temporary C-Os for non-conforming uses.
Anderson: Okay.
Corrie: Any other discussion? I’ll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. If you want to continue it, you can.
Bird: No. This lady I think wants to testify, but.
Corrie: If we close the Public Hearing, you’ll have to make a ruling on the request for rezone.
Bird: Shari, I thought, did you say Mr. Peters when he got his that he was suppose to asphalt up to his property?
Stiles: I couldn’t swear to that but I recall that that was a requirement of Ada County Highway District at that time.
Bird: (inaudible)
Stiles: He’s not operating commercially there. At least that we’re aware of.
Bird: Yeah, but it was a condition of getting that zoned. Okay is it zoned that now?
Stiles: Yes it is.
Bird: Okay. Then where is his property?
Stiles: Immediately north of this other property.
Bird: Okay. Where was he suppose zone, from Maple or from Cherry? Pave, I mean.
Stiles: I couldn’t guarantee, (inaudible) where that was. That was quite some time ago and it was only upon, I believe it was only upon development of his property commercially.
Bird: Okay.
Corrie: And, he has not done that?
Bird: And, he has not done that?
Stiles: Not that I’m aware of.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: With your permission, can we ask Mr. Peters to answer that question if he remembers what the condition was?
Corrie: Yeah. Mr. Peters, please.
Peters: Yes, I remember. I applied for C-C zoning, can’t recall if it was 3 years ago, perhaps or right in that neighborhood. The requirements, I could not meet them so I backed out
of my plan and didn’t follow through. But yes that was a requirement. For me to run my business I had to have that paved so I came back to the Council meeting and chose at that time
to go elsewhere because I couldn’t see at the time, the business I was going to do was an antique shop and it was more of a hobby type of thing. I just could not see paving the Ada County
alley because I was not anticipating making a great deal of money. In fact it was going to be more of a, I was still going to work a regular job and then just have that on the side.
Yes, I still have all my papers and everything at home. I still toy with it from time to time. Actually, I’m totally shocked that my place was zoned C-C because no one ever notified
me that my property was C-C. A month ago when I came to this same meeting over these same purposes. When you flashed the map up, that’s my pink proper right there.
Bird: I knew it was.
Peters: Whether that’s something that, -- I mean I don’t know how to take that. I don’t know whether it’s good or bad or indifferent or what.
Bird: I think you need to have Shari explain the process of why that is zoned that.
Anderson: Why did that get zoned if, --
Peters: Well, I did pay all the fees and everything to rezone. I just have not complied and I do not run a business out of there.
De Weerd: Well, it sounds like the conditions are placed if you turn that piece of property into a business use.
Peters: Yes, they are. I would like to leave it that way, if that’s possible because I did pay the fees. I don’t know.
Stiles: The city did act on your application to request for zoning for commercial. That’s why it was rezoned, is because you requested and with those conditions it was approved. That’s
why it was rezoned. Now, if you wanted to come in and add onto your home, you wouldn’t be able to do it because you’re in the wrong zone.
(inaudible discussion)
Peters: Okay. So, where do we stand then? Just leave it the way it is?
Bird: Yeah.
Stiles: I don’t know, I’d have to look at the findings for yours and make that that was a requirement upon changing it to commercial use. I don’t believe it would be very equitable
for the Schuabs if you immediately started operating. If they had to pave that entire alley and you immediately started operating commercially. I just wish there was some kind of solution
that you could work out with the neighborhood to do this.
Peters: See, at the time I was suppose to pave the entire back yard and make handicap ramps and all that. I just couldn’t see that being feasible.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. I have a question Shari. I’m confused because I thought I heard you say for Ron’s property, Partitions Specialties that we couldn’t grant them the rezone until
they meet the conditions. Then I’m hearing you say we granted this gentleman his rezone and he’s never met the conditions. I’m I confused or what’s the story?
Stiles: We didn’t say they had to meet the conditions before they were rezoned.
Anderson: I though I heard you just say that a couple minutes ago, that they hadn’t met any of the conditions.
Stiles: He can’t be operating illegally now. It’s a non-conforming use. It’s a prohibited use in that zone. He’s not legally operating right now. What happens usually is they ask for
a rezone. They’re not operating. They get the conditions of approval. They meet the conditions of approval. Then they get an occupancy. They either get the paving done or they come in
and bond for those improvements and the city has a guarantee that those improvements are going to be made. But they don’t just move in. I mean that’s not what we like to see. It’s not
that we expect everything to be paved and the sidewalk to be built and everything before they can go in there. But he will need to bond for those improvements. Put up a letter of credit
or cash in order that he can get a certificate of occupancy.
Anderson: Then why did we go ahead and approve his zoning for C-C if he hasn’t met them?
Stiles: He’s not operating commercially.
De Weerd: He doesn’t need occupancy.
Anderson: Because he already lived there.
Stiles: Yeah.
De Weerd: He’s not in a business use.
Stiles: He hasn’t changed –
Peters: I do live there, yes sir.
De Weerd: He hasn’t changed his use.
Corrie: Now, if he wants to add onto his house, then it’s an illegal use because he’s in C-C. You understand that, don’t you?
Peters: I know I would have to turn around and rezone R-4. Waste a lot more of you guys’ time.
Corrie: It’s complicated for you and us too. Does that answer your question?
Anderson: Yeah.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you Ron. Anything else? Hearing nothing more, I’ll either entertain a motion to continue this Public Hearing or to close it.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we close the Public Hearing.
Bird: I second it.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s been made and second to close the Public Hearing. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay. I’ll entertain any discussion on the request for rezone R-4 to L-O. Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on the request.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, it sounds like to move this thing along we’ve got to approve this so that the gentleman can go do his work because he’s sure not going to go out and do the work
until he gets this approved. I mean that doesn’t make financial sense to me. I would make a motion that we approve this request for rezone from an R-4 to C-C for Partition Specialties
–
Corrie: L-O.
Anderson: -- L-O for Partition Specialties by Ronald and Colleen Schaub at 1315 north Meridian Road and instruct the City Attorney to draw up the appropriate paperwork.
Bird: I’ll second it. (inaudible)
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and seconded. Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would like to, what about the paving Mr. Anderson?
Anderson: I think if that’s one of the conditions that ACHD put on there, then he’s going to have to meet the conditions.
Bird: But, just to his property?
Anderson: From the north side of his property to Cherry Avenue.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I also agree with that. I would suggest that the applicant check with his staff and make sure the traffic is minimal like he has testified to. With that testimony, I
don’t have a problem approving it. If there was heavy traffic back there I would think that ACHD would need to reconsider paving the whole alley because it does impact and dust mitigation
is a high priority in this county right now. With not very much traffic I don’t think that should be warranted.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess just to add a little bit to that comment. I’m not so sure that just paving the alley is the answer. At this point, we’ve heard from one neighbor but if there started
to be tractor-trailer semi traffic going down that alley, we’re going to hear from more neighbors. I don’t think that we should try to enforce paving the whole alley and to me that kind
of implies that we’re saying, yeah, you ought to bring semi traffic down that alley. I don’t think that alley’s wide enough or is the appropriate place for semi traffic. I would rather
instruct the applicant just to try to keep the trucks out of there and minimize the use of that alley.
De Weerd: That’s basically what I said.
Corrie: Any further discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none, roll call vote please.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
Item 10. Continued Public Hearing: AZ 00-019 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT-R-4 for proposed Cedar Springs by J-U-B Engineers, Inc – northwest of Meridian
and Ustick Roads:
Corrie: Item No. 10 is a continued Public Hearing request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT R-4 for proposed Cedar Springs by JUB Engineering northwest of Meridian
and Ustick Roads. At this time I will continue the Public Hearing. Staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. This is for the property surrounding the 56-acre park at Ustick and Meridian Roads. It has gone through several Public Hearings so far. We did receive
a new plat on May 24th with the change. The major change to the plat is showing single family residential where previously was shown future L-O site. However they still do reference
a future L-O or commercial site. On the Ustick Road side, what would be south of the elementary school they are still referencing future L-O commercial or multi family site. They would
be required to develop this as planned development in order to get those uses done. It would not be a spot-zoned situation in the future to change that. So, that would not be possible.
What was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission was the previous plan that had shown that. They had not seen this plan. The applicant apparently has changed that in an effort
to avoid the 10 percent open space that would be required as part of a planned development. They also have removed some of the lots that were adjacent to the future City Park. It was
the park departments and the park and rec commission’s desire that that be left open as a single loaded street along the entire northern boundary. This is what they’ve come back with.
There’s an issue that we have. We received a letter regarding Venable Lane. We also got a letter from Gary Lee at JUB Engineers today addressing that. What I can understand, what he
is trying to say there is, there is a public road right-of-way immediately adjacent to this property. They have utilized the existing, or the Venable lane area. Right adjacent to this
property there’s a 29-foot right-of-way, public road right-of-way that was done in 1908. The Venable lane right-of-way goes up along here adjacent to their property. What the problem
would here is that this is a public road right-of-way and it would lead to double loaded streets on this section. I believe that’s partly what the person that wrote that letter was getting
at is that you would have half of the street section and have to dedicate the other 29 feet or whatever it was if it were a collector entirely on his property. Then it would lead to
these lots having frontage on 2 different streets. We did like the concept at staff, of having the mixed use. However, we could not support it without it coming through as a planned
development. They do have, there are some things that they exceed the block length requirement in some locations. They would require a variance for that. This latest submittal doesn’t
show all of the contour lines that I think we do have another sheet that would show that. It’s just not overlaid on this particular plat. We did have a meeting with the applicant, discussed
the proliferation of 80 by 100 lots and how the Council was trying to discourage that and instead have a greater diversity of lots throughout the city. There is no sewer service to this
property. The easements have not yet been obtained. It is in a similar situation to Sundance, which was denied. Unless you have other questions that’s kind of a summary of where we’re
at right now.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Council, any questions of staff? Hearing none. Okay, this is a continued Public Hearing, Tom.
Kuntz: Thank you Mayor and Council. Just a comment from the parks department. One we do appreciate the developer’s attempt to try and mediate our concern having open access and visibility
to the back of this large park. Fencing that with a chain link fence, number one will just invite people to enter the park climbing over that fence, number one. Number two the police
department may want to comment tonight, but the breakaway gate is not really achieving what they want to achieve. We do appreciate the effort but it needs a little bit more massaging
in our opinion. Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Tom, did they work with you on this?
Kuntz: No, Ma’am. In fact this revised plat went to the fire department, the police department and I was contacted by the police chief and fire chief to see if I’d seen it. I contacted
the JUB and was told I would get a copy and I still haven’t received a copy. So, no Ma’am, they did not.
Corrie: Captain Bowman.
Bowman: Mayor and Council this is actually the first time I’ve seen this revised plan. I’d been made aware of that breakaway gate. As far as emergency services are concerned I think
I speak for the fire department as well as the police department and emergency medical services, that break away gate is really not the way to go. The obvious problem there is damaging
vehicles when you’re striking that gate, running over it or whatever else --. I’m not familiar with the mechanics of those particular devices. When I said access to the back park, I
meant 24-7, not just in an emergency.
Corrie: Okay. Kenny, do you have anything from the fire department?
Bowers: Mayor Corrie and City Council Members. I talked to Gary Lee yesterday on this plan. We had discussed the 15-foot access road that they had given us. We would need a 29 foot by
our, you know for a fire code. We would need a 20-foot. Also, Gary and I had discussed, Gary Lee, excuse me and I had discussed. We did not discuss about any breakaway barriers. We had
mentioned it but we didn’t get into what style or what kind of barriers that we could approve for that area. As you know, 2 or 3:00 in the morning, you pull up to something like those
barriers, you don’t know if they’re the style that you can hit them with your front bumper and knock them down or if you’ve got to get out and pry them out of the ground by hand. The
problem with the ones you have to pry out of the ground by hand, they usually rust up before you can get them out of there so you can’t get them out. Gary and I have not done any discussion
on any kind of breakaway
barriers but we do need something in that area to get into the park. That’s for sure.
Corrie: Any questions for staff? Okay. Since this is a continued Public Hearing, developer.
Schultz: Good evening, Mayor and Members of Council. Matt Schultz, JUB Engineers, 250 south Beechwood representing the applicant. The picture in front of you is kind of an evolution
since we last submitted last fall. Initially, we submitted 333 building lots R-4 including lots in those spaces. Those are typos by the way. The rest of that’s future L-O. Those are
meant to be removed. We are proposing R-4 lots everywhere. After the first submittal we were hit with the school needing the site as well as Shari mentioned, trying to obtain some sort
of diversity in the area. This has been 8 months ago. We’ve been through a lot of hearings. We resubmitted to Planning Commission with the school. It dropped actually 60 lots right off
the top from the 333. The school, I think, provides a nice diversity. We also indicated some other areas where we could potentially convert to L-O. We’re not proposing to do that right
now. At that same time, Mr. Kuntz indicated he’d like to see a single loaded street along the north side. Essentially moving that street that’s right here down, sharing that property
lines with us to open up the park. From an aesthetic point of view and there’s also the safety concerns. They’re kind of 2 separate issues but that would have solved both of those potentially.
It brought up some issues that our developer wasn’t prepared to accept which basically inviting all those people to park in front of those homes to jump into the park when. The park’s
a 56-acre park. It’s got 2 large parking lots and they had a nice trail around the outside when we first met that could have been used as emergency access pathway. They proposed a stub
street through the top end of the school site. We proposed some other options, but the parks department was pretty dead set on the single loaded street idea. We went to a vote and the
planning commission voted for us. Staff, specifically wrote in their conditions that Planning and Zoning Commission does not recommend the single loaded street design. We were set to
go to Council approximately 45 days ago. We knew that Tom still wasn’t really satisfied and it’s our intent really to make sure that everybody is satisfied, hopefully. My client included.
That’s when we came back. We deleted six lots. That’s 480 feet. I mean it’s well over a football field long. 100 feet wide. A very large open area that we’re proposing. It looks small
on this map but it’s a big area. It provides some nice visibility. We were trying to come up with a design that met the intent of both visibility and safety. At the same time didn’t
fully encourage everybody to park there in front of those people’s homes. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Kuntz that people are just going to hop the fence. There’s an opening right
there 2 lots down that people can walk through. There’s no real reason for them to go hopping a fence. They could, yes but not likely. As far as that issue, we feel like we made a good
attempt to meet with Mr. Kuntz over the last 8 months to work out those concerns and that was just 6 lots that we just said okay, here you go. Let’s do it. I know Mr. Bigham’s not here
from Meridian School District but I know that school is top on his priority list
of sites to meet the growing needs of the community. As far as Venable lane is concerned, I do have Mr. John Kennedy here tonight who was the gentleman the wrote the letter, or his attorney
wrote the letter, excuse me. I received that last time when (inaudible). Since that time, we’ve met twice and talked extensively over the phone. We’ve agreed to provide him a stub street
up in this area right here. His property line ends about right there. To give him sewer, water, stub street, power, all those things. He has agreed that would be acceptable, right?
Unidentified: Yes.
Schultz: All the utilities. That’s his son. I’m very happy to announce that we’ve been able to work that out. As far as the sewer to the site and the sewer to the park site which is
under design right now. Both of these sites do require that the white drain be extended. As we all know that’s an on going hurdle that everybody’s dealing with. There is an item tonight.
I don’t know if it’s going to be heard tonight or not. The Bridgetower subdivision that will extend that. We, 6 months ago had given everybody, the design team, the plat required to
design alignment. We’ve designed the preliminary profile for them. We’re ready to grant that easement if you so deem this thing to move forward. We would ask the condition that any kind
of permits or kind of final plat based on that sewer being there, which I would hope we all agree is going to be there sometime in the near future one way or another. With that, we meet
the open space. We’re at 6 percent actually. We’ve, like I said we were at 333 lots. I believe we’re at 274 now. That’s like almost 60 lots. Just a few to make the open space. I think,
we’ve got the school to provide open space. We’re not even counting. That’s 80 acres we’re not even counting in out open space count that provides a nice amenity for the neighborhood.
After hours and things people use those sites for recreation as well as our nice city park that’s going to be there. We really think it’s a compliment to the community. There is diversity
planned for the area. We think R-4 is appropriate with your current Comprehensive Plan. There is really nothing else that could be allowed in this area with your current Comprehensive
Plan. As such we ask for approval tonight with the revision that we change it to 274 lots, I believe. It was 333. It went down to 364 and it’s for 274 lots. We’re willing to work out
some of the construction details on the gate and access. Whether it be ballers to the satisfaction of the police and fire departments. Those are issues that are not real tough to work
out. I presented an alternative. Like Tom said, it requires a little bit of massaging. We do not propose to do a whole sell revision of the site plan which would be required if we wanted
to do a single loaded street. I’ve done some sketches and it alters the site plan considerably to do so. I think this meets the intent. With that I ask for your approval tonight and
I’m happy to answer any of your questions. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Any questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Is there a reason Matt why you didn’t work with our parks director on your revision here.
Schultz: We worked with Tom. We’ve been to some meetings. This solution here was actually one proposed by him at the Planning Commission. Actually, he proposed all those moore lots basically
between the 2 narrow. Because at that time we didn’t meet the 5 percent open space. (inaudible) why don’t you just lose those lots. At the time we weren’t sure that that was the most
equitable solution. Since that time, we really have met right where everybody wanted us to meet. Giving up those 6 lots. It’s been a long process but I think we’ve – We have met numerous
times and discussed this. I did submit the 10 copies to the city. I’m kind of new to the area. I’ve only been in the area about a year. I thought they would be forwarded to him. I apologize
for not forwarding them directly to him, the revised plan. I just assumed, I sent 10 sets to the city, the parks department would be on that routing list. That’s my fault.
De Weerd: When you went to design this, you really didn’t think people would park in the subdivision? This is a huge park and it’s a sports park. It’s been designed for some time.
Every park that I’ve ever been in with my kids, people park in the neighborhoods and walk into it. By putting a fence in there, that’s not taking advantage of this amenity. It certainly
doesn’t do anything to a huge 56-acre park that is our community showpiece. You knew you were building around a park. Those things really need to be included in your plan.
Schultz: I agree that we need to work with the city and come up with the best park and subdivision design. We did work with Tom since last July. I mean, it’s almost been a year and we
have documentation to that effect, asking him is this okay, yes. You know, just provide these 2 access points. We have been working, this change came about in January. 6 months later.
We did everything in our power to coordinate with the city. We just kind of got half way through our application, why don’t you just revise? That’s really not our intent. Yeah, sure
people may park there. We’re not encouraging it. There’s 2 large parking lots in the city park. We really don’t want to turn our subdivision into a parking lot. We don’t have to and
encourage it. Especially with lots fronting that way. I’ve seen some really large parks in the city of Boise, Simplot Park, there’s cars parked all along there but the houses are not
facing. It’s a collector road where there’s no houses facing. We do have houses facing. If a collector road was required. Then that would be something that yeah, the park and the subdivision
could maybe share in, plan for. All the initial plans for the park that I saw had no collector road up there. It showed a pathway. A nice wide pathway. A nice landscape buffer on the
north side to kind of separate from the subdivision. We just assumed that was a good plan. Some people’s opinion that single load streets are great. Some
people’s opinion that it’s not. We’re trying to meet in the middle and provide something that provides the visibility of more than a football field. It’s big visibility back there. At
the same time, use it as an amenity in our subdivision and not really include it in the park. If we didn’t have the fence there, essentially it would be the park’s property. I mean it
would be blended right into the park. I don’t know if this park wants to get bigger or how we would handle that continuity. We’re providing to not encourage the pedestrian traffic. Although
we do have an access path. Yeah, some people could park but there’s large parking lots.
De Weerd: I believe as the parks liaison, Council liaison, I know Tom’s been talking about single loaded streets around this 56 acre park since, long before –
Schultz: Since January.
De Weerd: -- January. I know that –
Schultz: It might have been November. Excuse me.
De Weerd: Okay.
Schultz: It’s probably more like November we submitted –
De Weerd: It is a priority of our parks commission. In my opinion, it’s very important to the community’s safety. That’s something that we need to look at when we annex in proper
and look at designs to make sure that this benefits the community’s welfare not just one developer.
Schultz: I’ve done a little add to say (inaudible) standing out there, dipping down, hugging the line. Then swinging back up again right through here. So, essentially that road will
dip done, (inaudible) single load and come back up. We would lose 5 or 6 lots of space what we’re giving up if you’d like to single load that street and have lots on the north side.
Basically open that up to a parking lot. It’s not something my developer necessarily wants. He doesn’t prefer it. We think this proposal meets the intent of meeting the visibility and
the safety concerns which were really mixed into the request to do a single loaded street. I believe we have addressed the safety concerns and visibility concerns that were specifically
addressed in your letter I believe that was in April.
De Weerd: Dated April 15th.
Schultz: April 15th that we have. That was a primary concern and we believe that we’ve done that. It really boils down to a preference of having an open single loaded street there or
having an opening that provides visibility and access.
Corrie: Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who wants to testify in favor of this request? Okay. I think we have, excuse me.
Lee: My name is Gary Lee with JUB Engineers 250 south Beechwood in Boise representing the applicant, Kevin Howell. I just wanted to clarify an issue about the (inaudible) lane. (inaudible)
along the western boundary of this project. Maybe my letter wasn’t clear enough about where the existing right-of-way is in relation to the subdivision. Maybe I can explain it to you
verbally. Venable Lane, as it exists today is south of Ustick Road. I think the property owner previously had made that same concern known to the Council, is situated easterly of the
existing driveway. You can see the pointer on there. That’s the lane that Shari’s pointing to on her drawing. That’s not the boundary of our subdivision. If you go further down Shari
to Ustick and then over to the right. See that lane right below your arrow? That’s Venable Lane. That’s where our western corner starts. It goes due north from there. There’s a gap between
subdivision boundary, Cedar Springs and the actual lane that’s in use today. Anywhere from 50 to 75 feet. There’s a use question there. The actual lane in use today is not near the property
at all. I just want to clarify that, even though the deed of record describes it the east 29 feet of that southwesterly quarter, the lane is there. That’s an issue that we’ve been discussing
with ACHD. They’re a little bit perplexed about that as well. Our goal with meeting with Kennedy’s is to vacate that portion of Venable Lane, give them an access. The problem goes away.
If you’ve got any questions, I’d be glad to answer them.
Corrie: Is there anyone else that’s for the subdivision? Okay. I believe Jack Kennedy, against, you signed up. I’m sorry, John. I’m sorry John.
J. Kennedy: Yes, as my letter stated on May 15th, I was concerned about my land which is the 10 acres just off the corner of the subdivision there would be land lock with the present
plat platted the way it was. The Venable Lane, as it was platted then would only run two thirds of the way down to the half section, half mile (inaudible) where the dedicated right-of-way
runs all the way to the half mile. That would leave my land with no access. So, I requested from JUB. This afternoon we worked out the solution that they would provide a stubbed road
off from Rhodes Avenue there which is platted today as Rhodes Avenue going west to my land with a stub road there having only utilities in that stubbed out of which would be gas, water,
power and sewer. That seems to be a solution to the problem as I see it. If this is implemented then I would have no problem, for access to my land.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you John. Is there anyone else? Okay. Council, questions for the Public Hearing? Staff, any further comments?
Kuntz: Thank you Mayor and Council. The parks department is certainly willing to meet with the developer’s representative and try and massage this current submittal to our satisfaction.
I know that we would want to take the chain link fence and have that removed so it would be free access from Alexis Drive into the park. We would probably recommend moving the common
lot No. 26 which is
a pathway so that it’s contiguous with common lot 23 to create an asphalt driveway or pathway coming in off of Alexis Drive that could then connect to the inner pathway of the parks.
So that that would take care of the emergency access that we’ve been discussing. Probably the only other thing that we are going to suggest is that we try and slide that down closer
to lots 20 and 21. Since the northwest corner will be the most hidden site on this plat. We would like to have some discussion about that pathway that goes into the elementary school.
We definitely support the need for that. I’m not sure if that’s the exact location for it. We may want to slide it down one lot. There’s definitely some issues that we’d like the opportunity
to discuss. We’re willing to, with Council’s approval and the parks commission’s approval, try and find some middle ground here. Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. We’re just on the annexation now.
Kuntz: Sorry, Mayor.
Corrie: Okay.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Any other questions, discussions from Council on the request for annexation and zoning? Assume by hearing nothing, then I’ll request Council to close the continued Public Hearing,
if you so desire.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: It still is an issue as a similar development that of bringing city services to it and not knowing yet the timing issues. It’s been brought up with another development.
This thing has some of the same issues that the other development had with some of the mixed use stuff. They have now changed their L-O or multi family sites into single family housing.
It still has the same issues of concern with the timing off the white drain. Once we annex in, we commit to bringing services to that. We cannot uphold that commitment. It seems that
there’s some other issues in design. Personally I don’t see that there’s a rush to this. By delaying it or tabling it, or continuing it, we will allow staff to work out with the parks
department and the fire department on this new amenity. As well, it allows our Public Works department to get us some firmer dates on when the white will be available to connect to it.
Corrie: Okay. Any other discussion on that one?
Smith: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes, Gary. Excuse me.
Smith: If I might make a comment on the white drain. We received a written confirmation from Bridgetower developers today that they are ready to sign the easement for the white drain
on their end. Our consulting engineer is in the process this week of –
***End Of Side Two***
Smith: -- at the beginning point for the sewer is coming to a close. After having said all that. Brad and I will formulate a schedule for you as we were asked to do several Council meetings
ago with that information in hand. Present a much clearer and firmer schedule for the construction of that sewer line.
De Weerd: I’m sure the development community will appreciate that.
Smith: Right.
De Weerd: As well as myself.
Corrie: Okay. What’s your pleasure?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I’d make a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Bird: I’ll second it.
Corrie: Motion made and second to close the Public Hearing on item 10. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay. Now, the request for annexation and zoning. Discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess I’m like Councilwoman de Weerd. I have a lot of concerns about this particular property. I also feel like there’s been substantial changes from the time we’ve seen
original drawings on this particular project. I have concerns about city services including police and fire. This is a fairly sizeable subdivision. With the recent failure of our mill
levy, I think that doesn’t help us a whole lot. The good thing I guess about the project is that it is contiguous to the city. It would be a logical expansion out. But, with all of the
problems that we have with this right no from issues with the parks department and police and fire access I guess I’m not really inclined at this point to see us annex this property
until some of these things get worked out and we get some of those issues
resolved. I guess, to take it a little bit further too, as Tammy talked about, we look at this 56-acre park as being a very nice luxury that the City of Meridian is going to put in.
It will be a tremendous asset to our city. I don’t see the developers are doing anything to really build on and enhance off of that park. We think this would be a tremendous opportunity
to build some nice homes with a little larger lot sizes and single loaded streets and things like that. I guess, I’m just not seeing anything in the design on this thing that makes me
want to think that this is something that we want to bring in at this point. Those are my preliminary comments.
Corrie: Okay. Any other comments?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: You know, I do think that we still need our city services and our parks department to work with the applicant on this. There has been a bit of change since P&Z approved
it and sent it forward. I would be inclined further than to have an action of accepting or denying this. I would like to remand it back to the Planning and Zoning. That would be my recommendation.
If you would like a motion at this point, I would be more than happy to make a motion too.
Corrie: Any further discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we remand this application for Cedar Springs subdivision back to Planning and Zoning on the annexation and zoning. I think that’s all I can do.
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: Well, I kind of gave the direction in my introduction so that they can continue to work out the details of what the applicant is now currently proposing on the north side
or the south end of their piece of proper that abuts our park. After that staff discussion that it needs to go to Planning and Zoning. It
has had significant changes to it and still some outstanding issues. I think it’s more a P&Z level issue to resolve that than at our level.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Does your motion include turning it back with the plat dated, or signed off by the engineer on 5-24-2001?
De Weerd: No, because there still needs to be additional changes with Mr. Kennedy’s stub street. This plat doesn’t reflect that either.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: You’re catching it so go ahead, Counsel.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The matter before you, because the annexation and zoning and Preliminary Plat hearings were not opened at the same time, the only matter
before you is the annexation and zoning. Now, you can remand this back to Planning and Zoning but it presupposes that you’re going to remand also the Preliminary Plat back. A lot of
the discussion with regard to where these common lots are located, the emergency services access, the stub street for Mr. Kennedy. All of those things really pertain to the plat, not
necessarily the annexation and zoning. The things that apply to annexation and zoning are partially due to the applicant’s now stating that it’s going to be R-4 all the way through which
is a change from what was presented to P&Z which was some L-O lots. If I understand the thing correctly, that’s where that is. Also, when you remand, you need to tell them what it is
you want them to look at. Just to remand it back for more work is really too fuzzy. You need to tell them what it is that you want them to look at specifically. Partly that’s so the
applicant can know what it is that the applicant needs to address in front of the commission too. As well as staff. We have the annexation and zoning. What I would recommend you do right
now, is you table this one. Then take up your hearing on the Preliminary Plat, deal with that and then come back to this in accordance with whatever you’ve done on the Preliminary Plat.
That’s what I would recommend that you do.
Anderson: When you table something, Bill, don’t you have to table it to a date certain and we don’t know how long that --?
Nichols: You can table this to take it up immediately after you take up the Preliminary Plat. It doesn’t have to be a date certain. It can be later in the meeting.
Bird: We can table it to immediately after item No. 11.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, I don’t think I ever got a second. That one is dead. I will move to table this application for annexation and zoning for Cedar Springs subdivision.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and second to table item No. 10 until the discussion of item No. 11. (inaudible) after we do the Preliminary Plat, come back --?
De Weerd: Yes. Do I have to specifically say that?
Corrie: No. It’s in there. All right, any further discussion? All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 11. Continued Public Hearing: PP 00-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 333 building lots and 25 other lots on 99.83 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Cedar Springs
by J-U-B Engineers, Inc – northwest of Meridian and Ustick Roads:
Corrie: Now we’re going to go to item 11. It is a continued Public Hearing on a request for Preliminary Plat. I will open that continued Public Hearing and if it’s so desired, we’ll
have al the testimony, if I’m correct Mr. attorney. All testimony that was given in the annexation be forwarded to this. Can we do that?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council. I think the request is whether anybody has any opposition to including the previous testimony on number 10 to put on this item as well.
Corrie: My question was, can we do this, and we can. So, does anybody have any objections to the request that the testimony given on item 10 in the annexation be moved also to the
Preliminary Plat? Okay. Thank you, so moved. Council, is there anyone else who wants to enter testimony that has not been heard tonight on the Preliminary Plat? Discussion, Council?
Sorry, Lee.
Lee: My name’s Gary Lee with JUB Engineers, 250 south Beechwood. I would like to suggest on this Preliminary Plat that we be given the opportunity to sit down with staff and resolve
some of those issues that have been discussed in previous testimony. I believe we’re real close to resolving that park issue with Tom Kuntz, based on his previous discussion. I think
we should at least take that opportunity to see what he has in detail. Give us a chance to meet with the chief of police and also the fire marshal, or fire chief to discuss the issues
of the access. Where it should be, the width of it, type of loading, those sorts of details. I believe the City Council because of their own ordinance has the ability to negotiate these
changes with the developer. I don’t think it’s something that
necessarily needs to be remanded back to P&Z. They did approve the basic concept. They approved the R-4 zoning, which is what the original request for. There was no request for L-O zoning
in that first application. It was all R-4 and that’s what’s before you tonight. With that I would like to suggest that Council consider that opportunity for us.
Corrie: Thank you Gary.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: You know, Mr. Lee, on the site maps it does have future L-O lots mentioned on there. What you’re saying is inconsistent with and this is the plat that P&Z passed with
the reference to future L-O lots. There is the impression of L-O or multi family on there. Bringing it back to the single-family housing is a significant change.
Lee: I just want to clarify again, the original application, if you read it, was for all R-4 zoning. The only reason that those areas of L-O and future multi family are identified was
the current Comprehensive Plan doesn’t allow that use. Our thinking was, after a discussion with staff, is that we identify those areas as potential changes after the comp plan is amended,
but the request is R-4. In fact, the original plat that came in is all R-4. There wasn’t any L-O or commercial sites designated. If you want to look at the application, it’s R-4. It
says future L-O or commercial. The intent there was to alert the city and anyone viewing this at Public Hearing that we have possible ideas of maybe changing some of these areas for
a different use in the future after the comp plan would allow that change.
De Weerd: I won’t debate it. Thank you.
Lee: Okay.
Corrie: Okay. Any other testimony? Then, Council, do you want to close this Public Hearing? (inaudible) We have to close it to make a decision.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. If there are going to be another plat come up, a revision, then even accepting the testimony with regard to the stub street. I mean that’s
not a major change but it would be a change in the plat. Essentially, your choices are, remand it back to P&Z for them to submit their revised plat through P&Z or as Mr. Lee suggested,
continue the Public Hearing
on the plat, have them do whatever they want to do as far as (inaudible) with staff. Then there would be a revised plat that would come before you and it would be a hearing on that revised
plat but you wouldn’t have to necessarily notice it up with publication of notice.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols, how could we hear a Preliminary Plat? We don’t even have it annexed yet.
Nichols: You can hear Preliminary Plats before the annexation’s done and you’ve done it before. You’ve combined all of the testimony and essentially know, at least in my experience,
the Council knows where they’re going before they get to that Preliminary Plat motion.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: I have another question (inaudible). What do we do with item number – the annexation and zoning? Do we have to come back (inaudible) which we’re going to anyway. Do we reopen the
Public Hearing and continue that?
De Weerd: No, it’s tabled.
Corrie: Close the Public Hearing.
(inaudible discussion)
Nichols: You tabled the decision but you closed the Public Hearing.
Bird: We closed the Public Hearing.
Nichols: If you want to be on the safe side, you continue that one to. You reopen it, continue it so you can take them up all together. That way if there are any conditions to annexation
that you impose that effect the plat, they’re contained in the – in other words if there’s new testimony, new things that come up that become part of your conditions of annexation, that
way you’ve got it covered in the testimony.
Corrie: Okay. Does everybody understand where we’re going to do here. I can’t make a motion.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we continue the Public Hearing on the request for Preliminary Plat approval for 333 buildings lot and 25 other lots on 99.83 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Cedar
Creeks by JUB Engineers until July 3, 2001.
Corrie: Okay. Is there a second to that motion? Okay, hearing none it dies for lack of a second. I’ll entertain another motion at this point.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Question. Am I hearing right that we need to table this then re open the annexation?
Bird: We continue this Public Hearing and then we reopen the –
Anderson: Then why would we wait until the next meeting? Let’s do it tonight.
Bird: No. I’m tabling this Public Hearing for the Preliminary Plat.
Anderson: Why?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: (inaudible)
De Weerd: I think what he’s saying is he believes that we can deal with the changes at our level. That’s what his motion was all about is that we continue it until the first meeting
in July and that we would look at the new plat at that time.
Bird: That’s what Bill said. Then we –
De Weerd: I didn’t second it because I think it needs to just go back to Planning and Zoning. I don’t know why you guys didn’t second it but that was –
Anderson: I didn’t second it because I want to deal with it tonight. Let’s get it done.
Bird: I’m game.
Corrie: Okay. Since the first motion to continue the Public Hearing died for lack of second, then it sounds like you want to get it over with or put it back to Planning and Zoning.
I’ll entertain a motion either way on that one. See where that one goes.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we close the Public Hearing on the request for Preliminary Plat approval for Cedar Springs by JUB Inc. on 99.83 acres.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion been made and second to close the Public Hearing on Preliminary Plat item 11. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I’ve got to ask the attorney a question then. We’re closing this Public Hearing then. We can’t discuss that anymore or we can’t hear anymore public testimony on it. I guess
what I’m thinking is they both need to be opened at the same time. We take testimony on both of them.
(inaudible discussion)
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Anderson, Members of Council. Close this Public Hearing. Then essentially you’ve got, you still have to deal with the annexation and zoning. You still
have to deal with this Preliminary Plat. You’ve got 3 motions you can make. You can make a motion to deny it. You can make a motion to approve it with whatever conditions you indicate.
Or you can make a motion to remand it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for whatever purposes you instruct the P&Z Commission to take up.
Anderson: Once we close that, then we can go ahead and go back and reopen the annexation and zoning and address that?
De Weerd: Then you have the 3 choices there too.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Go ahead Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: I’m a little confused and I think perhaps -- . If you’ll simply say what it is you want to do, then I’ll try to help you figure out how to do it in terms of the procedure.
Anderson: I’m with Tammy. I think it ought to be remanded back with changes but I want to have some discussion on what those changes are.
De Weerd: Right. But, we can close the Public Hearing in order to do that.
Nichols: Yes.
Corrie: But you can make the motion, make a second, then have your discussion.
De Weerd: We’re ready to vote. I’ll call for the question.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: For the Planning and Zoning?
Bird: No, a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Corrie: To close the Public Hearing, all right. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay. Now, I’m getting confused. I thought it there. All right now, we’re on the Preliminary Plat. You have one of three motions to give. Whatever that is we need that motion
then we’ll make a discussion on it then we’ll either accept or reject that one. Then we’ll go to the next one.
De Weerd: I can start out my comment to be the plat needs to address access to Mr. Kennedy’s property. It needs to satisfy staff’s concerns on the northern most part of the 56-acre
park and their southern boundary that abuts our park. With the parks department and police and fire department for safety issues and aesthetics. It needs to lose the reference to multi
family and L-O designation on there. I don’t know if Councilman Anderson wants to – Well, I’ll let him speak to it if wants any comments on design. What I like about this application
to begin with, when you had the L-O possibility, for planning a development is that you had some variety that you could put in there on lot sizes. That you could put some higher densities
and lower densities. I guess, when you had that as a possibility, I thought that gave to a lot more creativity and design. You know, there must be a way you can better utilize this 56-acre
park as a huge amenity in addition to that school site. It’s come along way since that original submittal. It definitely has. You know, I won’t tell you what I thought about the first
plat. I just think that piece of property has so much potential. It just doesn’t seem like it’s realizing it. I’m not the developer and it’s not out of my pocket. I would just like
you to take those things into consideration.
Corrie: Okay. Let me see if I understand your motion, is that to remand it back to Planning and Zoning with those recommendations?
De Weerd: That wasn’t my motion. That was just discussion. It was just to point out that those specifics are on my list. I don’t know if the other Council Members would like to
add to that.
Corrie: Okay. I still need a motion before we have anymore discussion I think.
(inaudible discussion)
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council. Discussion can precede a motion.
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. I guess my discussion has a lot of the same points that Tammy has. I’m one that wants to stick pretty hard to the single loaded streets along these parks. That
was something that our parks and recreation commission recommend to us, our parks director, the city council voted and said yes, we think it’s a good idea. The first time we get a project
that’s next to one of our city parks and we’re not going to build too many 56 acre parks in the City of Meridian ever. Then we immediately say well, I guess you don’t have to do that.
I have a problem with that. I think we’re willing to step to the plate and pay our share of whatever the costs are on that but I want to see a single loaded street along that park. I
think it’s a safety issue. I think it looks better in the project. That’s something I think we as a Council ought to stick to. My other beef with the design, and I don’t have any problem
if you want to add some variety there but I am sick to death of seeing 80 by 100 lots. It looks like you guys just take a rubber stamp and go down that blueprint making 80 by 100 lots.
I’d like to see a little bit of diversity. Maybe make some of the lots a little bit smaller and some variations where you can have some duplexes or something else in there. I don’t care
but I’d like to see a little bit of variety in the subdivision and clean that up a little bit. I also don’t see where there’s a whole lot of need for the blocks that are that over the
1000-foot length to ask for the variance. I think that can all be taken care of in the design of the subdivision. Those are the issues that I have.
Corrie: Okay. Any discussion from others and issues that you have? Mr. Bird, do you have any?
Bird: I have nothing, Mayor.
Corrie: Okay. Mrs. McCandless?
McCandless: No.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, does the motion need to include all of those comments or is that discussion good enough?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council. Councilwoman de Weerd, if you’re going to remand you need to tell the commission what it is you want them to look at. That also goes to the
developer so the developer knows what it is the developer has to propose to the commission to have a chance of approval. The discussion is helpful but your motion should specify the
subjects that you want the developer to address and the Planning and Zoning Commission to examine.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we remand the request for Preliminary Plat approval of 333 building lots and 25 other lots for the proposed Cedar Springs back to Planning and Zoning to address
access for Mr. Kennedy’s property, and have it reflected on the plat, to take any reference from L-O, future L-O and multi family from the plat if they do not intend to propose a planned
development. To reflect in their new designs, frontage road on the south end that abuts our park and to look at some variation in lot sizes.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. The motion’s been made and second about the request for Preliminary Plat to be turned back to the Planning and Zoning with the recommendations. Any further discussion?
Roll call vote, please.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Now, tell me Mr. Attorney, Mr. Nichols, I’m sorry. Do we go back to the annexation and do the same thing? Can it just be --?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council> I would also recommend that you remand this for the Planning and Zoning Commission to review the annexation and zoning consistent with whatever
the revised plat would be. So that if there’s going to be something different, some additional zone changes or something as a result of Council’s comments that they be reflected in that.
Just essentially remand back for examination consistent with annexation and zoning pertaining to any revised plat the developer comes up with.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we remand the request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres for the proposed Cedar Springs subdivision to be consistent with any changes to the Preliminary
Plat whether it be R-4 or P-D.
Corrie: Okay. Do I hear a second?
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion was made and second to remand the annexation and zoning back for reexamination to be consistent with the Preliminary Plat of Cedar Springs. Any further discussion?
Roll call vote please.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: Can we have a 10-minute break?
Corrie: Okay. We’ll recess for 10 minutes, back at 10 minutes until 9:00.
Item 12. Public Hearing: AZ 00-023 Request for annexation and zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – south of Victory
Road and west of Eagle Road:
Corrie: Item 12 is a Public Hearing. I have a question for Mr. Brown. When did you pick up your materials on this?
Brown: Late yesterday afternoon.
Corrie: Did you pick it up or is that what it was?
Brown: Yes, I did.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Had they called you, did they call you and let you know it was ready?
Brown: They let me know that day. I think that’s what you did. Was it you Shelby?
Ugarizza: I can’t remember if it was Friday or Monday.
Brown: I got a call that day and I happened to be able to come up this way.
Corrie: So, you don’t know whether it was Friday or Monday?
Brown: It was Monday. It wasn’t Friday.
Corrie: (inaudible) Okay. Item No. 12 is a Public Hearing request for annexation and zoning of 156.21 acres from R-T to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership,
south of Victory Road and West of Eagle Road.
(inaudible discussion)
Item 13. Public Hearing: PP 00-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 353 building lots and 39 other lots on 156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision
by Gem Park II Partnership – south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road:
Item 14. Public Hearing: CUP 00-052 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a planned residential development in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision
by Gem Park II Partnership – south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road:
Corrie: At this time. Yeah. Then we have item 13, Public Hearing request for Preliminary Plat on the same 353 building lots. Then also opening the Public Hearing on their request for
Conditional Use Permit on Tuscany Lakes subdivision. We’ll have the staff comments first on item 12, 13 and 14 and all testimony will be equal in (inaudible) to all 3 numbers. Shari.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. This property is located south of Thousand Springs subdivision. That’s where it’s contiguous with the city at this location here and goes most of the
way between Eagle and Locust Grove as you can see. They’re proposing a planned development with a variety of lot sizes. They do have a school site that is shown here. This apparently
is the configuration the school district had asked for. It’s completely surrounded by single family homes with one 20-foot wide access into the development, into the subdivision. This
is the Ridenbaugh Canal that traverses the back portion of the school site. Ordinance requirements that they would seek release from is part of the planned development would be the maximum
block length. Lot sizes with frontages – I can’t remember any of the other specific items but those are detailed in the December 5, 2001 report that hopefully you have in your packets.
I apologize for
the lateness of some position statements that you received today. I have reviewed most of them. Not all of them. Mostly they are just clarifications to reflect the record in the actual
motions that were made at the Planning and Zoning Commission. This project, apparently there are approximately, there will be approximately, (inaudible). I’m sorry. I’ll have Gary Smith
discuss the sewer and water issues at this development. Thanks.
Smith: Mayor and Council. On the sewer issue, this will be discharging into the Ten-Mile drainage. Approximately 2 years ago we had 1100 equivalent residential units capacity in that
trunkline. With this development it will take up 750 of that 1100. The bypass sewer line to be constructed by the Bear Creek developers will put 1100 back into the capacity of the Ten
Mile Trunk. The water system was analyzed for this development. Excuse me just a moment. The initial phase is okay with the high-pressure zone that we have in that area. The upper section
of that development will require a new supply with a booster station. That new supply and the booster station will include a portion of Thousand Springs as part of it’s service area.
That’s about it from the water and sewer department.
Stiles: You’ll note in your comments from the staff, references to the Nine Mile drainage. That should be deleted out of all of the reports. It’s been determined that it’s not part
of the Nine Mile drain. It’s part of a user skitch. The wetlands has been addressed. Ten Mile Creek and associated wetlands with Ten Mile Creek will require a permit from the Corp of
Engineers. The Council may want to determine if there are other wetlands out there that are significant enough to warrant protection. There are existing features in the way of existing
stands of trees which our Comprehensive Plan and our landscape ordinance require protecting. I don’t know if Wendell Bigham is here tonight to speak for the school district. We had discussed
the site of the school and the layout of that and expressed our dissatisfaction with what they had requested there. IT seems a waste to have taxpayers develop open space and then are
not allowed to see it. We don’t support the hidden school sites. There is a reference to a micro path. That will not be needed. I apologize. I need to go through these position statements
and also what we got from Kent Brown and make sure that there’s either some middle ground that we can agree to or make some revised findings that incorporate the 2.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: With due respect to staff, and the applicant. Nobody has had a chance to read the replies. I don’t know the reason. I would make a motion that we table or continue all 3 of these
Public Hearings to June 19, 2001. It’s not fair to us, to the staff or to the applicant. Nobody has time to sit here and read and look through their notes.
Corrie: Did you make a motion?
Bird: Yes. I made a motion to continue these to June 19, 2001.
Anderson: Can you do that? All 3 at once?
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: Okay. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we continue the Public Hearing for the request for annexation and zoning of 156.21 acres from R-T to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lake subdivision by Gem Park II partnership
to June 19, 2001.
Corrie: All right. Do I hear a second?
Anderson: (inaudible) I’m not going to second it yet.
Corrie: Okay. It dies for lack of second. It is a Public Hearing and the applicant has first crack.
Brown: Mr. Mayor. I’m not opposed to what Keith is trying to do but every effort was made at Planning and Zoning to bring this cleanly to you. We made every effort. We had 5 hearings
at Planning and Zoning. It’s a sad situation to be where we’re at now and doing this. I understand. I don’t know that my client’s going to understand and I might get chewed out for it.
We did make every effort to have this come clean. When we initially submitted it, there was some opposition as to staff. We made modifications to our plat. Then as P&Z went through and
they were told they were to bring a clean plat to you. We made sure that prior to our last hearing versus what you just discussed previously, we didn’t make any changes form Planning
and Zoning to this point. We made sure that what we sent to them for their final hearing is what you’re seeing now. From my standpoint, it’s a sad situation to be in when we’re penalized
for doing the right thing.
Bird: Kent, I’m not going to argue with you but have you seen those 3 from the staff? When did you see them?
Brown: I got them here. Shelby made a copy for me.
Bird: Yeah. That’s when we got them. And then we got yours today which is that’s no fault of yours.
Brown: I was done at 5:45.
Bird: It’s not fair to you. I mean we’re sitting up here instead of listening, I was watching down here, I’m just as guilty, instead of listening to staff and everything, we’re trying
to decipher our notes. Then try to come back and look at –
Brown: I understand that everybody else has been tabled and moved to that same hearing. Can we get some priority from the City Clerk’s office to be the first shot out of the box because
we’ve done everything we’re suppose to do?
Corrie: I don’t know. I can’t tell you. I can give you a pretty good idea.
Brown: That would be our request. If we’re going to get tabled –
Bird: You’re the first one to be tabled to this date.
Brown: You’ve tabled a bunch to the 19th haven’t you?
De Weerd: You’re the first one on the agenda as it looks right now.
(inaudible discussion)
Brown: There’s 3.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: (inaudible) one. Findings of Facts that’s on the agenda (inaudible)
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Well, we’re still in the Public Hearing. This seems to be a night of confusion. Go ahead Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: When we table projects, Shelby, could you tell me they do fall in the order they come on the agenda from the prior meeting right?
Ugarizza: Typically yes. We do have a little control over it but we like to keep it in the order they’re on the agenda so we don’t show any preference.
Bird: Tabled ones come before new ones.
De Weerd: So, if there’s anything tabled before tonight for that meeting, they would be on first. Then this one would –
Ugarizza: Right.
***End of Side Three***
De Weerd: -- As far as today’s agenda (inaudible)?
Ugarizza: Right.
De Weerd: Okay.
Corrie: We still have public testimony. If somebody wants to testify, they can right?
(inaudible discussion)
DeChambeau: My name is Mary DeChambeau. I live on the Mortner farm, which the subdivision will surround. I just want to make a comment on the fact that he’s upset because it’s been tabled
so many times. I’m sure you’re aware that they had submitted a plan in the beginning that the road went across a piece of our property. How I found out about that was through the ditch
writer because he wouldn’t put a ditch box for me, and irrigation box. I don’t have a lot of sympathy because they had to go back and revise and do another road around. I hope you’re
aware of that. Because what we did is we had to call the City Hall and tell them do you realize that we didn’t even know anything about this road? I have yet to hear any good reason
why they did it. They’ve never addressed that to me. In fact, I don’t think they have a good reason. I think they were pretty sure they would sell that little pie shape there to them
and that’s part of our land right there. Obviously, we’re not for it because we’re still farming. You know, we’ve been there for 70 years. We’re kind of like, we didn’t go out there
on a speculation situation. We’re kind of getting surrounded. But I just wanted to make that note. You know it’s not really Planning and Zoning’s fault that some of this got delayed.
There is a lot of concerns about the school situation and the safety of the children and things like that. So, when you are looking at reports please look at that. I wasn’t even allowed
to walk on that little Ridenbaugh area when I was growing up and I know how dangerous it is. When you look at those, take that into consideration.
Corrie: Is there any other testimony on this request for annexation, Preliminary Plat, and Conditional Use Permit?
Young: My name is Rex Young. I live at 2950 East Victory Road, Meridian. I’m not sure if this is the place for the testimony or not. I’m not sure what’s happening here. Anyway, my property
is located on Victory Road. My concern is the exit that goes to the north out of the subdivision. The arrow there, that property line where that road exits is the east property line
of mine. When a vehicle pulls out, turns left, it’s got the potential of shining right on my front room window. Now, I’ve got some temporary, if you will, from that with a hedge there.
But as soon as Victory Road is widened or touched or anything like that then I’ll lose that capability. I have suggested that that exit, rather than exiting there, be moved to the west
and
tie in with Brandy’s Jewel. It makes sense to me to tie that in. The policy of the Meridian school district on bussing is that anyone who lives more than one and half miles away from
the school site will be bussed. Anyone who is less than that, they’re going to have to walk to school, ride bikes to school or be brought to school by parents. This means that virtually
everyone in the Thousand Springs subdivision, and actually within that section who utilize that school will be having to come to that school other than by bus. It makes sense to me to
have that tie-in with that roadway that exits Thousand Springs. Now, with the roadway that they have now, if they stay with that, the walking distance of children exiting Thousand Springs
will be increased about a quarter of a mile each day walking to and from the school. Initially, Ada County Highway District said that they wouldn’t approve any other location. Now, they’re
saying that, well it does meet the minimum requirement if that road was extended on and tied in with Brandy’s Jewel. However, now they’re saying that they would not approve a pedestrian
crossing there except on the browd hill. That makes no sense to me. There’s needs to be a traffic light put in there so children can cross and that road needs to tie-in with the Brandy’s
Jewel exit, in my opinion. That will solve my problem. Greater than that, it’s going to increase the safety on immeasurably and it just makes sense. When I brought up to Ada County Highway
District that a traffic light needed to go in there. They said well, one isn’t programmed. Well, a program is a snapshot in time and things change. I immediately replied to them that
they probably weren’t really interested in having another Curtis Road fiasco. I think if we don’t have more foresight than to look ahead a little bit, look at the requirements when the
school goes in there. Look at the crossing requirement and maybe let a little bit of common sense prevail then I think we’re not, any of us really doing our job. Anybody have any questions
of me?
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: I don’t know why is it that ACHD and the school district get into this mystery of how to get to a school site. I agree with you Mr. Young. I think that’s ridiculous. They
did that to River Valley too.
Corrie: Is there anyone else who’d like to testify? I mean, you kind of got caged here but I apologize –
Brown: I can answer the question about the road if you’d like. Mr. Young and I, at the P&Z’s request went back and ask the Ada County Highway District to look at that road connection.
In their comments, they said 2 T intersections are more safe than a cross intersection. That the traffic feeds off each other and there’s breaks and openings so that they can get out.
They would prefer that. There’s also, in your packets, if you’ve gotten that far down through there, the comments from them that it’s very costly for them to drop that road where the
Thousand Springs intersection is. There’s a great elevation. As you look to the east, the road goes up. It’s costly because there’s a gas line in there. Now, will they eventually fix
that? I don’t know. I mean when they widen the road, they’re
preferring not to have a lot, Mr. Young is correct that the school district prefers people to walk a mile and a half. If it’s not a safe route the school, obviously they don’t do that.
Riverview or River Glenn, or whatever that school is, that would be one. You can take Lewis and Clark Middle School. I live within three-quarters of a mile and there’s no way, no matter
how many times my son asks me if he can ride his bike down Eagle Road to get there, it’s not happening. It’s just not safe. You can cross at the light. I mean I’ve heard all of the stories
about how he can get to school. The school district uses that same wisdom when they look at different intersections. I don’t have a lot of 8,000 square foot lots, though. I don’t have
that rubber stamp. In fact I have very few. I’ll just quickly show you.
(inaudible discussion)
Brown: All the green ones are the 8,000 square foot lots. The variances that we’re asking for is so that we can have maybe a 70 or 75 foot wide and a little bit deeper and still meet
the city’s requirements. We have deep lots. We have lots that back up to waterways that would be fenced. The lots that aren’t colored are the lots that are around the 12,000 square foot
size. The lots in yellow are between 10 and 12. The lots in blue are 9,000 square foot lots. This will be a good development. It’s a difficult site to handle when you have the Ridenbaugh,
the Eight Mile and the Ten Mile. We’ve tried to use one entrance in for that. We’ve provided an emergency access out here off of lot 6 until such time as we make another connection.
This will be where we first start. The staff’s comments about the water, this is the area that we end up start having problems with pressure from water. As you go farther down hill,
the pressure goes up. The modeling came in very well (inaudible). This is a big project and it’s going to take a while. With regards to staff’s comments about the school district, if
the school district didn’t want lots in front of the school, then we wouldn’t put them. We put them there because that is what they have historically gone to. When I submit a project
in Valley View, I went to the Valley View Superintendent and I said, it seems like everything you have is on a collector road and you put your schools. HE says well, we bus a long ways
but they would not be opposed to this same kind of layout if they had a walking type of a school. Those are just some comments. Here’s an architectural rendering of it. We’re planning
on creating our own water amenity here outside Nampa Meridian’s Eight Mile. We’ll have water in these. We’ll have a walking path that’ll connect to the Ten Mile and create a loop that
those residents can use. We have a Ten Mile that the parks department and your Comprehensive Plan says will be used long term. That pathway comes to the south to a Nampa Meridian facility
that I don’t know that you’ll ever be able to cross. Connected to our system, at least the residents inside here are going to be able to. When you’re able to get this connection, I guess
our residents can go out. The Ridenbaugh and the Ten Mile cross here and they have a diversion structure in there. Nampa Meridian owns all the ground around it. I see it being very difficult
for you guys to be able to do what you want to do with the Ten Mile but we can make it work within our site. We’re not opposed to trimming up the trees and leaving the existing trees.
That’s part of the nicety of that. Those
conditions we were in agreement with. It’s some of the other things. Nothing derogatory about the attorney but I was wondering if he was at the right meeting because it was really different.
I know there’s been numerous reports and I don’t mean that derogatory at all Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Just as long as make sure it wasn’t me there.
Brown: No. It wasn’t me. I think that he understood what was going on but we have had a number of hearings and things have come in but the motions, that definitely wasn’t what the motions
were. We’ll look forward to another meeting I guess.
Corrie: Okay. I don’t know whether you can address – Can you address what Mary was talking about on her property, up in that corner?
Brown: At one time, in our first submittal we showed a road going across here and the school was pushed all the down and the road came across. Because of a miscommunication between me
and my client. My client wanted that to be hatched as a future road and we showed it as a connection. Well, when we started talking with what the fire department’s concerns were, we
needed to make this connection. So, we need this connection to go through here to appease the fire department so that we don’t have one long dead-end road coming in one and one coming
the other with a property owner that says that they’ll never develop. That’s where the problem was. We moved the school site up which took care of a lot of the Highway District’s concerns.
It actually shortened our block length. It actually works a lot better. The students will have no access to the Ridenbaugh Canal because of fencing. It will be totally fenced off to
the rear. We needed to have a stub road at this location for Meridian’s sewer plant and we needed a stub road here. The way that the Commission, both Steve’s comments and my comments
about what the P&Z approved Wendel Bigham came and spoke to a number of subdivisions that were at Planning and Zoning and he asked for some flexibility in the condition so that when
they plug a school site in here that they can work out their buses. Maybe they need 2 entrances. Maybe they need 1 here and maybe they need one down here. So, we asked for that and that’s
what P&Z recommended. It makes sense because they want to put their school up close here. But, they just asked for some flexibility. If we need to put a road in and drop a lot, we can
do that. Maybe we take the one micropath away or 2 micropaths away to make that happen.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: It just seems inconsistent. I know their board has told me that they no longer want to hide their schools. So, this just really conflicts with what I’ve been told.
Brown: I’m on a school committee, a volunteer for the school to find different sites. We weren’t told anything about that. They have a new design and maybe that new design is going to,
they tell us it’s going to be more efficient. It’s a V, the current design is a cross. Do I have it on here? No. The current design is like a cross shape. I think where my kids went,
Chief Joseph that’s a cross. But they’re going to a V and they can put the playground and it’s wrapped around by the school. What I’ve heard in the past is that they view having houses
there as making it more safe. I worked for city government in Utah. They like sticking them right out on the road. That was a problem. They had problems with people having their cars.
The school still wants to fence their school property to keep inappropriate people out of the school site. This makes it a little bit easier because they have homes backing up to them.
De Weerd: It is hard to patrol, I’m sure.
Brown: Obviously, if this wasn’t what they wanted and we’re selling a product to them, we would change the product.
De Weerd: Right. I understand that.
Brown: The product they sell to Ada County is different than the product they sell to Meridian City. We design to whatever they’re going to go to.
Anderson: Kent, on that entryway off of Victory.
Brown: Yeah.
Anderson: If Ada County Highway District’s concerned about aligning those 2 entrances for Thousand Springs and this one is the hill, is the developer willing to pay for the cost of
cutting that hill down a little bit and lowering that knoll? That does seem like a more logical thing to line up those 2 entrances.
Brown: My client’s here and I’m sure he can speak to that. But even with regards to the cost of cutting the hill down, the information that I got from the traffic engineer is that this
T and this T is safer than the cross. That’s my understanding. They tried inside a development. This is one of the things that they don’t like too. They don’t like the cross in these
locations. We were kind of stuck with our site to do that. But that’s as a general rule of thumb, when we lay things out, they like 2 Ts than a cross.
Anderson: Well, I understand it from a traffic engineering standpoint a T would be. You have less cars going through that intersection.
Brown: It’s a safer intersection.
Anderson: But from a practicality standpoint and with school children involved, than that takes that whole argument out of the picture. Making them walk along that busy street for
that length of distance doesn’t make any sense even if it’s safer for the cars.
Brown: They did say that there’s money set aside for safe routes to school. One of my projects I did in Ada County, they put forward the money to put sidewalks to get them to a place
where it was more safe for them to cross. You can to speak to the Highway District commissioners about that too, but those monies are available to do that. Whether it’s putting in a
sidewalk and putting it down that side sooner. Maybe it’s just an asphalt path. For Mr. Young’s concern, we did offer, we have 30 feet here in the landscaping. If we moved it to 20 feet,
the turn would then be harder for the cars to hit his front window. We offered to do that if that’s. I think Mr. Young feels like you do that that’s a safer but the Highway District
in 2 different letters have been real clear that they don’t want the 2 to go that way.
Anderson: What about a micropath coming off that cul de sac and then having a school crossing guard out there?
Brown: We offered to do that at Planning and Zoning. Planning and Zoning said that if it’s not a safe intersection, not to put the connection there. That was one of the last changes
that they made. We don’t have a problem if that’s what you would prefer to do that. We can do that. Those lots (inaudible) are not highlighted because they’re so big. It’s 15,892 and
19,000. So, those are large, large lots we can take a little bit and put a micropath (inaudible). I guess for Shelby’s record I’m Kent Brown, Briggs Engineering 1800 West Overland, to
be official. Any other comments?
Bird: I have none Mayor.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I would just have one of you and Shari. That this City needs to get something clear with the school district in design of these schools and routes and maybe work
with ACHD on these routes. I’ve heard nothing but complaints about River Valley. They don’t want to use the access off of Eagle Road. You know, they certainly don’t like having to drive
that route. I did, I got lost the other day. I was trying to get out of there. I don’t know, maybe from our police department’s standpoint if they’re all that excited about having houses
totally surrounding a school site. Does the police department have a position on that?
Bowman: Councilwoman de Weerd. I wouldn’t really want to comment on that right now until I’ve studied it. I don’t know of any problems associated with that at this time.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, I know it’s been an issue at the Comprehensive Plan meetings that we’ve held. I know it’s an issue with planning staff and it is a concern from the parks standpoint.
That’s why we encourage frontage roads along our parks for safety issues. So, if we are to continue this maybe Shari and the Mayor can either meet with Wendel or the Superintendent and
the board president to find out because there are some conflicting opinions out there on the school sites themselves. Certainly some public issues on how those roads go to school sites.
They don’t make sense.
Anderson: So, are we wanting to continue the Public Hearing until the next meeting? What do we want to do?
Bird: Since staff hasn’t got their deals done. I don’t know.
De Weerd: I think –
Anderson: That’s what you talked about initially.
Bird: I just think it would only be fair to staff, the applicant and us. Did you have time to check what each one of the things that came down with yours? I didn’t.
Corrie: I was looking at it while they were talking.
De Weerd: That’s (inaudible).
Bird: That’s exactly what we were all doing and we weren’t listening to what the staff was saying at all because we were all trying to read up.
Corrie: I think your suggestion’s good. I think there’s some other people that want to talk.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion to continue the Public Hearing until June 19th on, we can only do one at a time so, this would be the annexation and zoning for Tuscany Lakes subdivision
south Victory Road and west Eagle Road.
De Weerd: Is that Tuscany?
Anderson: Tuscany.
Corrie: Tuscany.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s been made and second to continue the Public Hearing for the request for annexation and zoning for Tuscany Lakes subdivision, AZ 00-023. Any further discussion?
All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: We’ll continue the Public Hearing then on that. Item 13 is a Public Hearing request for Preliminary Plat. I’ll entertain a motion on that.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we continue the Public Hearing for the Preliminary Plat for Tuscany, I’m really getting good, --
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: What is it?
De Weerd: Tuscany.
Bird: I said it right the first time. Tuscany Lake subdivision until June 19, 2001.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to continue the Public Hearing on the Preliminary Plat 00-024 until 6-19 of 2001. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay. I’ll entertain a motion then on the Public Hearing on item No. 14, request for Conditional Use Permit.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion to continue the Public Hearing on the Conditional Use Permit for Tuscany Lake subdivision until 6-19.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Notion made and second to continue the Public Hearing on item No. 14 CUP 00-052 until 6-19-01. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 15. Public Hearing: CUP 01-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Christian Ministry for office space and an Aftercare/Transitional home for men, serving as a group-living
environment for 14 men and 1 live-in House Supervisor in an R-4 zone for Whole Life Restoration House by B.A.S.I.C. Outreach Ministries, Inc – 1304 West 1st Street:
Corrie: Item No. 15 there’s been a request to table the Public Hearing on the Conditional Use Permit so we need to have a continued Public Hearing until 6-19-01 at the request of the
applicant.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Yeah. So, I will open the Public Hearing on the Conditional Use Permit No. 01-014 and invite anybody who would like to testify on that can do so at this time or we will continue
the Public Hearing and they can do it again on the 19th.
De Weerd: Is there anyone here for it?
Corrie: Anyone who wishes to testify? Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we continue the Public Hearing for CUP in an R-4 zone for Whole Life restoration house by Basic Outreach Ministries and to hear it on June 19, 2001.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s been made and second to continue the Public Hearing on CUP 01-014 for Whole Life Restoration House by BASIC Outreach Ministries Inc. Any further discussion?
All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 16. Public Hearing: RZ 01-004 Request for a rezone of 8.29 acres from L-O to C-G for Waltman Court Subdivision by John Goade – south of Troutner Business Park, between Waltman
Lane and Ten Mile Road:
Corrie: Item No. 16. This is a Public Hearing for rezone 8.29 acres from L-O to C-G for Waltman Court Subdivision. Mr. Bird was that requested to be tabled?
Bird: Yes. To be continued.
Corrie: So, I will open the Public Hearing. Is there anyone who wants to testify on this and will be requested to be a Public Hearing to be continued? Okay, hearing none, I’ll entertain
a motion.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we continue the Public Hearing for the request for rezone on 8.29 acres from L-O to C-G for Waltman Court Subdivision by John Goade until June 19, 2001.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s been made and second to continue the Public Hearing on item No. 16 RZ-01-004. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 17. Public Hearing: PP 01-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 building lots and 1 other lot on 8.29 acres in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Waltman Court Subdivision
by John and Sandra Goade – south of Troutner Business Park, between Waltman Lane and Ten Mile Road:
Corrie: Item No. 17 is a Public Hearing request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 building lots and 1other lots on 8.29 acres in a proposed C-G zone for Waltman Court Subdivision
by John and Sara Goade south of Troutner. Sorry if you’re here for messing that name up. Mr. Bird was there –
Bird: The request –
Corrie: -- a request for a continuation on that one as well. All right is there anyone here who would like to issue testimony on the Preliminary Plat at this time? Hearing none, I’ll
entertain a motion to continue the Public Hearing on item No. 17.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we continue the Public Hearing for request of Preliminary Plat by Waltman Court Subdivision until June 19, 2001.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 18. Public Hearing: AZ 01-007 Request for annexation and zoning of 4 acres from R-1 to C-C for proposed Hark’s Corner by Van Hess Properties – 119 South Linder Road:
Item 19. Public Hearing: CUP 01-011 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for commercial development with fueling stations, drive-thru, coffee shop, car wash and future retail in a
proposed C-C zone for proposed Hark’s Corner by Van Hess Properties – 119 South Linder Road:
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Hark’s Corner. Do you think we can do that Larry in the next, not too long a period?
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: All right. If it’s all right with the Council, (inaudible) both 18 and 19 open to Public Hearings and that will be the last one for tonight. Any objections from the Council?
Bird: NO.
Corrie: Hearing none, I will open the Public Hearing on the request for annexation and zoning No. 01-007 and also the Public Hearing on CUP 01-011 request for Conditional Use Permit
for Hark’s Corner by Van Ness Properties. At this time, I will open the Public Hearing and invite the staff’s comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. This is for the property located on the southwest corner of Franklin and Linder Roads. You probably received a position statement from Steve Siddoway
as part of your packets or today in your box. Some things that were not addressed in the findings. One of our comments had been that this needed to be developed as a planned development
because of the mixed use and the more than one use on one lot. Apparently legal counsel did not agree with that. That portion on page 4 item 10 should be deleted. We’d also ask for a
revised plan and the commission didn’t ask for modifications to the site plan. The landscape buffer that is referenced on page 2 was approved with a minimum width of 8 feet which is
not in accordance with our landscape ordinance but that’s what the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend. We had initially asked for changing the, I’m dealing with the Conditional
Use Permit too. Can we open both of those? Is there any desire to open both of those at the same time? Or do you want to deal with the annexation and then the Conditional Use Permit?
Corrie: We did open them both.
Stiles: Oh, okay. So, the Conditional Use Permit, the trash enclosures, the vacuum base on page 2, the first sentence should be deleted because they didn’t require a revision to that.
Also on page 2 of the recommendation, should add that the 6-foot masonry fence should be constructed prior to issuance of building permits. Also that the location of the fence in relation
to existing trees is to be worked out between the effected property owners and approved by Planning and Zoning staff. The hours of operation were discussed at the meeting at the Planning
and Zoning Commission. They made the representation that the C-Store would be from 6:00 A.M. until midnight and possibly 5:00 A.M. opening. The Arctic Circle would be until 10:00 P.M.
on weekdays and 11:00 P.M. on weekends. The fuel pumps, they testified that would be 24 hour credit card sales. The car wash was not specified for any hours of operation. In our staff
report we had mentioned that we do have an existing car wash that we get numerous complaints on typically when the time runs out and they have a very loud bell, or I’m not sure what
it is they use but it’s very disturbing to residents. I’m not sure how that was addressed at the meeting. Perhaps they can discuss that again tonight. We had initially had a kind of
a conflict in the Planning and Zoning Department about the fact that this was designated single family residential in the Comprehensive Plan. However there are numerous policies within
the Comprehensive Plan that support this development. There are no neighborhood services in the area and this is a major roadway when Franklin Road gets extended and with the development
that’s planned in the area of Ten Mile Road. I don’t think that any single-family homes would be sold in this property. We had requested that a variance – well the Commission requested
that a variance application be submitted to reduce the buffer because it doesn’t meet the current landscape ordinance. We did not receive a variance application. That was requested prior
to this hearing. We could have addressed the reduction in the landscape buffer from 25 feet to 8 feet if it were part of a planned development. Since legal counsel said it was not required
to be a planned development, a
variance is required. I’m not sure where that leaves us tonight. That was probably the biggest issue that remained as far as cleaning up the application and the request. North of the
property here, there’s basically nothing in that developed there yet. It is zoned light industrial. The other corner is vacant. It is a commercial property directly east of this development.
However nothing has been developed there. Ada County Highway District has taken a big chunk of that proper with the retention pond for drainage. The other corner, just kitty-corner,
also is zoned commercial. However it has not been successful in getting a development to be attracted to that site. It has the Eight Mile Lateral that crosses through that property.
Of the 4 corners, this is probably the most desirable for a commercial development. The land’s there. The accesses are easily accommodate ACHD policies. They do have a nice site plan.
You can see here that they have the fuel kiosks in this, no, those are the underground storage tanks. The fuel is here. This is where the Arctic Circle would be and the C-Store. Gary’s
excited about an Arctic Circle. There is a car wash to be located here. Also there would be a coffee shop, a drive-thru coffee shop in this location. This is not for the approval of
this portion of the project. The application is for this area here. Immediately south of this project is a single family home. I believe the gentleman that owns that property is here
tonight to testify. Aside from the variance, we believe that still needs to be requested and applied for and acted on. But we would recommend that this project be approved with all staff
and agency requirements.
(inaudible discussion)
Van Hess: My name is Larry Van Hess. I reside at 8870 North Gadwald in Boise, 83714. Mayor Corrie, Members of the Council, Meridian staff and those of you who are here to see what we’re
doing and maybe make comments. I’m here representing Van Hess Properties which is made up by members of my family. The property that we’re asking to be annexed and rezoned was purchased
by my parents in 1946. My mother is 88, has bad wheels or she’d be here tonight. I went and talked to her today about this and she gave me some direction. She said don’t do anything
to embarrass the family. I want you to know that we have never pushed to develop this property. We’ve watched Meridian moving out to us. We felt that a lot of it has been done ahead
of it’s time and we just knew that some day the time would be right. In 1997 ACHD purchased the frontage from us both on Linder and on Franklin and in 1998 the road was widened. In April
of 1999, we received a letter from Robert McQuade. I have copies of the letter if anybody wants to see them. It basically told us that the assessment value of that property was going
to go up from $40,000 for the 5 lots which was about 4 acres to $640,000. This was an increase of 1500 percent. We did get this reduced to 200,000 which was up only 400 percent but it
took several meetings and we were informed that this property would be on the yearly review from this time forward until the evaluation would be up to where they felt it should be. This
letter sent a message to my family. It said, it’s time. This is time. We have to develop it with a business that’s going to give us return. We decided to name this complex Hark’s Corner
after my father. His name was Harland and his nickname was Hark. The
assessor is knocking at our door again and I have a letter that I just got from him this last week right here. The assessment is going from 200,000 to 800,000. Actually it’s only 798,700.
I don’t know if I have the ammunition now after going through all this and all that we’ve spent this year to get it changed and to get something going. However, I do plan to protest.
I’d just like to add one note for your information. You know, the taxes in 1998 were $548.00 for a year. They’re going to go to 10,900 in a 3-year period. About 5,400 of this will go
to the Meridian school district. I hear your concerns for the Meridian school district. Maybe it’s time that we do move some of this property up. We estimate that after we build this
complex that taxes would be about $30,000 a year and about half of that will go to schools. I think that is a concern that we need to take in tonight. I know that there’s a concern that
the zoning on the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning designation is R-1. I just want you to know a history of what I’ve done to try to avoid what we’re going through tonight. In 1997 I wrote
a letter to P&Z staff and ask for a zone change on this parcel for the new Comprehensive Plan that was to be written. Somewhere in your packets you have them. If you don’t have it in
your packets I will get it to you if you want to see it because it did happen. I wrote that letter. I was told that the process was underway and it would be ready to adopt in the year
2000. The draft of the new Comprehensive Plan and I have a copy of it. It’s dated 2000. It’s not up for adoption until this fall. I was told – one other thing that I’ve been asked several
times why didn’t you go through the rezoning in the comp plan in 1999 when there was a wholesale of a number of them that was done. I want you to know that I was never told. I didn’t
know that until after the fact. I feel kind of concerned about that because I feel that I should have known that. We’ve completed Preliminary plans and I’d like to give you each one
a picture of the, it’s actually a rendering of these businesses that we’re going to be putting in here. First of all, I’d like to say that I wish I could put the trees in as large as
they’re shown on that but we will put adequate trees in to meet all the landscape requirements and they will grow up that way in about 10 years. We have engineers right now working on
the site drainage plan and we have architects working on our construction plans. We’re working with a fuel jobber to provide us with petroleum supplies and they are helping us to design
a project that is very attractive and fills a need for the neighborhood and looks very good for the City of Meridian. Because of changes coming in the petroleum market in Boise Valley
with the merger of Chevron and Texaco, Shell oil is going to be playing a much larger role in the valley. Shell has committed to put their name on station and on our pumps and our canopy.
I want you to know that I’m really concerned and one of the reasons that we’ve pushed it as hard as we have and we’re here ahead of your change to the comp plan is Shell, because of
the big change in the valley. They want that corner. They feel it is a very’ very good corner for Shell oil and for the City of Meridian and basically for business. They –
***End Of Side Four***
Van Hess: -- We really feel pressured by the dollar part of it. So, we’re here tonight. I guess I don’t feel I should need to apologize for it because it’s just
business. We feel that if you, and I want you to know that we are here for your approval tonight. I mean, we’re here because we feel that you can, that this is in no way a violation
of your Comprehensive Plan and Joann Butler is here. I want you to know that I’ve learned far more about planning and zoning and Comprehensive Plan and case law than I ever thought I
wanted to know. I brought Joanne along. I just don’t feel I can take a chance of not letting you hear her prospective and some of the study that we’ve gone through because it’s so important
to us that we get your vote tonight that I would like Joanne to come up and I would like her to go through basically the reasons why we think that we should have your vote tonight.
Bird: Just a second. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: I had a question for Larry before he sits down.
Van Hess: If you have any questions I’d be glad to answer them.
Bird: Okay. On your car wash, will it have an automatic type that blows the cars dry and everything?
Van Hess: Yes, it does. We have one automatic bay. Then there will be 4 that will be hand wash.
Corrie: Okay. Joanne, you have the other 5 minutes that he hasn’t used.
Butler: I’ll make it less than that.
Corrie: Thank you, Dear.
Butler: Thank you. Joanne Butler, 101 South Capitol Boulevard representing the applicant, the family here. With taxes like that you can understand why people start to think about developing.
You have in your packet what we presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission identifying exactly how this project meets all the criteria for both annexation and the Conditional Use.
Of course you made the policy decision to annex this property and to develop it as commercial when you adopted your Comprehensive Plan setting the area of impact and the impact boundary.
Although the draft Comprehensive Plan doesn’t apply to this particular proposal, I just want you to know that your proposed area of impact, I’m sorry, your proposed urban service planning
boundary includes this property. I’ll just briefly say that we do comply with the Comprehensive Plan. There was discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing because of a
comment that was made that we weren’t strictly in compliance with the land use map. As you know and as the attorney and as the P&Z came to conclude at the P&Z hearing, your land use
map is a generalized statement of projected land
uses in Meridian. That was in 1993 and we’re in 2000. The cases in the excerpts that I’ve provided you from the case law clearly shows that in Idaho we take our local land use maps attached
to the Comprehensive Plan as being one component of the overall Comprehensive Plan. You look at any project in light of factual circumstances existing today. Given this particular project,
the existing development on the 3 corners as industrial or commercial and the fact that all the facilities are readily available for this project. This project does comply with and promotes
the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. It’s a natural progression of the growth and the policies that you’ve promoted for the Franklin Overland, I-84 corridor in this area
as a mixed-use policy. Those mixed-use policies are also included in your packet that we included for the Planning and Zoning Commission. So, we’re not presenting you with any new information
today. So, I won’t take much more time than that other than to say that we clearly comply with all the criteria. We comply with the Comprehensive Plan. As Larry was saying, yes we are
looking for a decision by the Council tonight in terms of approval for this project.
Corrie: Okay. (inaudible). Is there anyone with the public? We’ve got 2 here. Larry, unless you’ve got something new –
Van Hess: No. It’s Tom Roman. I’d like to introduce him. He lives in the home that I was raised at as a young kid. I’ve worked with Tom in every way. You can ask him questions. I think,
when I talked to Tom today, Tom said basically I want an 8-foot tall masonry fence. That 6-foot fence, is 8 foot. We agreed on that. I’m going to move it over. We saved some trees. It
looks good because I do want to do away with part of the buffer. It will narrower. You can ask him any questions. I want you to know that we are going to work together. (inaudible)
(inaudible discussion)
Roman: (inaudible) I live in the house, the property right to the south –
Bird: Name.
Roman: Tom Roman.
Corrie: And your address?
Roman: 115 South Linder.
Corrie: Thank you.
Roman: Okay. I guess I’m mainly the one that it effects. You know I never thought of the beepers actually that she pointed out. I never really considered them. There’s a lot of things
I probably didn’t consider but for me, I’m the one that ask to not have the 25 foot buffer zone of landscaping. I would rather have the
wall. I would rather have an 8-foot wall because of the noise. Because my house is right there and my deck’s right there. I feel that a brick wall would be a lot better than a couple
of bushes as far as--. So, I had asked for that and Larry and I talked about moving it over a little bit to save my trees because I have a lot of trees right on the property line down
that edge. He had talked about, the guys at P&Z had said well why don’t you move the block wall 3 feet onto your property, cut that little landscape area down to 5 and leave the trees.
I’ve got plenty of landscaping on my property for everybody. My main thing is, I figure I’m for it. I mean, it’s going to get developed anyway. I can sit here and stomp my feet and scream
and yell but something’s going to get built there. Like you pointed out, it’s a prime corner (inaudible). I knew that years ago when I bought the piece of property. I thought hey, this
is a nice corner. I wouldn’t mind having it. Anyway, mainly I just, I want the 8-foot wall. We talked about constructing it first. I’m the one that came up with that too just because
it would block the noise, the dust and all that while they’re doing construction. That was my idea. For the variance for not having the 25 feet, that was my idea too. I would much rather
have a wall than a couple of bushes. I just think that would be better for me. There will be a lot of noise. Usually on businesses, (inaudible). They do it on the freeway and it works
quite well so I figured well that’s what I’d like to have. I think Larry and I have worked out pretty much everything and we’re going to try and work together on it (inaudible).
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you Tom. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Anyone else from the public want to issue testimony. I guess hearing none, (inaudible).
Van Hess: There are 3 slight things that are in the conditions. The 6 foot wall to and 8 foot wall, to reduce the landscaping, and we will submit an application to reduce it from 25
feet to 8 feet. Tomorrow noon we have a meeting with ACHD to change the entrance on Linder Road. Right now it’s restricted to a right in, right out only. It almost destroys the use of
that property from anybody coming up from Linder Road because they can’t turn in. They turn the corner to go on to Franklin, they still can’t turn in the first entrance. We are going
to put a second entrance there, which will be a full access. Two of those are right in, right out. We’ve got a traffic engineer, Dave Split and we think that they’ll understand and we’ve
got a lot of people that are saying that we need to change that. I just want you to know that that was one of your conditions and I just want you to know that I am attempting to change
that with ACHD tomorrow. That’s my intent.
Corrie: Okay. What about the car wash?
Van Hess: The car wash. We’ve talked about that with Tom. I want you to know I’ve never owned a car wash before. I really don’t know what’s involved in it. I want you to know we’re going
to make it as high tech as we can. We don’t intend to have it making a lot of noise and if it makes too much noise in the evenings
we’ll just shut it down early. That’s flat the way it is. We’re going to be as good a neighbor as Tom and Tom’s an awfully dog gone good neighbor so we’ll work with him. Okay. I think
they were worried about a 24 hour one.
Van Hess: It’s not a 24-hour car wash.
Corrie: I’ve got you on record that you’re going to work with him.
Van Hess: Yes, absolutely.
Corrie: Any other questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Is there anymore testimony? (inaudible) Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on item No. 18 and 19 –
Stiles: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: I’m sorry, Shari, yes.
Stiles: I don’t know why the decision was made why this shouldn’t be a planned development but I don’t see how you can approve a Conditional Use Permit that doesn’t comply with the
ordinance unless it is a planned development. If Larry would be willing to pay his $185.00 and call it a planned development we won’t need to go through the variance application. I am
a little concerned though that the conditions that ACHD has placed on it may be changing tomorrow because that will have to be in the findings, what’s on record now. Unless we can think
of a way to add – unless add a statement unless otherwise approved by the Ada County Highway District Commissioners. Could we do that and change it back to planned development and get
rid of the variance?
Corrie: I think so but Mr. Attorney? I’m no attorney so you do what you think –
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. I’m no Mayor either. If Shari’s comfortable that this would constitute a planned development that’s good enough for me. With regard to the
ACHD condition, the findings can be worded to the effect that when we adopt those ACHD recommendations we can include or as amended by ACHD and that would take care of that part of it.
Corrie: Thank you. Any other questions, Council?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Larry, have you seen the position statement that staff put out?
Van Hess: Have I seen which --?
De Weerd: The position statement on your –
Van Hess: I did, yes.
De Weerd: Do you agree with all of that?
Van Hess: I want you to know that we can live with all of it. The only ones that have been the conditions that we brought up tonight. I think they’re all okay. I’ve read them over. I
don’t remember what all you’re referring to but I have read every word and yes I do agree with it.
De Weerd: Okay. Just as long as you’re in agreement. You’re in agreement with the planned development, then?
Van Hess: Yes. I think it makes a lot of sense for us to go that route. I have no problem paying that fee.
Corrie: Any other discussion? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on the Public Hearing closure.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we close the request for annexation and zoning of 4 acres from R-1 to C-C for proposed Hark’s Corner by Van Hess Properties.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second to close the Public Hearing on request for annexation AZ 01-007. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion on the request for annexation and zoning.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Just want a clarification. In the annexation, is that where you change designation, Shari for the PD?
Bird: I don’t know.
Stiles: If it’s referenced in the annexation. It would be the conditional use portion of it that would be the planned development.
Bird: It’s conditional use isn’t it?
Corrie: Item 19, isn’t it conditional use.
De Weerd: It is referenced that the commission recommended this not be a planned development based on the legal counsel at that time noted on page 4.
Stiles: They’re just recommendations though. I mean, for the findings we don’t need to reflect that.
De Weerd: Okay.
Stiles: If that’s the way you’re striking that from your findings as a recommendation.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Question for Shari. Shari, should the zoning designation be C-C?
Stiles: Yes.
Nichols: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the request for annexation and zoning of 4 acres from R-1 to C-C for Hark’s Corner and to make sure that the findings reflect that it will be a
planned development to include all staff recommendations and for the Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Decision of Order.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s been made and second to approve the annexation and zoning AZ 01-007 with the planned development and all staff reports and have the Attorney to draw up the
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote please.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay, at this point I’ll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on CUP 01-011.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion we close the Public Hearing on the request for Conditional Use Permit for Hark’s Corner at 119 South Linder Road.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second to close the Public Hearing on the request for Conditional Use Permit on item No. 19 CUP 01-011. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those
in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the request for Conditional Use Permit for a commercial development for the proposed Hark’s Corner to include the staff comments, changes that need
to be modified dated June 5th to include language to ACHD recommendations or as amended, to note or to reflect that this is a planned development and for the Attorney to draw up the
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Discussion? Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. In preparing these findings, I would tend to indicate that the car wash operation hours of operation would have to be such as not to constitute
a nuisance to the neighbors or you can specify hours of operation or whatever you want to do. Since this is one item that’s not
specified in the staff comments it would be helpful that either know what the recommended hours are. I’m sure that Mr. Van Hess will do the right thing but he’s not always going to be
here. So, we need to put something in the CUP that specifies those things.
De Weerd: Thank you Mr. Attorney. I would add to my motion that language be added to the car wash section so as not to be nuisance to the neighbor. How’s that for being specific?
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: He’s a pretty (inaudible).
De Weerd: How open-ended can you get?
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second on the request for Conditional Use Permit with all the conditions that were appropriated in the motion. Is the any further discussion? Hearing
none, roll call vote please.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Unidentified: Did that include the 8 foot wall and the --?
Bird: Yeah.
Item 20. Public Hearing: PP 01-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 1 building lot and 1 ACHD Park and Ride lot on 6.36 acres in a C-G zone for proposed Travelers Corner by
Pinnacle Engineers, Inc – southeast of Interstate 84 and Meridian Road:
Corrie: We are stopping here with the rest of the meeting outside of the department reports which will be (inaudible). We’ll need to go open item No. 20 is a Public Hearing request
for Preliminary Plat from Traveler’s Corner by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. At this point I’ll open the Public Hearing and entertain a motion to continue the Public Hearing. Is there anyone
that would like to testify, since we are going to continue this one. Yes?
Seel: Mayor Corrie. Jonathan Seel, W.H. Moore Company. I would ask if at possible if we could hear this tonight. I think it’s a very simple one. It’s simply really one lot and for a
variety of reasons it would be a great benefit to us to get this thing approved tonight. As far as I’m concerned, we’ve looked at the staff report. We’re in agreement and we don’t have
any discussion on our point. I don’t
think staff does either. I think it’s very straightforward and I hate to be pushy here but it’s simply really it’s a one-lot plat for all intent purposes.
Corrie: Jonathan, I’m going to leave this up to the Council. We made a decision the first of the meeting that we were –
Seel: I understand and I respect your decision.
Corrie: -- going to stop at 10:00. I understand where you’re coming from but if we do you then we’ve got another one that maybe somebody wants to. Then we’ll be here the rest of the
night for these and some people may have gone home that may have had public testimony. I don’t know that they didn’t. So, I would still request the Council continue this because we made
the announcement that we would stop at 10:00. Like I said, I don’t know that there’s anybody in the public, probably not –
Seel: Yeah, there’s no one signed up on the sheet but I understand the situation. I thought I would just ask.
Corrie: Okay. I’ll leave that up to the Council. They can make a decision and make a motion. However they want to do.
Bird: The problem is, even if – Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: The problem is, and I’m sure this is real short and sweet and everything else but so was Larry’s suppose to be short and sweet. 35 minutes later, it’s not so short and sweet.
Seel: I said my peace.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I was just going to say the same thing. I know there’s been 4 of us sitting on our butts in a room since 8:00 this morning and the last one was suppose to be real short and
it wasn’t. We still have an hour to go after this to just get through our department reports. I wouldn’t really be in favor of hearing this tonight.
Corrie: All right. I’ll entertain a motion then to continue this.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we continue the Public Hearing for the Preliminary Plat 01-008 Traveler’s Corner, southwest corner of interstate 84 and Meridian Road.
Corrie: Is there a second.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and second to continue the Public Hearing on the Preliminary Plat 01-008 for Traveler’s Corner. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say
aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes.
Nichols: What date?
Corrie: 19th?
Seel: 19th of June?
Corrie: Yes.
Item 21. Public Hearing: RZ 01-004 Request for a rezone from an R-8 to L-O zone for Meridian Water Department by Meridian Water Department – 2235 Northwest 8th Street:
Corrie: Item 21 is a Public Hearing request for rezone from R-8 to L-O on the Meridian Water Department by Meridian Water Department . At this point I’ll open the Public Hearing.
Anybody here to testify that would like to, or we can have a continued Public Hearing on the 19th. Seeing none, I’ll entertain a motion on that.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we continue the Public Hearing on the request for rezone from R-8 to L-O zone for Meridian Water Department at 2235 Northwest 8th street to June 19, 2001.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to continue the request for rezone RZ 01-004 until 6-19-01. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 22. Public Hearing: AZ 01-003 Request for annexation and zoning of 371.42 acres from RUT to R-4 and C-G zones for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision for a planned development
consisting of residential, office and commercial uses generally located at 2420 Ustick Road:
Corrie: Item No. 22 is a request for annexation and zoning Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision AZ 01-003. At this point I’ll open the Public Hearing and entertain a motion to continue the
Public Hearing. Do we still need to see if anybody wants to talk? It’s a formality but –
Bird: Go ahead.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I move that we continue the Public Hearing on the request for annexation and zoning of 371.42 acres from RUT to R-4 and C-G zone for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision
to –
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: -- Bridgetower didn’t ask for this to be continued.
Corrie: Shari, did Bridgetower ask for an extension?
Stiles: Yes. They did. I thought maybe – your packets. Since the –
Bird: Oh, yeah. That’s right. Yeah, they did.
Stiles: Since the Conditional Use and the plat aren’t up until the 19th but now we’re going to have a problem even with the 19th because the planned development ordinance isn’t going
to be until the 26th. So, I guess it can still be continued and heard on the 19th but you couldn’t act on the plat or the conditional use.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I’d like to continue this until July 2, 2001.
Stiles: July 3rd?
Bird: 3rd, I mean. I’m sorry not the second.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Is there a second to the motion?
De Weerd: Yes, I did.
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 23. Public Hearing: VAR 01-005 Request for a variance of the rear property setback from 15 feet to 11.5 feet for property to be used for single-family dwelling by John Flaherty
Construction, Inc. – 2421 East Weir Creek Drive:
Corrie: Item No. 23 is a Public Hearing request for variance of the rear property set back on John Flaherty Construction Inc. Variance 01-005. Is there anyone here for them at this
point? Okay. I’ll entertain a motion of continuance.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we continue the request for variance of the rear property set back from 15 feet to 11.5 feet for property to be used for a single family dwelling by John Flaherty Construction
to 6-19-01.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second to continue the Public Hearing on the variance 01-005, continued to 6-19-01. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 24. Public Hearing: VAR 01-006 Request for variance of the street length ending in a cul-de-sac from the maximum length of 450 feet to an increased length of 495 feet for a
proposed Park-and-Ride Lot by W.H. Moore Company – northeast corner of Overland and Meridian Roads:
Corrie: Item No. 24 is a Public Hearing request for variance of the street length ending in a cul de sac from the maximum length of 450 to increase to 495 feet for park and ride lot
by W.H. Moore Company.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Oh, sorry. I’m rushing you.
Corrie: That’s all right. I’ll open the Public Hearing and (inaudible) for continuance.
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. I move that we continue this request for variance for a park and ride lot by W.H. Moore to June 19, 2001.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to continue the Public Hearing on this request for variance 01-006 until June 19, 01. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 25. FP 01-009 Request for Final Plat approval of 13 building lots and 3 other lots on 6.36 acres for Meridian Green – Unit No. 4 by Fuller/Scott Investment Company and Glenco
– east and west sides of Southeast 5th Way south from Overland Road:
Corrie: Item 25 is a request for final plat 01-009 approval of 13 building lots and 3 other lots on 6.36 acres for Meridian Green Unit No. 4 by Fuller/Scott Investment Company and
Glencoe.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we table the request for Final Plat approval of 13 building lots and 3 other lots on 6.36 acres for Meridian Greens unit No. 4 by Fuller/Scott Investment Company and
Glencoe east and west side of Southeast 5th Way south from Overland Road until 7-3-2001.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to table the request for Final Plat on 01-009 until 7-3 of 2001. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 26. CUP 01-013 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the manufacturing of inflatable boats in an I-L zone for Elliott Business Park by H2NR, LLC – east of Locust Grove and
south of East Wilson Lane:
Corrie: Item No. 26 is a CUP 01-013 request for Conditional Use Permit for the manufacturing of inflatable boats in Elliott Business Park east of Locust Grove and south of East Wilson
Lane. Council, your pleasure?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we table the request for a Conditional Use Permit for the manufacturing of inflatable boats in an I-L zone for Elliott Business Park by H2NR LLC until 6-19-01.
Corrie: Motion’s made. Do I hear a second?
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s made and seconded to table item CUP 01-013 until 6-19 of 01. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 27. CUP 01-010 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a free-standing coffee hut with a drive-thru in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Moxie Java by TJBJ, Inc. – 1975 East Fairview:
Corrie: Item No. 27 is been requested to be tabled until 6-19 of 01 by Moxie Java so I’ll entertain a motion to that effect.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I make a motion we table the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a free standing coffee hut with a drive-thru in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Moxie Java at 1975
East Fairview until 6-19.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second to table until 6-19 of 01 the request for CUP 01-010. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 28. Time Extension: TE 01-005 Request for a time extension by Pinnacle Engineers for Blackstone and Coral Creek Subdivisions (fka English Gardens Subdivision) originally approved
by Council on June 6, 2000:
Corrie: Item No. 28 is a time extension TE 01-005 request for time extension by Pinnacle Engineers on Blackstone and Coral Creek Subdivisions. Are we going to get any prompts here?
Bird: That’s what I was just going to ask.. June 6th.
Stiles: June 6, 2002.
Corrie: All right. I’ll entertain a motion.
(inaudible) discussion)
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: With your permission, can’t we just approve it?
Corrie: You can do it if you want.
Bird: I mean this is something that we’ve all had a chance to look at and everything.
Corrie: Okay. If you can do it within the time lots.
Bird: Is that okay with the staff? Are they all in agreement with 2002?
Stiles: (inaudible) No.
Bird: You have no problems with that?
Stiles: No, sir.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the request for time extension by Pinnacle Engineer for Blackstone and Coral Creek Subdivision, formally known as English Garden Subdivision until
June 6, 2002.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second to extend the time extension 01-005 to June 6, 2002. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
(inaudible discussion)
Item 5. Department Reports:
A. Public Works Department – Gary Smith
1. Wastewater Treatment Plan Generator installation Project – Bid Results:
Corrie: Public Works, Gary Smith.
Boyle: Just to clarify your question. I appreciate you granting the extension tonight. Clint Boyle, Pinnacle Engineers, 12552 West Executive Drive. The reason we had to change the name
was because the Ten Mile Drainage cuts through the middle of the site and it’s actually a right-of-way that originally was Bureau of Reclamation and now it’s been turned over to Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District. But because there was a right-of-way through the property, the County requires the subdivision to have a separate name on either side of that right-of-way.
They treat it as though it was a street right-of-way through there like they had an arterial street. We would have preferred to have kept the entire subdivision English Gardens but it
was a technicality over the Ten Mile drain right-of-way coming through it.
De Weerd: You could have kept the garden theme. (inaudible)
Smith: Thank you Mayor and Council. I won’t go through this in detail. You have my memo June 1st. Item No. 1 is the bid results for the wastewater treatment plant generator installation
project award of contract. The description is listed there. It entails the installation of a permanent KW diesel generator at the wastewater plant and a lot of electrical upgrades that
need to happen. As you can se from my poor grammar in the second to the last sentence has done
performed well in the past and they’re the only bidder on this project. We recommend that Council award the contract for the wastewater treatment generator installation project to Custom
Electric in the amount of $141,977.42. Are there any questions?
Corrie: Any questions?
Bird: Yeah. Brad, how did this come within the budget? I mean we’d had a budget on it. Is this under what we’d estimated the cost?
Smith: Originally, last year during budget time, the scope was much smaller. John Shawcroft, after Taylor Engineers did some preliminary engineering and cost analysis, showed us that
it was going to be more than what the budget was. John has told me that he has transferred funds and line items. I specifically asked him if this was within his revised budget amount
and he told me that it was.
Bird: I don’t know. That’s an awful large contract for one bidder. I can’t figure out why (inaudible).
Smith: We did kind of fast track this Councilman Bird and there was at least one other bidder that was very interested in doing it. He claimed that he couldn’t get material prices. This
bidder, evidently had no problem getting material prices so I’m not sure what’s going on.
Bird: That’s a pretty good size job to just have one bidder. I don’t know how (inaudible). I’m sure he’s got the right public works license and everything.
Smith: This particular contractor installed the generator at well 16 several years ago. It was the sub contractor on the reservoir project and has done some other things. He’s been the
sub contractor on some of the other well houses too. And done a very good job and is pretty conscientious. If it wasn’t somebody I was familiar with I would question them a little harder.
Bird: (inaudible) on a job like this in the glass business, you’d have 50 bidders. Mr. Mayor. I move that we award the contract for the wastewater treatment plant generator installation
to Custom Electric Inc. in the amount of $141,977.42 and the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest.
Corrie: Okay. Do I hear a second?
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to approve the motion on the (inaudible) project (inaudible). Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
2. Drilling & Construction of Well No. 22 Project – Bid Results:
Smith: Our second item is another contract award. It’s for the drilling and construction of well No. 22 which is located in the Bear Creek Park. Again there was only one bidder but that
has been the case on at least the last 4 wells that we’ve drilled. It’s Riverside Inc. out of Parma. This project is somewhat different that those others as I’ve outlined in my memo
in that we are including some of the test pumping and some oft hose extra items that we ordinarily just change the order in during or after the project. The wells usually run in the
neighborhood of 110 to 115,000. The other thing that’s unusual about this, or not unusual but different than the other projects is that our hydro geologist has recommended that we go
with PVC casing. We bid both methods, Steel casing which is the normal method and PVC casing. Our recommendation tonight after visiting with Gary (inaudible) is that we award, or that
Council award the contract to Riverside Inc. for the drilling and construction of well No. 22 for PVC casing which would be in the amount (inaudible) $155,334.64. Any questions?
Corrie: Okay. (inaudible)
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I move that we award the contract for the drilling and construction for well No. 22 to Riverside Inc. in the amount of $155,334.64 for PVC casing and authorize the Mayor
to sign and the clerk to attest.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s made and second to approve Riverside’s bid with the PVC casing $155,334.64. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
5. Intergovernmental and Developer Surety Agreement between the City of Meridian, ACHD and Glenn Johnson Homes, Inc., for Hartford Subdivision:
Smith: Thank you Mayor and Council. The last item I have is an intergovernmental and developer surety agreement between the City of Meridian and the Ada County Highway District and Glenn
Johnson Homes for Hartford subdivision. What this involves is a transfer of funds that are presently held by the Ada County Highway District to the City of Meridian. These funds were
placed with ACHD as a guarantee for the developer of Hartford Sub to complete the improvements that were required by ACHD. Namely the $25,000.00 is to cover off site pressure irrigation
surface restoration that has occurred to public streets Ten Mile Road and I believe Ustick Road. The funds were to guarantee
that the surface be restored to a condition as good as or better than what existed prior to construction. Within then subdivision there’s approximately $13,000 of improvements remaining
to be made by the developer that were required by the City of Meridian. Mr. Johnson has deposited a check with the City of Meridian for $13,000. The $25,000 transfer from ACHD to the
city of Meridian as I said earlier would cover the surface restoration. This agreement says that the city will look after the repairs that were required by the developer by ACHD and
also the Highway District will also look at it too. The reason for this transfer was so that he didn’t, so that the developer Glenn Johnson Homes did not have to bond with the City of
Meridian as well as keep the bond in place with Ada County Highway District for the same work. Namely the repair of the roadways for the pressure irrigation. This is the only item that
remains to be resolved with this developer so that the city engineer can sign the plat. They’ve taken care of everything else.
Corrie: Okay.
Smith: My recommendation would be to approve this intergovernmental developer surety agreement between the city of Meridian, Glenn Johnson Homes and ACHD and to authorize Mayor Corrie
to sign and city clerk to attest. Do you have any questions?
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve that agreement with ACHD and Glenn Johnson Homes as stated by Gary, for the Mayor to sign and the clerk to attest.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
B. Meridian Fire Department – Chief Ken Bowers:
1. Change Order No. 2 for Fire Station No. 2:
Corrie: Has Kenny gone home?
Bird: No. He was just asleep over there in the chair.
Corrie: I didn’t see him over there.
Bowers: Mayor Corrie and City Council Members. I know last Saturday was a very busy day for you all but I appreciate you all stopping by and having some cake and punch and telling your
stories. Thank you. The first agenda was for a change order NO. 2 for our Ten Mile station. What we did, we decided to lengthen the fence posts to bring the fence up a little higher
to keep the headlights from flashing and shining into the back of the homes. So, they raised it up and it has helped considerably by the people. There has been no complaints yet at this
time. At this time we’d like to have the Mayor sign the change order for $500.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve the change order in the amount of $500. Change order No. 2 for the fire station on Ten Mile and authorize the Mayor to sign and clerk
to attest.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to have the change order No. 2 of $500 approved. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
2. Resolution No. 01-365 for Donation of Fire Truck to Gem County Fire District No. 2 – Surplus Property:
Bowers: the second item is pertaining to surplus property. One of our old fire engines, the 1973 Ford American Le France that we would like to gift to Gem County Fire District No. 2.
Bill Nichols our attorney has went through the language and drafted a resolution for the City Council. We would like to have the Mayor to sign and the city clerk to attest.
Corrie: Any questions?
Bird: What’s the resolution number?
Corrie: Resolution number?
Ugarriza: Mayor and Council, it’s 01-365.
Corrie: 265.
Ugarriza: 365.
Corrie: 365? Thank you.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve resolution No. 01-365, resolution for a donation of a fire truck to Gem County fire district No. 2.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to approve resolution No. 01-365 donation of fire truck to Gem County fire district No. 2. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say
aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
C. Planning and Zoning Department – Shari Stiles:
1. Discussion of City Council response to Ada County regarding Powder River Subdivision:
Corrie: Shari.
Anderson: Before you give that away Kenny would you get with me so we can (inaudible)?
(lengthy inaudible discussion)
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. Hopefully you have in your packets a draft of a letter prepared to the Ada County Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the Powder River subdivision.
I do still need to add specific policies from our Comprehensive Plan that did not support the application. I was wondering if you had a chance to read it, have anything you would like
us to emphasize more or maybe tone down a little bit. This is probably about the 10th version of this that I’ve written.
(inaudible discussion)
***End of Side Five***
De Weerd: Have you read it?
Corrie: I have.
Bird: I’ve read it. I like it.
De Weerd: They haven’t taken anything out?
Bird: What do you want taken out?
Corrie: What do you want to take out?
De Weerd: First of all, the 3rd sentence in the first paragraph really should –
Corrie: Open the flood gates –
De Weerd: That sentence and the next sentence as well. There’s no point in it being there is all I’m saying. You know we don’t want to alienate people. We just want to make some
points.
Corrie: You want approval of this development will open the floodgates to a disaster (inaudible). Is that what you want to take out?
De Weerd: That and the next sentence.
Corrie: It seems the applicant –
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Okay. Does everybody agree that that might be a little strong?
Bird: Yeah. That might be a little strong.
Corrie: Okay. You’ve still got the floppy, right? There may be another one here and I couldn’t remember.
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: There is on the last page, the second full paragraph. You know it should end in that first sentence after, in our efforts in development of a new Comprehensive Plan. Then
delete the rest of that sentence. We don’t have to read it out loud, it should just be deleted.
Stiles: It doesn’t make sense if you delete it. It’s not a sentence if it’s deleted.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, then that sentence is not needed.
Stiles: I like the first part of it.
De Weerd: I do too but can’t you reword the last part of it?
Stiles: What about if it said, if developer’s unwillingness to wait for services?
De Weerd: Unwillingness to conform to our plan.
Stiles: Is that what you want?
De Weerd: I would have to think about it. I would have to write it.
Corrie: I think I was on the wrong paragraph.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Yeah. We don’t need the greediness here. Come the meeting on the 11th we may be shot anyway.
Stiles: Unwillingness to conform to our plan?
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: I think she’s got a really good point there. I didn’t know I wrote that bad.
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: Those are the things that I thought were probably not appropriate to be put in there. There are a couple of things that Shari and I had talked about that need to be mentioned.
Some references as she has stated in the comp plan. In chapter 11 of the area of city impact 1-11-1 under purchase, it states as part of a sentence, to identify a logical urban fringe
area adjoining the city. The urban fringe area is realizing or will realize development pressure that must be planned for in an orderly manner. Well, what is someone’s definition of
in an orderly manner? In most urban planning definitions are growing from the inside out in a contiguous manner to your city limits. This is a policy that is adopted by both the city
and the county recognized verbiage. There’s also verbiage in the state statute local land use planning in planning duties of a city and also it’s comprehensive plans. That covers areas
in addition to the local land use planning, it has land use public services, transportation community design and implementation that all can be included in this as things that cities
need to have a say over. Or who is defined as the governing board. That the plan shall include all land within the jurisdiction of the governing board. So, who is the governing board?
Stiles: The County would be the governing board.
De Weerd: But in fact they have not a whole lot to say about our community design or implementation. They don’t plan our public services. We give our
transportation priorities to ACHD. So, who really is the governing board? You know, who’s making the plan for this area of impact? I don’t know, legally who is?
Corrie: If you’re talking about roads, it’s ACHD.
De Weerd: Yes, but who does ACHD go to for your road priorities?
Corrie: They go to us but (inaudible).
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: Also, when the applicant was here, he basically, or the applicant’s representative said you know the main question the city should be asking of the development is doe
it meet the comp plan and our ordinances. No.
Stiles: Our ordinances don’t apply.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. That’s not what Mr. Bradbury was saying. What he was saying was the question is whether it meets the county’s ordinances because the county
is the one that’s going to approve or deny the project, not the city’s ordinances or Comprehensive Plan.
De Weerd: So, does it meet the county’s comp plan?
Nichols: That’s the issue that needs to be addressed in any of the testimony or the letters is if it doesn’t, how it does not. One of the ways it does not meet it is the definition
of municipal services where it’s in conflict with an area sewer plant. Therefor it’s in violation of their ordinances. At least arguably it is.
De Weerd: But, when they in your area of impact adopt the city’s comp plan as the plan for that area of impact. I guess those are areas that I don’t understand. They look at our
comp plan. We look at their comp plan. What on earth are they planning from?
Nichols: The handout that Joanne Miller gave you with regard to the Van Hess deal –
De Weerd: Yeah. I like that.
Nichols: Well, but it really cuts against us more than it helps us. A Comprehensive Plan becomes, in the (inaudible) case it was at a wish list essentially. You looked to the zoning
ordinances for whether or not something is approved. The Comprehensive Plan gives guidance but it’s not a controlling document in the same way a zoning ordinance is. So, the county zoning
ordinance is what has to be looked at but again one of the things is the sewer plant. The other thing is Shari should site those areas of the Comprehensive Plan
specifically if she can find time with all the other things to put it in. Essentially what you want to do is you want to give the county Planning and Zoning commission reasons why that
would support a denial.
De Weerd: Well, I have a list of reasons. I don’t know if anyone else but comments. But I can just get together with Shari instead of dragging this out any further.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Why don’t you go ahead and take Friday morning off and come back Friday afternoon (inaudible). I think you should really. We need to work those out.
2. Ada County Development Services: 01-06-5/01-05-ZC/01-14-CU/01-15-OTD/01-14-MSP McGrath Family Trust – Westborough Subdivision – Proposed 71 single-family lots on 28.29 acres at
the southwest corner of Locust Grove and Chinden Boulevard
Corrie: No. 2, Westborough Subdivision. McGrath Family Trust. Anything on that?
(inaudible discussion)
Stiles: The next subdivision?
Corrie: Westborough.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: You had it down there Ada County Development Services.
Stiles: Yes. They had requested comment on that. When does that go?
(inaudible discussion)
Stiles: 14th so they do need comments before the 14th.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Well, --
Stiles: Tammy and I can work on this letter and structure it to meet the Westborough one.
Corrie: It’s going to be much the same.
Stiles: It will be virtually the same. I mean it won’t discuss some of the site-specific stuff like we did in Powder River. The issues are the same.
Corrie: Okay.
Stiles: This one would be located, is this the right one? I got the wrong one, sorry. Westborough is located at this southwest corner of Locust Grove and Chinden. It also is proposing
a package treatment plant. This is the one that they requested water service from the city and the Council denied for water and sewer. I’m not sure which. They’re proposing using United
Water and a treatment plant.
Corrie: Is United Water going to have to put another well in? If they do, they can’t do it.
Stiles: How come?
Corrie: That’s what they told us.
Bird: They’ll run it like they did the church on the north –
Corrie: Just as long as they don’t have to add more wells to do it.
Bird: Just another (inaudible) getting our area though Mayor.
Corrie: I understand that. (inaudible) They’ll try it either way.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: What was that Gary? If they have to drill new wells – Did you understand that?
Smith: I don’t Mayor. I don’t remember that part of it. I know they are able to expand their service area when they’re contiguous.
Corrie: But, if they’re not they have to –
Smith: I don’t recall the supply issue.
Corrie: I remember the dumb things. Okay.
Stiles: Do you want this to be signed by Mayor and Council?
Corrie: Sign what? I don’t care.
(inaudible discussion)
Stiles: Make sure you all see it.
Corrie: I’m going to have to read it before I sign it.
De Weerd: I guess I would only say it should be the Mayor and Council because it is a land use issue. It shows that we’re all standing very firmly behind this. I know you’re our
spokesman.
Corrie: (inaudible) get a letter from the Mayor, Council’s behind it.
De Weerd: We don’t all have to sign it.
(inaudible discussion)
Stiles: Do you want Tammy and I to get together and do that, revise it and put a copy of it –
Corrie: (inaudible) and we’ll make sure everybody gets a copy of it.
Bird: I was going to say don’t send it out before I read it, or it’s not going to have my name on it.
Corrie: (inaudible)
De Weerd: We’ll email it or fax it out to Mr. Technology here.
(inaudible discussion)
Stiles: When can we get together and do that Tammy?
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: That’s all that was on the agenda.
Stiles: Apparently this one goes June 9th, June 14th?
Corrie: Is it June 14th? Okay.
Stiles: So, we’ll all be at the AIC conference. We may want to request that they continue it at least until we have an opportunity to be at the public hearing.
Corrie: You mean, we would request it?
Stiles: So we can have –
Corrie: Go ahead.
(inaudible discussion)
Stiles: No. We will ask the county to continue it. We’re not asking you to ask the county. We will ask the county to continue –
Corrie: Are you saying we were asking you to ask the county?
Bird: No.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: I know it’s late but, we allowed our other development outside to come in and put on an hour and a half show for us. We’re not even letting these guys say a word.
Corrie: That’s fine. Come on up here –
Bird: I would have no problem but I don’t want no strung out deal. We’ve got to be consistent. We either have it on the agenda like we did Powder River or we have it under the department.
Now, which way are we going to deal with these because you’ve got a whole bunch of them coming? Which way are we going to deal with them? Are we going to do them in department reports
where they don’t talk or are we going to have a full-blown dog and pony show?
Anderson: I thought we were going to have a meeting with the developers and discuss the stuff on the north. I don’t have any desire every Council meeting to debate a developer for
an hour on his particular project. We have our position. They have their position. I mean that’s pretty obvious.
Bird: I agree with you Ron but when you let one developer come in and put on an hour and a half dog and pony show out of the same kind of a deal. He’s on the agenda. Then the next developer
that wants to come in that’s away from the agenda, he gets in the department report.
Anderson: I thought we had agreed after that guy that we were going to just do it all at one time with a meeting with –
Bird: Then why did we even bring it up?
Anderson: I don’t that we did.
Unidentified: Mayor, Council. It’s my desire now, has been in the past and will be in the future to work with this Council, work with Planning and Zoning in any format that you want
to do it. I do think I should be heard at some point and that’s all I’m asking. I don’t want to put on a dog and pony show. I simply want to state what I think are merits of this plat
and get your honest opinions and work with you people. I don'’ want to have animosity. I don’t want to have friction going back and forth. I just want to work. When I asked for the water
service, I wasn’t allowed to talk but other people before were allowed to talk when they requested water even thought they were denied. I was denied a chance to talk now. I thought I
would get a chance to talk tonight because the previous subdivision had an opportunity to talk. If it’s a different forum that I can be heard, fine. I just need to know what it is. I
appreciate the hour. I appreciate how long you guys have been working today.
Corrie: I just don’t want to sit here and listen to some more of this.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. If I can, Mr. Jewett. First of all on Powder River there was a specific request from the developer to have the item heard by the Council.
There was a letter asking that he be notified when it was front of the Council and they have an opportunity to address. I don’t know if that makes it right or wrong but at least that’s
a difference from what this is. That is a difference, whether it’s right or wrong that is a difference.
De Weerd: I think we’re trying to make steps to work with the development community to kind of put in a time frame. We realize that all the properties to the north want to break
open. We as a city have certain planning that we’ve put into place and we can’t grow in every aspect of this. Your development is not contiguous with our city. So, it’s dealt with differently
at this point. We are trying to attempt to have that dialogue with all the different planning agencies and the development community and see if there’s something that can result from
that. At this point, our city is overwhelmed. We cannot even service properly the people that we have in it right now, let alone allowing urban densities to go into our area of impact
that some day we’re going to have to service as well. Those are our concerns and we are trying to address them.
Jewett: I appreciate that and those are my very same concerns and I think that you’ll find that my thinking on the whole process of north of town is different than most. I take offense
to being lumped in with other people –
De Weerd: I’m not lumping you. I’m just saying we are trying to address certain issues –
Jewett: So am I.
Corrie: Are you coming to the meeting on the 11th?
Jewett: Is that the joint meeting with the commissioners and the Highway District?
Corrie: No. That’s the one before that David Turnball is putting together with developers up there. Are you coming to that meeting?
Jewett: I haven’t been informed of that one yet.
Corrie: I’ll call David because there is a pre meeting with just the developers and the city council on the 11th to kind of hear what’s going on here before the meeting with the county
commissioners. So they know exactly where we’re standing and you will too.
Jewett: I appreciate that because that’s truly what I want to know is where your position is and I would also like you to hear my position which may be different than another developers.
I think there’s different merits to every piece of property out there. You can’t lump them all.
Corrie: There’s some developer community planning that’s going to go probably, you’ll hear about that at this meeting at this meeting with the county commissioners as well. I‘ll ask
David Turnball if he’s talked to you because he’s part of these developers in the north area there and to talk to you and see if you’re a part of that. I don’t know. He’s the one that’s
putting it together and they want to talk to us and know where we’re coming from. (inaudible) I’ll call David tomorrow and have him call you and talk to you. I didn’t know who was coming
other than the developers in that whole area so I would assume that you were part of it.
Jewett: I haven’t been a part – just the joint meeting with ACHD, the commissioners and your folks was the only meeting I was invited to.
Corrie: (inaudible) Who did that notification to you?
Jewett: ACHD when the original one was. They canceled and I hadn’t heard about the reschedule date.
Corrie: So, I’ll get a hold of David Turnball and have him call you.
Jewett: I appreciate that.
Corrie: (inaudible) We set aside that evening for that (inaudible). We’ll do it. Council, I will entertain a motion to adjourn and I’ll see you a quarter to nine tomorrow if we don’t
have any other things come across.
Bird: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:20 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK