HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 06-19Meridian City Council Meeting June 19, 2001
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:30 P.M on Tuesday June 19, 2001 by Mayor Robert D. Corrie.
Members Present: Mayor Robert Corrie, Keith Bird, Ron Anderson, Tammy de Weerd and Cherie McCandless.
Others Present: Gary Smith
Corrie: Okay. Thank you for your patience. I’m sorry we’re getting started 15 minutes later tonight. I want to welcome everybody here. If you’ve got any cell phones, I would appreciate
it if you’d turn them off. I guess I’d better do mine too hadn’t I? This may seem, its going to be a little complicated, but we’ll walk you through it. We’re going to get as much done
tonight as we can on these Public Hearings. What we don’t get to, we’re going to do them next week on Wednesday night, the 27th. All non-land use items, such as final plats and that
nature, we’ll do on the 26th. That’s a regular meeting. We’ll see where we are by pretty close to 10:00. Then those that we don’t get to on the Public Hearings, we will have them next
week on the 28th and getting everything done this month.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: 27th, I can’t get California out of my mind here. But the 27th. I’ll kind of go along and let you know where we are here. We figure that we want to get everything out of here
by this month because if we don’t we just keep adding to the next one and the next one. Pretty soon, we’ve got 50 Public Hearings in one night and we never do get to them and they just
keep dragging on. We will try that and see how it works. Mr. Clerk would you have roll call please.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Tammy de Weerd X Ron Anderson
X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird
X Mayor Robert Corrie
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Corrie: Okay. The next item is the adoption of the agenda. Council, we’ve been requested by legal to table D. Mr. Nichols, would that be the 27th that you had that down or the 3rd?
Nichols: Mayor, we can have it on the 27th.
Corrie: I would say then that legal would like to have it the 27th. We have a request on department reports item No. 4 Ashford Greens subdivision, No. 5 storm drainage easement, Mr.
Smith, that one has been taken out, correct?
Okay. Item No. 6, this is a final plat approval of Bear Creek. They have requested that that be tabled until July the 3rd meeting. Item No. 7 is Meridian Greens unit No. 4 and also has
been requested to be tabled to July the 3rd. I think that’s all. Unless the Council has –
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Number 9 moves to 22 A.
Corrie: Oh, that’s right. Number 9, the request for Conditional Use Permit by Moxie Java has been moved to 22A. We need to do the variance before we do the Conditional Use Permit.
So, No. 9 will be moved to 22. Anything else?
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes.
De Weerd: I believe 19 requested to be withdrawn.
Corrie: To be withdrawn?
Bird: Yes.
De Weerd: Taken off.
Bird: Do we have to do that?
Corrie: Let’s see, that’s a Public Hearing. We’ll have to open it and close it, I believe. Is that right, Mr. Nichols? Is there anybody here for the Public Hearing on the single family
dwelling on No. 19? It’s a variance, yes. Okay.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I would recommend, when you get to that item on the agenda that you ask if there’s anybody there to testify and announce at that time that the matter has been withdrawn
from consideration.
Corrie: Okay. Is there anything else that the Council has or the clerk has?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I would like to move department reports to the end of our agenda.
Corrie: All right. Item No. 4 will be moved to the last agenda right after water, sewer and trash delinquencies. Shari.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor. Could item C of the consent agenda be moved to the regular agenda?
Corrie: Item C?
Stiles: Yes.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Move that to 5 –
Corrie: Move that one to 5 –
Bird: 5C
Corrie: 5A?
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: 5C. I’m sorry.
Bird: 5C.
Corrie: All right.
Stiles: Also, items 20 and 21 on the Bridgetower crossing subdivision, the annexation and zoning has been put to the July 3rd meeting. So, I don’t know whether you want to go ahead
and hold those Public Hearings and table it or continue it. I believe that the applicant’s representative is not going to be present tonight.
Corrie: Will they be here the 27th?
De Weerd: No, July.
Stiles: Probably not. July 3rd is when the annexation is up for Public Hearing.
Corrie: Well, if we keep this up, we’ll be out of here by 8:00.
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the agenda with the following changes. To move from the consent agenda 3C to 5C. To move department reports 4A to the end of the agenda, so it would
be item No. 28. To move item 9 to follow item 22 as 22A. And all other actions will have to fall under their individual item.
Bird: Second.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Was there a second?
McCandless: What about D on the agenda?
(inaudible discussion)
McCandless: on the consent agenda?
De Weerd: We’ll handle that under consent.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: There’s been a motion to adopt the agenda. Any further discussion? Roll call vote Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 01-007 Request for annexation and zoning of 4 acres from R-1 to C-C for proposed Hark’s Corner by Van Hees Properties
– 119 South Linder Road:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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 Hees Properties – 119 South Linder Road:
C. Tabled from June 5, 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:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law : 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:
E. Order to Remand to Planning and Zoning: 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:
F. Order of Remand to Planning and Zoning: 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:
Approve minutes of May 1, 2001, City Council Meeting:
H. Approve minutes of May 23, 2001, Special City Council Meeting:
I. Approve minutes of April 3, 2001, City Council Meeting:
J. Approve minutes of May 9, 2001, Special City Council Meeting:
Corrie: We will go now to item 5C –
Bird: No.
De Weerd: Three.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: oh, that’s right. We’ve got to do the consent agenda. All right.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the consent agenda with the exception of item D being tabled until June 27, 2001 and the rest remain as shown.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second to approve the consent agenda with the correction of item D to be moved to the 27th of this month. Any further discussion? Roll call vote Mr.
Berg.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
C. Tabled from June 5, 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:
Corrie: Now (inaudible). 5C which is tabled from the June 5, 2001 Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. It’s a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development to
include office, retail and industrial for proposed Treasure Valley Technical Center by Meridian Freeway Associates and DBSI Industrial Limited Partnership.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. Did you get the memo dated today regarding the changes to the findings? I met with Dan Bradshaw. Bruce Freckleton and I met with Dan Bradshaw this morning.
As you may recall, at the last meeting, Mr. Bradshaw had submitted a position statement and we weren’t quite in agreement on the way he had worded some of those items in the position
statement. So, we met today and came to an agreement on rewording some of those. I can go over those in detail or not. I did want to ask for your recollection, when they came through
with this Conditional Use Permit, this is the site out where Western Electronics and DBSI currently is. My recollection was they were approved for the light industrial uses that were
already. It’s already zoned light industrial and that they would be permitted to do light industrial projects without coming back through the Conditional Use process. But if they wanted
to do the non-conforming uses of office, retail or day care, then they would come back through the Conditional Use process. If I’m wrong on that --. That’s what I recall. If that’s not
correct, --
Corrie: Council.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I agree with Shari. That’s how I recall that it was presented. What it’s zoned for is no problem but outside of that zone, then they come back for a Conditional Use Permit.
Stiles: Okay.
Bird: That was my understanding.
Stiles: That was how this has been written then.
Corrie: Any other, Council?
Stiles: Okay. Thank you. I would ask that you approve those findings with the modifications noted in my memo dated June 19, 2001.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on RZ 01-003, request for rezone to include all staff comments in the memorandum dated June 19th.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with the modifications that was approved on the (inaudible). Any further discussion? Mr. Berg
roll call vote please.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 6. Tabled from May 15, 2001: FP 01-007 Final Plat approval of 36 building lots and 2 other lots on 10.66 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek Subdivision No. 2 by Briggs Engineering
– east of Stoddard and south of Overland Road:
Corrie: Item No. 6 is a final plat for Bear Creek subdivision. That has been requested by the applicant to have that tabled until July 3rd.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we table the Final Plat for Bear Creek subdivision until July 3, 2001.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second to table the Final Plat 01-007 to July 3, 2001. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those say aye in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7. Tabled from June 5, 2001: 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 No. 7 is a request for Final Plat approval of Meridian Green Unit No. 4. They also requested that be tabled to July 3, 2001.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would move that we table this request for Final Plat approval for Meridian Green Unit No. 4 until July 3.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to table item No. 7 final plat No. 01-009 until July 3, 2001. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 8. Tabled from June 5, 2001: 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. 8 is a Conditional Use Permit No. 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. Staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. This is for the remaining lot in the Elliott Business Park. Butte Fence is occupying the lot that’s immediately adjacent to Wilson Lane, which would
be south of D&B, Econo-Lube, and those businesses along Fairview on Wilson lane. They are proposing to have a manufacturing facility for their inflatable boats. They would have a pond
to demonstrate their products. They will also be allowing for the future pathway along the Jackson stub drain in this location. They will be tiling the other ditch that runs through
the property. This is the building elevations. We would recommend approval of the application with all staff and agency conditions.
Corrie: Council, do you have any questions of staff at this point? Is the representative from Elliott Business Park here tonight? Would you come up? I have a question for you. Have
you had a chance to read the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning –
Lamb: Yes, I have.
Corrie: Is there anything that you don’t agree with?
Lamb: We did make a request to go to a smaller diameter of tree because we’re going to put more trees than required by law in along the east side of the property. To go to a 3 inch instead
of a 4 inch, is that correct? Oh, 2 inch instead of a 3 inch –
Corrie: Go to a 2 rather than a 3?
Lamb: Yeah. That was the only thing that we requested since we were going to put 30 percent more trees in than what’s required.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. Could we get his name?
Corrie: I’m sorry. Your name please?
Lamb: My name is Greg Lamb.
Corrie: I know you but they may not. All right. Anything else?
Lamb: No. Everything looked really acceptable to me.
Corrie: Council, do you have any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. We’ll see what happens here. Thank you.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I have a question of Shari then. Would the going from a 3 to 2 inch, even though they’re doing more, is that acceptable to you?
Stiles: Yes. That would be in accordance with our new landscape ordinance.
Bird: That’s what I thought.
Corrie: Any other discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I had a question of Kenny. Kenny have your concerns for the fire department that you had addressed on this been addressed?
Bowman: Mayor Corrie, City Council Members, Councilman Ron Anderson. Yes. They have. We’ve talked with the gentleman several times on the product that he’s going to have in there. It
was a little surprise to me when Shari said there was a pond back there. I thought maybe that might be a swale or something like some subdivisions. That might be a little concern if
people get back there and start playing around in that pond. Building wise, the water supply, the sprinkler systems, everything else he has met with us and discussed with us Ron.
Anderson: Okay, thank you.
Corrie: Any further discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing no other discussion, I’ll entertain a motion on the request for a Conditional Use Permit.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the 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 Wilson Lane with staff comments and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second to approve the request for Conditional Use Permit 013 and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with the approval
and with the 2 inch caliber trees as well. Any further discussion? Roll call vote Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Councilwoman de Weerd mentioned that somebody from the Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision came in. Are they here tonight? Did they come in? What we are going to do, and they
requested that that be moved to the July 3rd meeting. That’s the first Tuesday of July. We will open the Public Hearing and then we will continue that Public Hearing until that time.
You still have a right if you want to give public testimony tonight. But it would be the same thing you’d want to give the 3rd when the rest of them come in.
Unidentified: So, if we don’t give public testimony tonight, we still can (inaudible)?
Item 10. Continued Public Hearing from June 5, 2001: 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:
Item 11. Continued Public Hearing from June 5, 2001: 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 12. Continued Public Hearing from June 5, 2001: 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: Absolutely right. That’s when we recommend that you do it, at that time. Thank you. Okay. Item No. 9 has been moved to 22 and next is the continued Public Hearing item No.
10, 11, and 12. This is all a request for annexation, request for Preliminary Plat, and request for a Conditional Use Permit. All on
Tuscany Lakes subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership. At t his time I will continue the Public Hearing on all 3 items. We’ll ask for discussion first. City Council, do you have any discussions
on this that you’d like to do at this time, or staff?
Bird: I have none Mayor.
Corrie: Kent, do you want to hold off and see where we are here and what we’re going to be doing? Hearing that then we will have staff comments first. We tabled this before –
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. I believe it was tabled due to the fact there were some changes needing to be made to the recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission. You
had position statements submitted from my department and also from Kent Brown but you only received them on the day of the meeting and didn’t have time to look over those position statements.
I don’t know if Mr. Nichols has anything additional to submit.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Members of the Council. Until we have the, and we don’t have the minutes of that meeting, I can’t monkey with the recommendations unless I can see from the minutes that the
lawyer that prepared them was clearly wrong. Certainly that’s the reason for having the position statements. So the staff and the applicant and any interested party can set forth what
they believe the recommendation actually was and what those points are so that Council can go forward.
Corrie: Mr. Brown, is that okay with you?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: So, the recommendation is to go ahead and proceed on the application? Okay.
Stiles: Okay.
Corrie: You’ve got it Shari.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. This is for the property located south of Victory Road. It would be contiguous with Thousand Springs subdivision. This is the Ridenbaugh canal that comes
through here. They have a proposed school site
here. This would be their entrance into the school site. I really don’t have anything to add to the last time when we had our meeting. But, Mr. Brown is here and available to make any
additional presentation and answer any questions you may have. Thanks.
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I would like to disclose I had a conversation with Wendel Bingham with the school district today regarding the concerns that Council expressed at the initial meeting and
also a staff concern. The conversation was about how boxed in that school site is and some of the safety issues with boxing that in. He said that his preference would be that they have
at least one side open in front of the school. It is a recommendation to have staff (inaudible) the Mayor, myself, a board trustee member, the super and our parks director, public works,
planning, and the whole room if you want to, to get together to discuss some of the issues of site planning and some other concerns that are coming up right now. So, I just wanted to
disclose that before we got into the Public Hearing.
Brown: My name’s Kent Brown, Briggs Engineering 1800 west Overland Road. Briefly to go over our site and our project. We have frontage out here on Locust Grove. We have some natural
waterways and manmade waterways that intersect the overall property. As we travel east off of Locust Grove, we have the Ten Mile Creek that runs through here. Then we have separate ownership
by Nampa Meridian of the Eight Mile. Then we have the Ridenbaugh Canal. We own to the center line except for a small little place right here that the (inaudible) own. We are proposing
for the entire site to (inaudible) all of the ditches and canals, per Meridian’s code. My client would like, if possible he would like to use over in this area on the western half for
those people that can’t see. He wants to use wrought iron except for the one property owner to the north of us on Locust Grove. On the one property to the south of us. He’s discussed
with them putting in a vinyl fence. The way that we’ve designed this overall project, and I think it was mentioned in the record last time. The Ten Mile has some physical restraints
in becoming the pathway that is called out in the Comprehensive Plan. Nampa Meridian owns property to the south of us and they have a – actually, the Ten Mile goes underneath the Ridenbaugh
Canal and they pull water out of the Ridenbaugh and supplement the Ten Mile at that location. I think that physically that’s going to make it difficult for a pathway continuing on south
of here. With that concern in mind, we have a pathway that we would have with our open space that would create a walking pathway that the neighbors could use until such time as the parks
department was able to do something with the remainder. The way that the condition was written by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the recommendation from staff and the parks departments
request is that they take
over the maintenance of the pathway that is in the Ten Mile. But, the Homeowners Association maintain the vegetation and so forth that are in the Ten Mile. We have a lot of high ground
water. The Ridenbaugh Canal leaks. We are therefor proposing to put these ponds in. The water would be – the Ridenbaugh Canal bi-sects our property here but then continues south and
comes down like this. Our property here is adjacent to the Ridenbaugh. So, there in these locations we’d have to fence access to the Ridenbaugh but we would have an open space and we
would landscape, have a meandering pathway that would go along the Eight Mile but outside of the Eight Mile right-of-way so that we don’t have to work with a ditch company with regards
to that area. Have the water be collected here in the pond, run through, come out this way and then dump back into the Ten Mile. What’s happening right now is the water comes from this
point, comes across and goes to the Ten Mile as it leaks out of the Ridenbaugh. The ground typically is just a sandy cobbely rock. It would make a great gravel pit. If you look at the
southwest corner of Eagle and Victory you can see that was what they had done in that location at one time. As we did our test holes on the site, we found that at this certain depth,
and we had a hydrologist and there’s a report that’s in the packet that talks about the water. What we are proposing to do is put a cut off trench here when we get water that comes from
the Mortener farm, run it over to this point and either go under the Eight Mile to dump it back into here and then have it go to the Ten Mile and pick up that water as it comes across.
This water here would be picked up and taken over and dropped. Just one of the things from an engineering standpoint that we think that’ll happen is that when we put the water and sewer
in which is typically what happened on a project that we did to the north of Victory in the Sherbrooke area. It was wet and when we put the sewers in, the bedding the sewers, that’s
where the water ended up going and the water table dropped. We think that that has a possibility of happening too. Either way, if we have to fill the site or if it’s de-watered from
these ponds. What we’re doing realistically is we’re taking something that’s a natural detriment to the property. It doesn’t make it that great a farm ground because it’s wet. Testimony
from the Morteners. They’ve talked about that they’ve had cattle on here. It would probably make a great pasture and they don’t have to water it. But, we’ll de-water it or we’ll raise
it up. We’ll meet the requirements of the public works department and their separation. We will cross the Ridenbaugh at this location with a bridge. In our Planning and Zoning hearing
staff stated concern about this area being a wetlands. Prior to our final hearing I met with the Army Corp of Engineers. We went out to the site. HE stated that the only place that
there is a concern is when we cross the Ten Mile. At that location we have to adhere to their standards. If we were doing more in the Ten Mile then we would have to be concerned like
Butch Otter and others about messing with the wetland areas. We’re proposing to fence the entire east side of the Ridenbaugh Canal and separate that with a chain link fence from the
homes that are there. There has been some discussion at previous meetings at P&Z and also at our last hearing before you about the alignment of the road. We’ve met with the Highway District
on numerous occasions and there’s at least a couple letters in the file that speak to the point that the Highway District wants us to put this at this location. It
was either in January or in December, the Highway District approved our plat and the locations of our streets and stubs. They approve the location that we currently have. Mr. Young had
stated the concern that when the roads widen, there’s headlights on him. If we need to, I think that we could move the road. We have a 30-foot landscaping there. It would just clip one
of his windows slightly in my opinion. So, if we move the road to the east a little bit I don’t see that he would have any problem. I met today with Wendel Bingham on the school site.
HE talked about Councilman de Weerd’s comments. What he stated to me is that he would like to have the ability to be able to, and this is the same comment he made in P&Z is that if needed
that we could be flexible with our site here to give him 2 entrances. We combined the 2 that we have here with the existing one that we have. The copy of the plat that you have and at
the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission we moved this stub here down in this location. Then he asked that we have a pedestrian path to the Goldsmith’s property to the
east of us. He asked that wherever we have our street location that we have a stub to the property to the east of us so that these students that would come from this 40 acres here would
have the ability from a micropath to come right to the front of the school. He did talk about that if we maybe look at opening up this part. But, that was, he would like to be able to
know when this phase finally comes on and whatever school plan that they’re at the time that we have the ability to work with them on how that school locates and how the traffic patterns
would work for that school site. We have a diversity of lots and we’re looking for very nice homes over here next to the water amenities. I feel that those, that that’s the market that
we’re shooting for here. We have a few smaller homes in this location. I’ve color coded that for you. These lots in this area are over 10,000 square feet, up to 12,000 square feet. The
blues are the 9,000 square foot lots. The 8s are under the 9,000. Then we have a couple of 7,000 here. But, overall we have a large lot concept. The conditional use, we're asking for
some flexibility so that we’re not all 80 by 100s. We have some 70-foot widths and then we have a lot more in depth. These lots in this area are 120 feet deep backing up to where the
fenced area of the Ridenbaugh Canal is. Where we cross here with the Ridenbaugh, we would have to fence that. The ditch company has a road on either side. We would have to work with
the fence company so that there would be gates in those locations but there would be no access from our project to any of these major waterways. We would fence both sides of the Eight
Mile. The Ten Mile would be left open per your Comprehensive Plan. We’ve worked with the public works department with sewer and water issues. They, as a part of their master plan needed
the sewers to be stubbed at this location to continue on going to the east. They basically needed it somewhere in here where the diversion is so we’re proposing to put it here. There’s
a report in there from, I think it’s from Brad that speaks to this would be adequate. There’s some minor changes. Pipe size and those kinds of things. Those are things that we would
work out during construction. Overall, we feel we have a very nice project. Minor modifications that we have made. We have an emergency access that would put a non-build agreement on
this lot until some time as we would have some
secondary access. So, there are things that we worked out with the fire department. Are there any questions?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: What’s the phasing of the project, Kent?
Brown: It starts over on this side. Starts here, here, back and forth. My client has told me that we probably will come in with his whole portion to pay for the off-site sewer and water
initially. But, we would work our way this way going to the east and we also discussed that with Wendel Bingham again today. That if there was a need for the school site sooner that
we would accelerate that. (inaudible). That’s the phasing plan that’s on the Preliminary Plats that you have.
Anderson: What’s this little thin narrow stuff that’s going out --?
Brown: It’s a 30 foot piece of property that we currently own. The Highway District has asked us and we don’t have any access to it. There’s a ditch located in that area. If you were
to drive out to the site, it’s like a road for the sod farm right now. (inaudible) So, we’re using it as an open area.
Anderson: How many feet of the upper northeast part is actually contiguous to the city limits? It doesn’t look like very much. Like 2 or 3 lots is all.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Kent, before we start any phase or anything, all that fencing around the whole property would be in place. Am I not right? On the ditches and everything would be in place. All
the perimeter fencing and the ditches fencing and everything.
Brown: Your code requirements requires to fence each phase. For example, they can’t cross the Ten Mile so they’re kind of stuck on one side. We fence our perimeter there. Are you asking
if we’re going to phase the entire 153 acres?
Bird: I know you’re going to phase it. I think the biggest – I know that Ridenbaugh is not going to be until probably the third, second phase and you’re moving people into the other
area, building in there. I would hope that that Ridenbaugh
would be fenced before too many – it would be my preference before anybody moved in there or any building permits were issued.
Brown: So, as we look at phase 1, we’re no where near the Ridenbaugh and there’s no way basically to get across into this undeveloped portion between the Ten Mile and the Eight Mile.
As soon as we go into this area, we would need to fence from our farmers that are using the property to the north of us and we would need to fence here along the Ridenbaugh. Then we
would be fencing along the Eight Mile in these locations. Once again, we have a –
Bird: Where are you going to pick the sewer up at?
Brown: The sewer is back on Locust Grove.
Bird: And bring it across?
Brown: It comes from this way.
Bird: Then you’re going to stub it out down here and over here for us?
Brown: Yes. Obviously when we move into this portion again, farmers and fencing the Ridenbaugh as it comes through this location. And fencing the back side of the Eight Mile.
Bird: What is your expectations of your build out and time on these phases? Is it 5, 7, 10 year project?
Brown: Yes. It’s like a 7 to 10 year project depending on how the market stays.
Bird: You’re not going to cut any of the roads, not even cut any roads in at all other than the other phases? You’re just going to do it as you go through that certain phase?
Brown: Right. One of the things that we might do is in ability to determine the groundwater go in and cut this out so that we can make sure that you know then be able to prove to the
public works department what the water depth in that area is. We have no intention on punching the sewer through our project at one time, at the beginning. The only thing that would
make that or accelerate that is that if for example the school would need to go. In my discussion with the school district and Wendel Bingham they said the next school in this area would
be the Pepper Hills School. It’s a site that they’ve already purchased.
Bird: So, in other words, there’s not going to be any utility work or anything except done in phases?
Brown: Right. We’re bringing the water and sewer from this side.
Bird: So, basically the rest of it just stays like it is out there now?
Brown: Right. IF there was a need for, in my opinion the Homeowners Association or the developer becomes the ones liable. If we needed to we could put construction fencing up there on
a temporary basis. But, as soon as we get this excavated out, basically the only thing that we have in there. Because we don’t have sewer and water in those areas, is landscaping. We
would want to fence that.
***End of Side One***
Bird: As long as you’re not going to punch and have roads, even thought they’re construction roads and stuff. I have no problem with that if you’re just going to be doing it in phases
and not cutting in utilities or anything else, just leaving it like it is.
Brown. You know, and depending on what the Highway District would require –
Bird: Yeah. That’s another thing.
Brown: I mean we might have to stub the bridge and if we needed to fence that, I totally understand that.
Bird: Okay. Thanks, Kent.
Corrie: Any other questions?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: In the file it has a letter in there from Idaho Power that says they can’t provide power to that area.
Brown: (inaudible) September of this year is what the letter said.
De Weerd: Then they could do the whole thing?
Brown: The letter doesn’t lead you to believe any otherwise but, my discussions with Idaho Power today. They told us that they would have the ability for us to have power at least for
the first 2 or 3 phases without any changes to substations or anything else. Power is an issue with Idaho Power throughout the whole valley. They’re getting substations approved. Meridian
is one of the areas that they need those.
Corrie: Okay. Any other comments, questions? Okay. Thank you Kent.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I do have a question for Gary. Was a water analysis done? And have the pressure issues been resolved?
Smith: I’m not sure, Council Member de Weerd. I don’t recall what the results were of the water model. It seems like we didn’t have an issue with the lower portion of Tuscany, off of
Locust Grove over toward Ridenbaugh. After we get into the area above Ridenbaugh and going up north and east, then we have a pressure issue that would most probably requires the pump
station to be installed in Thousand Springs.
De Weerd: What is the time frame on that?
Smith: The pump station? We don’t have a time frame for that right now.
De Weerd: Thanks, I think.
Corrie: Any other questions for staff? This is a continued Public Hearing. Is there anyone here that wants to testify for the project? Okay. We have 3 signed here against the project.
The first one is Herman Pullman.
Pullman: Mr. Mayor. Herman Pullman. I live at 4010 south Locust Grove Road. My biggest thing I have against, of course this subdivision, is that we’ve lived there for 30 years. Some
of our house is on the southwest corner on Locust Grove. It’s going to totally destroy our quality of life as far as we have to see it now because of the solitude, the view and so on.
Another concern I have is, of course, the water table. That’s a very high water table there and I hope that the design that they come up with, that it alleviates those problems. Otherwise
it’s going to continue. I’m not an engineer so I don’t have any way of knowing how to do that but it is definitely a problem. Also, the increased traffic. The City of Meridian all we
hear is problems with the fire department, the city police, the manning, so on. I don’t see how building more subdivisions helps alleviate that problem. I think it’s really a situation
where, possibly the people, you as a Council need to, I’m not trying to tell you what to do but you need to really seriously consider anymore subdivisions until you do get some of the
problems taken care of that we hear about continually through the news media. That’s all I have.
Corrie: Okay. (inaudible) Rex Young?
Young: My name is Rex Young. I live at 2950 east Victory Road, Meridian. I’ve been before you folks before and I don’t want to cover a lot of the same ground
that did last time but there are some things that I want to talk about concerning those issues. The first item that I wanted to mention. This was discussed during the Planning and Zoning
and I didn’t hear it discussed by Mr. Brown tonight. It’s my understanding that they’re going to berm along Victory Road. I live just across the road from the proposed subdivision to
the north and kind of the east side of them. There was discussion during Planning and Zoning that they would berm all along Victory Road, but I didn’t hear you mention that tonight.
I wanted to make sure that we got that on the record. I do not, well, I prefer the subdivision didn’t go in, but I don’t really object to the annexation. I don’t abject to the zoning.
The plat is where I had the problem. Primarily with that roadway that exits the subdivision to the north on Victory. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. I brought a picture
with me tonight. I’d like to show this to you. This is a picture of my property. It’s an aerial photo. The top of the picture is north. Here’s Victory Road, running here. You see this,
I have this hedge along here that shields me from the roadway. That roadway that exits the subdivision to the north is 3 paces to the east of that shot. You can understand the relationship
of this picture why I object to that exit at that particular place.
(inaudible discussion)
Young: These are the windows that we’re talking about that I have concerns about. With the vehicle exiting that. After Victory is widened and I lose that hedge, these are the windows
right here from car lights that flash onto (inaudible).
Brown: Is that your dining room?
Young: That is the kitchen dining area. Now, as I indicated sometimes common sense ought to prevail. I propose that, that exit be moved to the west so that it lines up with the exit
from Thousand Springs which is Brandy’s Jewel. The school, when they met with, -- when a representative met during Planning and Zoning they were concerned about having a direct walkway
from Thousand Springs to get down to the school site. If that was redesigned so that that exit lined up with Brandy’s Jewel, that would resolve that. It would give them a good direct
route to the school site. If it’s left where it’s out, it will increase the walking distance each day for the children that walk by about a quarter of a mile. Met with Ada County Highway
District, with Mr. Brown one day and we talked about that alignment. They indicated by letter that they would approve, or that’s the way I understood it, they would approve relocating
that exit so that it lined up with Brandy’s Jewel. However they did put the stipulation in there that if there was a pedestrian crossing put in there to support the school, that they
would have to move that pedestrian crossing to the top of the, kind of the crest of the hill. I went down and walked that today from the sidewalk that exits Thousand Springs, it’s 9
paces to the crest of that hill where that pedestrian walkway would be relocated to which is really not very far. So, it just makes sense to me to align that. At sometime or another,
they’re going to have to put a traffic light in there. You’re
going to end up with one traffic light that takes up 2 exits and take care of a pedestrian crossing. To me it just makes sense. Anybody have any questions of me?
Corrie: (inaudible) we’re suppose to take that picture as evidence to keep, (inaudible).
Young: I can take it in and make a copy of it.
Corrie: Thank you.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes, Mr. Bird?
Bird: I do have one question while Mr. Young is up here, not for Mr. Young but for the City Clerk. We got a letter from them. It wasn’t stamped. Did you guys get it or did it come direct
to us? Do you have it entered into the record? Dated June 2nd.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: Did you get one, Mayor?
Anderson: I know it wasn’t in an envelope because it’s not folded.
Bird: See, it wasn’t folded. I can’t remember if Mr. Young gave it to us at the meeting, the last meeting. I don’t believe so. I believe it was in our boxes but it wasn’t stamped. That’s
why I was wondering if it had come through the City Clerk’s office.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: Yeah, and there’s an attachment that went to the Planning and Zoning (inaudible). You do have it? That’s good.
Young: That particular letter. I wasn’t sure if I was going to be here last time and I brought 9 copies of that, I actually brought 12 copies into the City Clerk’s office before we had
the last hearing on it and gave those to them.
Bird: I just wanted to make sure it was in public because usually the City Clerk, when they receive it will stamp it and then we know it’s been through (inaudible).
Corrie: Mary, I’m sorry. D, something and I couldn’t quite read it out but if you would give us –
DeChambeau: My last name?
Corrie: Yes.
DeChambeau: DeChambeau.
Corrie: DeChambeau. Well, I thought it was that.
DeChambeau: We go by the Mortener name also. Obviously, I am the youngest daughter of Marlene Mortener. I am here to represent her. Unfortunately for the developer, she is still alive
and well, trying to be anyway. I just have so many concerns. Just so many concerns about this subdivision. First of all, my one statement is that I’m not against development but I think
at this time, this is not the time for this development in this area. I think it’s time for Meridian to slow down and take a good look at how we’re rushing this stuff in. They say they’re
legal because it touches the other subdivision. Well, my farm is legal because it touches other farms. I mean how do you justify that kind of reasoning. We have been farming it for close
to 70 years. My family has been there. You know, we’ve been here supporting this community. You guys forget that the farmers supported Meridian and built it up a long time. You know,
Don Storey’s business, the Zamzow’s. You know, all the little businesses that have been here for a long, long time. My concern is a lot of, like I said before, I guess I haven’t for
you folks but I already have problems with people walking up and down that canal. It’s an ongoing daily problem. The family’s very concerned about someone falling in. We’re liable. I
think you realize that we pay the taxes on the canal but it’s an easement for the Irrigation District. I think a lot of people don’t realize that. It’s an easement that we have given
them, through the property. That’s how canals work but we still pay the taxes on it. Most people understand that. So, we are liable. You know if something happens. A lot of questions,
I wish I could have seen this as he was pointing it out because no one’s talked to us about fencing. No one’s talked to us about the final report of the water. It really is concerning
us about our irrigation. This is farmland. We plan to farm for a while. We’re asking the city to work with us. Everyone talks about how Meridian’s growth is out of control. I mean even
at the last meeting, you didn’t have the staff report ready. I mean, that indicates to me they’re overworked. The other problem I have is when I go in to find answers, no one will tell
me anything. I think they’re either afraid that they don’t know the answer or they’re afraid I’m going to use their words against them. How can I make a decision as a property owner
and how can you make decisions when we’re only getting half-truths. Idaho Power told me that if we didn’t let those big huge lines go across our property that we couldn’t subdivide because
they’d never be able to give us power. But, all of a sudden, these guys have power. That was told to me not once, but several, several times. The reason we fought that, we weren’t against
power to the area but when a developer sells them an acre and a half and gets 120 grand and Idaho Power wants 30,000 just to give us our acre and a half easement and we still get to
pay
the taxes on it. Our issue was they needed to change the way they did business. It wasn’t like we were trying to – but I didn’t like being threatened that we’d never be able to develop
this because there’s no power and all of a sudden there’s power. The reason I’m trying to tell you this is the Mortener family can’t get any straight answers from anybody. I don’t think
it’s fair and to me that indicates that something’s terribly wrong here and we need to slow down. We need to slow down. No one had ever sat down with the Mortener family about the park
situation. N one has ever sat down with the Mortener family and discussed a bike path or a greenbelt with us. But, all the developers know. The morning after we had this last meeting,
I had 2 developers at my door at 8:00. They were absolutely astounded that you guys tabled it. They thought we’d be ready to sell because you approved this subdivision. Yesterday, I
went to get the mail and my mail carrier said I understand you’re having a subdivision put around the back part of your property. I said well, who told you that. She said my supervisor
told me that I’d be probably having to take that on. I said, that’s interesting, they haven’t even voted on it yet. So, who informed the post office of this if we haven’t even decided
yet. I’m not quite sure how this all works. I feel like I’m at a loss. I feel like I’m a rookie. I feel like I don’t know any of the developers. I don’t have anything to gain. I don’t
have anything to lose. I’m just a kid who’s trying to protect my mom’s farm, speak for her because she can’t be here. I mean I question you know a lot of the suggestions and things that
they say they’re going to do. Take a drive out to my farm and look at how much of that litter is rolling through our corn field as we irrigate it. I’ve asked them 2 or 3 times to clean
it up. They’ve never discussed what kind of fence to put around. They’ve never discussed what kind of pipes. I feel like when it effects the neighbor, -- You have to realize this is
a business for us. This is our business. Farming is a business. It’s not just you know, we’re worried about a view. I’m sorry, excuse me gentlemen, lights in our windows. No. I’m not
worried about that at that point because that part of our livability’s already gone. I have no view of the mountains. I have cars coming up. I have 2 entrances on either side of my house
already. I’m not worried about that anymore. I’m just worried about the ability if you put more houses around there, it’s. You know the saying, farms and city and houses don’t mix. There’s
a reason why people live in the city and there’s a reason why the farms are out further. I know the growth is coming but you have a chance here to make some right decisions and slow
things down. Look what they want to do with the foothills. All of a sudden they realize that they’re going to run out of open space. So, they want to protect it. I don’t know. The other
thing that concerned me that I know it’s a dead issue but I just have to bring it up. It was not a misunderstanding and I think you’re all smart enough to realize that about that road
going across that little v shape there. They intentionally submitted that plat to the city. That was not a misunderstanding between Greg Johnson and Briggs Engineering. We had to draw
it to their attention that no, my mother hadn’t died yet and no we weren’t going to sell it yet. Even the City of Meridian staff are shaking their heads still over that. What concerns
me about it, is that they’re going to stand up here and tell you that half-truth, what else are they not telling you. You know this is what concerns me. They say, well you don’t like
developers. I like developers. I just don’t like human beings that tell people the total truth about what happens in these developments. To me a half-truth is just as bad as an outright
lie. I’m just asking, you know I don’t know how you guys can do it. I mean I can’t make a decision. I don’t know how the sewer’s going. When I go in and ask about the sewer thing, the
staff can not give me an answer. They told me that we’d run out of flushes. I guess Caven can’t put in houses down the road because there is no power. I mean, it goes on and on. I’ve
had people calling me up this week. We saw in the paper where they want to put a park in south of Thousand Springs. Is that your property? I said I don’t know no one’s talked to us about
it. I feel like we don’t even own this property anymore. I feel like everyone’s making decisions and you know, I’ve been a citizen here for a long time. You know I know this has nothing
to do with whether you should approve this or not but I think you need to hear this because this is what people out there are telling me. You know and I have people telling me why do
you even bother to come because they don’t listen to you anyway and I said because with that attitude how are they going to know? You know if somebody doesn’t stand up and say something,
how are you guys going to make a decision if you don’t hear this? If you’re isolated, that’s what happens if people don’t hear what the public’s thinking. That’s why you don’t see the
neighbors here. Part of the reason the neighbors aren’t here is because they’re on illegal splits and they’re scared to come in here and testify. That’s why you’re not seeing any of
the neighbors complaining. We could have, the Mortener family could have protested it but we were awful kind of nice and kind of let them. There’s just a lot of stuff that I don’t understand
goes on here. I am like totally confused. You know, when I go in there to try to find an answer, I can’t get it. I get told everything different. This has been going on – you have to
realize developers have been approaching our family for 20 some years. My mother started going to these meetings in 1973 and they told us this would all be farmland (inaudible). We’ve
been hanging out at these meetings for a long time. I realize that the situation has changed but I’ll tell you--. It just seems like you’ve got the opportunity to slow things down. The
voters spoke a couple weeks ago. They don’t want anymore taxation. I know you need the services. I’ll get off my soap box but it just seems like this is now not the time to put this
particular subdivision has got a lot of problems not to mention that. You know what the neighborhood thinks about that school location? They all told me it sucks. I don’t know how to
put it in any other way. It is ridiculous when we’ve got this much land, this is not Seattle, to be sticking schools in crappy places. You know whenever I tell people they just go,
they’re going to put it where? I don’t know what they’re thinking. You know I mean maybe they think it’s a good place. But, I’ll tell you what if I had a kid I wouldn’t let him go there.
That Ridenbaugh is a very dangerous, dangerous canal. Very dangerous. I guess my parents just loved me a lot more because we were never allowed to walk along that as children and we
owned it. Thank you very much.
Corrie: Thank you. You kind of hit on 4 or 5 different things but thank you. I mean, you’ve got the school and the power. We can’t do much about that but I
appreciate your thoughts on this, though Mary. We’ve discussed other things too. Is there anyone else that wants to issue testimony on this?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. I would like to kind of address a couple of things that Mary had brought up. One is, the reason why the post office knows is, we have to route the submittals
to a number of agencies. We need to. They have to have the opportunity to comment and since they are a service to these areas that would be developed, they need to know what’s coming
up. That’s one issue. Another issue is you mentioned no one approached you as far as parks or pathways or anything else. We have a Comprehensive Plan and we right now are in the middle
of updating it. So, we’ve had a number of Public Hearings and a number of public workshops so there is an amount of awareness out there of where parks are being targeted, not developed.
But, where we would like to have open space and parkland. Those have been informed through meetings and that sort of thing. So, they might have picked up that information from there.
Certainly –
DeChambeau: It was in the paper.
De Weerd: -- and in the paper. We have a master plan for our park system that hasn’t been approved yet by City Council but we’ve had a group of citizens working on it. The newspaper
does follow those things. Those are 2 areas. As far as the piping or fencing, I hope that the developer will be able to respond to you on that. They’re just piping their side of the
Ridenbaugh or they’re fencing their side of the Ridenbaugh. That should keep the people out. I agree with you on the school.
DeChambeau: Well, the other thing is you know our property borders all along there and like I said, we’re getting the trash from their other subdivision on our property. I guess my point
is, is I’ve alerted them to it, every meeting. They all know about it and they still haven’t taken care of it.
De Weerd: This isn’t the same developer though.
DeChambeau: Yeah, it is.
De Weerd: Oh, is it?
(inaudible discussion)
DeChambeau: Yeah, it is.
De Weerd: Well, it’s not the same application so I hope the developer is listening and they go pick up garbage. One other thing is I understand the plight of the farmer. I wish
that in our areas of impact there was something we could do, but the farmers are selling out their land and they have the right to sell it off.
The buyer has the right to do with it what is in our Comprehensive Plan. Right, wrong or indifferent, you know Idahoans hold property rights near and dear to their heart.
DeChambeau: No, I understand that.
De Weerd: Unfortunately, you know we see this across our whole area of impact. So, we are planning and we are trying to deal with that growth and we’re trying to do that in a logical
manner.
DeChambeau: And I agree.
De Weerd: I do appreciate you coming in and giving testimony.
DeChambeau: I agree because with the planning and that type of thing but that’s what I’m saying. You’ve got the county line. We are not annexed in. Part of this hearing tonight is whether
this will be annexed in right? Is that correct?
De Weerd: Yes.
DeChambeau: So, you know we already got our tax bill. They’re already really jumped it up and we’re not even annexed yet. You know, what you want to do is annex around us, right? Is
that correct?
De Weerd: That’s the proposal.
DeChambeau: That is part of the proposal. I’m just saying that to me that is you have the time to slow this down. You have a time to slow down the growth of Meridian. I mean, if you
talk to the sewer people, (inaudible)—
Corrie: Just wrap up what you’re --. We’ve got a long agenda ahead of us.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you Mary. Okay. There’s no other testimony. You have some questions Kent. One of them was the water table and then the berm along Victory road, exits. Any comments on
that?
Brown: Mr. Pullman, (inaudible) I got his name wrong once and I had an employee that was a Pullin and I mispronounced his name and I apologize. The groundwater study talks about, that’s
in from our engineer speaks to his area and that there is not a need for the cut off trench that we had originally proposed in that area. Still, we have to maintain the 3 foot higher
elevation from the ground water. That was discussed in our Preliminary Plat hearing before P&Z. Less of the ground is going to be covered up with houses and streets but obviously, that’s
the way our design is the way it is, So, that we can take care of that ground
water. Mr. Young’s comments, yes we are putting a berm. I apologize to him. It’s shown on our landscape plan, our architectural drawing that we have. The road access, Mr. Young and I
did meet with the Highway District. This was after the hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission. When you get the minutes of the meeting, they asked that we do that and ask our
engineer to restudy that. As you read his comments, he would rather the road stay where it’s at. We talked about, with him why is that, he says a cross generates more traffic. The road
would need to be re-graded. Victory Road would need to be re-graded. Those are things that the Highway District would do. He’s not sure that even when they widen the road, that they’re
going to do that in the future. He says that the Thousand Springs location barely meets the minimums. In our meeting with him, he stated that it was in his opinion that they shouldn’t
have put it there. From their in-house staff, he didn’t want that Thousand Springs location there. He does not want to compound it by having it line up. Which comments do you want me
to speak to on Mary’s?
Corrie: Any of the comments that the Council –
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Kent, you were talking about the engineer. Was that ACHD’s engineer that said they didn’t want it moved across?
Brown: Yes. It was Joe Rosalind in that letter that you have that doesn’t have a --. It came as a fax to Steve and myself from Christy Richardson, The fax page dated June 1st.
Bird: I’m not a traffic engineer but it just makes sense to me that, that exit being across from the Thousand Springs exit makes more sense to me than having 2 exits onto within a quarter
mile, they’re not even a quarter mile. Within a quarter mile of the roadway you’ve got 2 entrances onto Victory Road. I do realize that Thousand Springs, if I remember right is down
right off the – kind of in the lower part of the little rim up there. Like I say, I’m not a traffic engineer.
Brown: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bird. In the staff report on April 13th from your own staff, it summarized the different discussions that they had. Christy Richardson submitted a letter
from ACHD dated April 11th. It’s the one that Mr. Rosalind makes mention of. They do not want to move the road to the proposed location of Tuscany Road. The proposed location to the
east is the safest. That was a concern of the P&Z and you know we’ve gone back and forth with this. Prior to this project being my project, Becky Bowcutt did the layout of the eastern
portion and she met with tech reviews with them. We’d have lined it up way before we did anything else. We know how critical those exits and entrances to the development are. It changes
your traffic report. You can modify things within
the development and it has less of an impact but when you mess with the exterior and the traffic generation and everything else is different.
Bird: You’re right there.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Kent, did you meet with the neighbor to the, Mary and her mom?
Brown: we had a neighborhood meeting with all of the neighbors from the development in December. We talked about our proposed project. We had been in these meetings and discussed irrigation.
Bruce Freckleton explained to her that state law requires us and Meridian is concerned that we continue irrigation water to and through, to them. In these meetings, as I did tonight,
we talked about that we’re going to fence those properties. They’re going to be fenced with chainlink or wrought iron fence. My client hasn’t proposed cedar on anything in the development
so there’s no weed or fence burning issues.
De Weerd: But, when you look at it, their piece of property is the one that you impact the most and you probably should have been talking to them about the fencing specifically.
I don’t know what the concerns were on piping, or size of or whatever. You really should be talking to them directly on the fence.
Brown: The piping is something that definitely --. We haven’t done engineering drawing and that’s where we were going to talk to them about the piping. This I way premature to spend
more money on a project that you guys might not approve at this point to talk about irrigation and how that is going to get to their property. The reassurances have been made in all
of the public meetings that it’s going to get to them. If we don’t do it, I mean, we can get sued. I mean state law is pretty particular about how we get the water to them. We do abut
the Mortener property along our eastern portion here. Where our property line meets them is in the center of the canal. We are fencing all of the canal right-of-way, which is 50 to 75
feet anywhere from them. It’s well on our property. When we’re on the other side of the Ridenbaugh Canal, as I explained when we cross here, we’ll fence access from the Ridenbaugh. It’s
going to be back here. It’s not going to be anywhere near their property. When we go along here, this is the portion that we abut the Mortener farm and that’s for the most part is going
to be wrought iron fence. My client doesn’t want, for the type of homes that he’s putting in here, he wants to put wrought iron fence against them. Six-foot high wrought iron fence.
Which would comply with your fencing requirements at the subdivision. That allows them the ability to still farm and do that. He doesn’t want to put chainlink there, but that would be
the other option that we would have to allow them to be able to maintain their ditches and things around their property.
De Weerd: As well, Mr. Pullman had brought up the water table with drainage you’re all putting in, that should significantly improve that.
Brown: Drop it. Yes it should.
De Weerd: I still lastly have the issue of the school site. I know, he said his preference to me would be an opening along the front side.
Brown: What you understand –
De Weerd: Not a road opening but the front side because we’re talking frontage roads.
Brown: What you understand over the phone and what he pointed out to me, I guess you can be like Mary and call me a liar –
De Weerd: I really don’t have an interest in doing that.
Brown: I didn’t think so. This is the portion where he said we might look at opening that up and asked me if that was a possibility and I said yes. I said what we want to do is whatever
school site – in the previous hearing I testified that if you look on your Preliminary Plat drawing, the current configuration is a cross. That’s the type that they’re using. They’re
looking at going to a v shape. The v shape, depending on how that best fits the site. You know, they might have it open up down here. He said that we can probably anticipate that we’re
going to have 2 entrances or an entrance and an exit so that the buses, so forth can flow. His comment in the P&Z really hasn’t changed in the fact he says you know if we can have the
flexibility to work with that site in this location so that he can best fit his school on there. That’s what he would like for you to approve. That’s his comments to me and I guess in
a court of law that would be hearsay but that’s what he told me.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Let’s get one thing clear. Did the school district buy that or did you donate that ground to them?
Brown: The school has not purchased it. They have it on a list. I’m on one of the committees for them locating school sites, helping them find those.
Bird: So, that’s not 100 percent guaranteed that’s going to be a school site?
Brown: It is not 100 percent guaranteed but they do have money set aside for buying school sites. They bought the Pepper Hills one. They are interested in this one. They need one in
this mile section.
Bird: But, if something should come up, a better location or something, they’re not – they can certainly (inaudible).
Brown: They can definitely move it. We would have to come back –
Bird: I just wanted to clarify that.
Brown: -- with another plat for that portion.
Bird: (inaudible)
Brown: Especially if you set up the meeting that you’re talking about, maybe.
De Weerd: It needs to get resolved.
Brown: In our discussion this spot is 5 to 7 years away. From our property we are fencing all of the canals. There won’t be any access that we’ll provide to the Ridenbaugh Canal, that
they will be fenced in compliance with your ordinance. So, that they have no access but we still have to provide a means for the ditch rider and others to get there. There are going
to be gates where we cross the Ridenbaugh Canal, they’ve got a nice road.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Kent, I think to be a good neighbor, and it’s what I brought up before that where you’re bounding up to the farm there, when you start construction. We all know when you start
construction, you’re going to have paper blowing and everything. That’s open out through there so it’s going to blow out through there. I don’t think it would be a bad policy to go ahead
and fence that north section of your property and even come down to the Ridenbaugh on the return down south there. I think it would certainly make nice for the neighbors. Of course your
first phase, you’re going to come across and do your south boundary. You know how construction can be.
Brown: I sure do Mr. Bird. Maybe I’d make a suggestion we could put up a construction fence that would help alleviate that. I would not be opposed to having that as a requirement that
--.
Bird: You go to a lot of construction sites, I don’t care how many signs you put up or anything else, debris does get blown all over the place.
Brown: So, you’re talking about that being at the first phase, just to clarify that?
Bird: Yeah. I think you need to really work with the neighbors out there on the deal Kent. You know I think you just need to make sure that the debris isn’t blowing all over because
evidently they’re getting it. They’ve had to live with it for Thousand Springs. During the construction of that. She said it was coming –
Brown: It comes across from Sherbrooke that’s right across the street –
Bird: Yeah, Sherbrooke and Thousand Springs.
Brown: And I’m sure it comes from Thousand Springs too because it’s elevated.
Bird: You know, I’m on construction sites everyday.
Johnson: Council, I’m Greg Johnson. I live at 2433 CanAda Road in Melba. Councilman Bird, I think the best solution for the fencing would be if, when we come into the first section that
goes to the Ten Mile, we will put all the permanent fencing in that section. When we cross the Ten Mile, we’ll put all the permanent fencing in along the Eight Mile on the west side
and the portion that wraps around the Ridenbaugh there. So that, even if it’s a phase that’s only in the north half, that that whole section is fenced. Then when we cross the Eight Mile,
we would put the permanent fencing along the Mortener’s property and wrap it all the way into the Ridenbaugh. It’s not going to eliminate the problem but it will make it as good as we
can do. As we go through those sections, we’ll put up the permanent fencing at that time. (inaudible)
Bird: That would be agreeable.
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions?
Bird: I have none Mayor.
Corrie: Staff? Okay.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: How long is she going to be?
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: As soon as she gets back here, we’ll have her enter that. Then we can close it. Okay, we’ll notify it in the record that this is a letter to Steve Siddoway from Christy Richardson
principal –
***End of Side Two***
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Yeah, I opened it all up. So, we’ll close them one at a time.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we close the Public Hearing on the request for annexation and zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed subdivision by Gem Park II Partnerships.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s been made. Do I hear a second.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second to close the Public Hearing on the request for annexation and zoning No. 023. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Discussion on the request for annexation and zoning?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess I’m really struggling with this piece of property being contiguous. When I look at the piece of property it only has 3 or 400 feet of frontage that currently is adjacent
to our city limits and that’s clear in the very last phase of development. So, as this project gets developed and as the phases go in, in effect for the next 7 to 10 years, while this
is being developed, we’ve done spot annexation. It will not be contiguous. So, I have some real concerns. I mean it looks like the sewer is going to come off from Locust Grove and probably
of the neighborhood of this subdivision will be completely built out before this thing ever becomes contiguous to the city limits which is something that we’ve been trying to avoid completely.
Then I also have some reservations I guess about the water pressure in the area. We talked about this area to the north and the east is going to need some type of additional pressure.
The access roads bother me too. Just putting a little access road off that one cul de sac really only gains you access if that main entry’s blocked – if that first intersection’s blocked,
it only gains you access to about a dozen lots or so. The idea behind secondary access is so that
you can access the entire subdivision and I don’t think this does a very good job of that. As Herman mentioned earlier, I think there’s several issues that we ought to be thinking about.
This is 353 homes and our recent attempt at increasing our mill levy so that we can beef up the police and fire so that we can cover our exploding population failed. To be continually
adding these large subdivisions like this is totally ludicrous to me. It’s just adding more problems to what we already have. I think the fact that the roads are narrow roads. There’s
no plans to upgrade these roads for at least 20 years. The fact that the schools are over crowded in the area. The fact that Idaho Power is questioning their ability to even provide
power at this point and it was just September 1st until they stared the process and well into 2000 before they thought they could even come up with it and that’s if everything goes smooth
for them. What if that snags along the way? What if they don’t get their approvals? I just think this subdivision is a little bit ahead of its time right now. It doesn’t really meet
the ideal conditions for approving it. To me it would just be another example of Meridian approving something that we don’t need at this point.
Corrie: Any other comments? IF there are no other comments then I will entertain a motion then on the request for annexation and zoning.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we deny this request for a Preliminary Plat approval for 353 building lots and 39 other lots – Or annexation and zoning. Sorry, I’m reading the
wrong one here. For the 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes subdivision and instruct the city Attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s been made for a denial of request for annexation and zoning. Is there a second?
McCandless: I second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion been made and seconded to deny the request for annexation and zoning of the AZ 00-023. Any further discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: (inaudible) away from listening to me. I think this is a nice looking project and it will be a good addition to our community. But I agree with Councilman Anderson, it’s
not time for it yet. I guess my concern is certainly we have power restrictions in there. Water pressure concerns in half of the
subdivision. Roadway issues certainly. School issues that we need to clear up with the school district. But, this also opens up a new area to development. Because one little piece is
contiguous to the city, this is going to open up a huge are. I know that the hardship of the farmers are really driving a lot of this. But, as we’re trying to do in the north corridor
with an overlay and plan for this area. I would not be opposed to including the southern part of our area of impact in that as well because we’re stretched. We’re stretched in services.
There’s speculation abound with our open space and our fire. We do have a substation down there that we don’t have the money to build yet. So, there are a number of issues. Even though
I like the project, I just don’t think it’s time for it yet. In all good conscience I can’t support it.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I’ve been concerned all along about police protection and fire protection out there so far from. We have enough trouble with what we have now without adding more until we
can build like Tammy said, a fire station out in the south. I’m worried about the roads going into the subdivision because there doesn’t seem to be very many. I don’ think they have
a good access to it. Other than that, I too think it’s a beautiful addition. But, it’s just a little bit before it’s time, or after it’s time.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I’ll give my 2 cents worth. This will probably be more in the plat. And I’m not a designer but I think the road, -- it looks like a jigsaw puzzle to me. I don’t like the layout.
I don’t like the – they don’t have enough entrances and exits. Fire and police don’t worry me. We grew 264 percent in the 10 years but our fire and police grew over 300 percent so we
can grow with that. I’m not worrying about that. I think that this area is not ready for this yet. I think that the roads and just the subdivision needs to have more entrances, exits.
I don’t see how fire trucks and stuff can get in and around there that well. It’s one we turned down before that had the same kind of deal. I just like the design of it.
Corrie: Okay. Any other comments? Then the motion is for the Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Denial of the annexation and zoning of the Tuscany
Lakes subdivision. With that in mind, your voting aye would be for the denial, naye would be for the approval. Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: I will entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on the request for Preliminary Plat.
Anderson: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to close the Public Hearing on the Preliminary Plat. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion for the Preliminary Plat.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we deny the request for a Preliminary Plat for 353 building lots and 39 other lots on 156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Tuscany Lakes subdivision
and instruct the city Attorney to draw up the appropriate Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and seconded to deny the Preliminary Plat and have the attorney draw up the proper order, Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Now, item No. 12 is a – I’ll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing for the request for a Conditional Use Permit.
Anderson: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second to close the Public Hearing on the request for Conditional Use Permit CUP No. 052. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion then for the denial of the Conditional Use Permit.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we deny the 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 and instruct the city Attorney to draw up the appropriate Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second to deny the CUP for item CUP 00-052 and for the Attorney to draw up the proper Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. 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 have a question for the attorney. Did we give enough reasons for the denial, to put into the findings?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Councilwoman de Weerd, I believe so. The annexation and zoning is a legislative act. I will put down the reasons espoused by Councilman
Anderson as a reason for that. Then on the other 2, because the property’s not annexed, that would be the reason cited for not approving the Preliminary Plat or the Conditional Use Permit.
There’s a way I would word the findings.
De Weerd: Could any comments brought up after the Public Hearing was closed, be included in those findings? To address all those different issues –
Nichols: That’s not public testimony. That was just discussion by the Council, so that’s appropriate.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I am concerned that this application might go to the county so I want to make sure that the reasons for our denial are clear.
Nichols: CouncilWoman de Weerd, Mayor, Members of the Council. I will make them as clear as I perceive the motion to be. There are separate issues. If the application goes to the county.
If the application goes to the county, it would not be connected to city sewer and it would have a different proposal for water.
Item 13. Continued Public Hearing from June 5, 2001: 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:
Item 14. Continued Public Hearing from June 5, 2001: 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. 13 is the continued Public Hearing from June the 5th. This is a 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 Traveler’s Corner by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. southeast of interstate 84 and Meridian Road. At this time I will continue the Public Hearing and have staff
comments first.
Stiles: In the beginning, I was wondering if we could address the variance before we act on the plat? Or go with item 14 on the variance where the cul de sac linked before the plat.
Either that or address both of them together.
Corrie: Oh, well we can open them together. Mr. Nichols is that all right? We need to take the variance before we do the Conditional Use Permit, correct?
Stiles: Before the plat.
Nichols: Before the Preliminary Plat, Mayor I would recommend that we open both Public Hearings and include the testimony on both items.
Corrie: Okay. I also will continue the Public Hearing on the request for variance on the street length in the cul de sac from the maximum length of 450 feet to the increased length
of 495 feet for a park and ride lot by W. H. Moore company. We will give testimony on both the request for Preliminary Plat and on the variance at this point. Shari, thank you.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. This is for the property that has been previously been before you for the Ada County Highway District park and ride lot. It’s just west of Meridian Ford.
This would be Meridian Ford here. This is existing property in Ada County. It has a dwelling and some out buildings on it. They don’t
have much choice but to exceed the cul de sac length as this is approximately 60 feet wide here at Overland Road which will be a roadway. In order to access the Ada County Highway District
park and ride lot and also this area here which is proposed to be a Gold’s Gym at this time, they do need to exceed that. So, it was a clean up on their original submittal of a plat.
The 2 lot subdivision, that didn’t work out very well. That doesn’t show the plat very well here. The park and ride here as you see is what was previously approved through a Conditional
Use Permit and then this would be the Gold’s Gym area. We would recommend approval of the variance to the cul de sac length and also recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat with all
staff and agency conditions. We do need to add one additional condition that was not, I don’t believe it was shown before but it was clarification on the fencing on the southern boundary
here. That they would need to provide a fence to keep the horses from getting out into the field where they have this (inaudible) going. That would be part of their fencing requirement
for the plat.
Bird: A stock fence, or what kind of fence?
Corrie: Is it to keep them in or keep them out?
Bird: Hot wire?
Corrie: Any questions for staff? This is a Public Hearing. We’ll hear from the applicant at this point. You have 5 minutes.
Stiles: (inaudible)
Corrie: Jonathan can do it though.
Bird: Jonathan can do it.
Seal: Good evening Mayor, Council Members. My name is Jonathan Seal, W.H. Moore Company, 600 north Steelhead Boise Idaho. I can probably make this fairly short I think. Shari’s already
explained to you about the plat and the variance. I think she did a good job on that. We read through the staff report. We’re in agreement with that. We would simply ask tonight that
you approve both the variance as well as the plat which is basically the park and ride and what resulted in a residual lot which will ultimately be a Gold’s Gym, at least at this point.
I’d be glad to answer any questions that you have.
Corrie: Do you agree with this fencing?
Seal: Yeah. I think, Mayor, the issue with the fencing is really ACHD’s but we have talked, I have talked to Steve Stucoomeyer about that. They recognize that they have to put the fencing
up and they will put that up. That was an agreement as part of the Conditional Use Permit that apparently was left out in their
conditions. They acknowledge the fact that yes, they do need to do that. They currently right now have out to bid for construction of the road. The road will include the fencing and
all of the other various stuff that goes into it.
Corrie: Council, questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you.
Seal: You’re welcome. Shorter than 5 minutes?
Corrie: Thank you. You did a nice job. Is there anyone from the public that would like to issue testimony?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. I just want to remind Jonathan. You can’t save that for another application.
Corrie: Okay, hearing none, last call for anybody that has any testimony. Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on the request for the variance.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we close the 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 proposed park
and ride lot by W.H. Moore Company.
Anderson: Second
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second to close the Public Hearing for variance VAR 01-006. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Any further discussion? I’ll entertain a motion then for the variance request.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the request for a 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 the proposed
park and ride lot by W.H. Moore and for the Attorney to draw up the proper papers.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and seconded to approve the variance request and have the attorney draw up the proper papers. Any further discussion? Mr. Berg, roll call vote please.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: At this time I’ll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on the request for Preliminary Plat 008.
Anderson: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to close the Public Hearing on the Preliminary Plat 008. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion then for the request for the Preliminary Plat.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve the request for a Preliminary Plat for 1 building lot and 1 ACHD park and ride lot on 6.36 acres in a C-G zone for the proposed Traveler’s
Corner and instruct the city Attorney to draw up the appropriate Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and second to approve the request for Preliminary Plat PP 01-008 and have the attorney draw up the proper Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Could I request about a 5-minute break?
Corrie: Yes. Okay, we will take a 5-minute break and come back here at 10 minutes ‘til.
READJOURNED AT 8:43 P.M.
Item 15. Continued Public Hearing from June 5, 2001: 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: All right, I’ll call the meeting back to order. We will start with item No. 15 which is a continued Public Hearing from June 5, 2001. Requesting for a Conditional Use Permit
for a Christian Ministry for office space and the after care transitional home for men living as a group-living environment for 14 men and one live-in house supervisor in an R-4 zone
for Whole Life Restoration House by BASIC Outreach Ministries Inc. 1304 west First street. At this time I will open the continued Public Hearing and have staff’s comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. This is for the property located at 1304 west First Street. You have the recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission. A couple of the issues
that were raised in that recommendation were the use of signage on the house there. They are proposing one sign on the house. It would say welcome to BASIC Outreach Ministries Whole
Life Restoration House. This would need to be specifically approved. Even for home occupation, signage is prohibited. They would need to provide the appropriate paved parking areas as
outlined in the recommendation. The recommendation also states that the professional office use is prohibited as proposed. They are, in order to operate, they are required to get a certificate
of occupancy and meet all the fire and building code requirements. I believe they are operating at the present time. We did have some letters submitted in opposition. We, at first had
recommended denial of this application. However at the Planning and Zoning Commission there was not a great deal of opposition to the project. I believe the
applicant has done a good job of getting together with most of the neighborhood and explaining their program and has seemed to ward off some of the opposition of the surrounding neighborhood.
I didn’t see in my packet, any response from the school district. It is located not far from an elementary school. As you can see on the map, this would be the location here in an existing
home. This is the home that they are proposing to use and uses around the property. This is the rough site plan they have submitted showing parking off the alley and they would need
to meet the conditions of the Ada County Highway District and our staff in the requirements for paving and landscaping and other issues that were brought up at the Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting. That’s all the information I have to give you. If you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer them or turn it over to the applicant.
Corrie: Council, any questions of staff?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Is the applicant here this evening?
Durham: Yes, Mr. Mayor. My name is Mike Durham and I am the owner of the property at 1304 west First Street in Meridian. I serve as the executive director of the ministry of BASIC Outreach
Ministries who is proposing to establish the Whole Life Restoration House at this location. Basically, I’m sorry for a late response to the packet here. We’ve been waiting on some contractor
bids on the improvements that are required on the property. We have some specific problems with the 30 items that were listed here. The improvements that were necessary. Basically, what
we feel is happening here is the improvements that were requested, specifically the ADA requirement for this program are basically in excess of the value of the property. It’s going
to take more than the property is worth to comply with these improvements. Another thing that happened with this whole process that sort of took the wind out of our sails, when the office
use and the remodel on the garage was denied because basically we would have to go outside of the home there to provide space for our counseling services and our education services for
the home. That creates another financial hardship for the ministry as well as putting a strain on services here. What we, in essence are running here is a program that is a discipleship
program for men who have substance abuse issues who are coming out of drug and alcohol treatment environments. It is a religious based program and we don’t know where we legally stand
on the ADA issue, if in a discipleship house environment if compliance to the Americans with disability act is necessary. We know that there are an awful lot of discipleship homes in
the area that are not meeting those types of requirements and have not been asked to. In any case, the ministry needed to apply for this conditional use prior to purchasing the property.
We have a lease option on the property right now. My wife and I own the property but the ministry had the lease option. Basically, we needed to find out if this property was going to
work for us before we could move forward with any programming to
any extent. We do have 6 people living in the house right now. We are running a discipleship program in the house right now. If we have to comply with all 30 of these items within this
limited time frame, it’s going to take us at least a year to raise the funds necessary to make these improvements. It would severally limit the ministry’s ability if we’re not able to
run our programs. We don’t want to create any ill will with the city or the neighborhood on any way. If we have to comply with all these 30 items before we can move forward with any
programming then we’re going to need to go ahead and probably find a different property and at that time, we’d withdraw our application. What we would specifically like to ask is that
the compliance with ADA, could that be reconsidered by the Council and that our office use be considered not as a professional office use but as a home office use specifically for the
purposes of the ministry that’s being run in the home to the residents that would be in the home. With regard to the education center that we had planned for the garage area, we understand
that there are some issues there with the requirement for 2 garages. We want to be in compliance in every way possible. But, it does take the wind out of our sails. It does limit us
in our ability to raise funds. There is an awful lot of monies available out there in the way of grants and things for educational purposes. There’s not an awful lot of money available
for substance abuse after care or discipleship programs. So, there was a specific financial concern in wanting to establish the education center there also. The other part of wanting
to have the education center in that garage there was part of what needs to happen with these guys. In order to move them on and transition them properly we have to improve their earning
potentials. In order to improve their earning potential we need to improve their education. A lot of times that’s basic high school things. A lot of times that’s some computer training
and things of that nature. We have the computers. They’ve already been donated and it’s a necessary thing if we’re going to be successful in transitioning them and helping them to stabilize
in the community to be able to improve their earning potential. That’s about all I have. I don’t want to take up a lot of time. It’s getting late tonight.
Bird: Mr. Mayor
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mike, is this a work release house where they come and stay and stuff but they can work out.
Durham: Yes. All of the men that are in the house would be required to work full time. Full time is defined at least 32 hours per week. Each one of the men work and they pay their own
way in the house.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: No, it’s not a work release –
Durham: It’s not a correctional type place.
Bird: I’ve had young men work for me that lived in a similar house in Boise. I don’t know about on the handicap. What do you do if you have a handicap person come? ADA and I don’t know
where the law goes, or how it goes. I have always understood it (inaudible) which I take it this is open to the public?
Durham: Right.
Bird: Then when you remodel you have to come up to ADA standards.
Durham: Yeah. As our remodeling plans would move forward, we would of course want to comply. It’s the amount of time really –
Bird: I understand that.
Durham: -- that it would take to get us to that point that’s a real stumbling block to us. We’d want to comply eventually with all 30 of these items but it’s going to take us some time.
Bird: First of all I want to say that what you guys do is greatly appreciated from my aspect and I firmly stand behind you. I know that getting started like this with limited resources
is tough but I don’t know where we stand within the law, ourselves of what we can delay or put on a year’s basis or something like that to get it up to code. I don’t know how we can
do that. I for one would be willing to work anyway we could with you with this program because I have seen results of this program and it is a very good program.
Durham: One other thing that I wanted to mention. One of the items of the 30 was replacement of trees. I have contacted the parks department. There are the 2 trees that, one of them
it would be absolutely necessary to be removed to make room for our parking in the front area of the house. Both of these trees, we believe fall into the category of nuisance trees and
we contacted the parks department to see if they cannot be classified as that so that we would not have that item to deal with as well because they’re pretty substantial trees.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. While Mike’s here, I’d like to ask the attorney what does he say about the ADA and all of those compliances that –
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Councilman Bird, because this is a Conditional Use within this zone and because it’s converting the house from a single family residential
which is not required to meet ADA standards to essentially a public facility which is title 3 of the Americans with disabilities act.
That’s where the code requirements come in with regards to these standards. I believe that the Light House in that’s in Nampa on Nampa Caldwell Boulevard which provides a ministry very
similar to this had to meet the ADA and fire protection and building codes in Nampa before they could begin providing their ministry to those men in very similar circumstances to what
your target ministry is. The ADA is not a city code. It’s a federal law. Typically these changes in use have to meet all applicable local, state and federal codes. This is one of them
that has to be met in order for that certificate of occupancy to be issued for you to legally have these non-family members there on a less than a transitory basis. When Uncle George
comes to visit you don’t have to upgrade your house to ADA standards. But, when you have something like this when you have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. It would be the same
even if wasn’t a faith based ministry. If it were a business, a non-profit organization that provided these services and obtained their funds through grants and whatever and had no faith
based issues at all. They would be required to bring it up to ADA standards.
Bird: That’s what I was afraid of. I have no other questions, Mayor.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Anderson: I have one.
Corrie: Okay, Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: In your letter of response then – normally what happens and I understand you don’t do this on a daily basis like the developers. They write back and they write specifically
which of the conditions that they take an exception to. You just said that I can’t comply with all 30 but you’re not real specific about which things you can’t comply with other than
you mentioned the ADA. So, does that mean that there’s –
Durham: The ADA compliance is a big issue as far as the cost of the remodel for the house. Also there’s some egress issues in the basement if the office use is denied then why would
you ask for the egress in the basement? That’s a concern for us. The cost and expense of taking out and then replacing the trees in front were a major factor for us. Our parking that
was shown in our plan, we did not realize that they would be asking specifically for us to go as far down into the alleyway as they asked that we do that and some sidewalk replacements.
As we go through this, the cost is exorbitant and for us and it does exceed the value of the property itself. For a Christian ministry specifically, this just would not be good stewardship
for us to go out and raise the funds for a property that would never be worth that anyway. We should would love it if there was some way that we could work through this and get some
time extension and be able to go into a capitol campaign raise the funds and do the work that’s necessary. We definitely understand that there are some problems here with this property.
You kind of have to go through this process to find out what all these things are. There’s an
awful lot of those 30 items that could be listed. The reason that, in our position letter, basically, we’ve been waiting on some bids from contractors and those didn’t come in on time.
We had hoped to have some specific numbers to deal with and we don’t have specific numbers to deal with. So, that position statement was written about an hour before the meeting tonight.
I did that myself and that was just to kind of let you know the concern here for the ministry if we have to comply with all of the 30 items and we have to comply with them prior to being
able to receive a certificate of occupancy that would be cost prohibited for the ministry and basically put us out of business in this area and we’d have to go looking for another property.
Anderson: I almost hear you saying 2 separate things. One is you’re saying that if you were given enough time that you would comply with all 30 of these issues. Then I also hear you
saying that this piece of property you would be sinking too much money into it and that it would never, you’d never be able to recoup your expenses if it –
Durham: In that particular location, if you put that kind of money into it you would not be able to recoup those expenses. So, you would be talking about a long term use here for this
purpose. You would not be talking about trying to turn the property over anytime in the near future. We’d be talking about a long term use.
Corrie: Okay, anybody else? Okay. Mike, thank you.
Durham: Thank you.
Corrie: We have 5 people signed up to testify and would like to testify for this project. James Hughes? Sorry, but we can’t get you on record.
Hughes: I’m James Hughes. I’m president of the board of directors of BASIC Outreach Ministries. Mike has really talked quite a bit about our issue here. I think he has reiterated really
well where the board stands. We felt this was an opportunity for us to institute our first house in the area of Ada County. We now realize if really all 30 of those requirements are
to be met, that from the standpoint of capitol improvements it would just outweigh the cost of the property. Where we’re at with regard to starting the ministry is that we need to be
raising the money for the program and expanding that to help people. If we put all of the money and the resources that we have as a board of directors or as we start this ministry in
fund raising purposes for just improving the property we probably aren’t doing what we need to do for people. I think from our standpoint, we’d like to see any kind of latitude you might
allow us as you pointed out in terms of time that would allow us first of all to address the most pressing issues first. And secondly, maybe backing away from some of the more cosmetic
kinds of things. We, for example noticed that many of the houses in the area don’t have some of the requirements that you are listing. We’re wondering whether or not some of the least
expensive and consuming issues in terms of dollars, you would
back away from possibly. At this point I want to go ahead and turn this over to other members of our board that want to speak. We do appreciate very much that you’ve taken the time,
both the Planning and Zoning people when we met prior and for this Public Hearing as well. We know one thing. This problem is a real prevalent issue and we feel that. You know, Mr. Mayor
we’ve talked with you personally. We know that this is a good solution. We know we get results. We’re hoping that this is the location that we could be comfortable with and that the
neighborhood would be comfortable with that we could co-exist and we could do a service for the people in the community that need the service we provide. Thank you very much.
Corrie: Thank you James. Art Lane?
Lane: I’m Arthur Lane and I live in Boise Idaho and this is my wife the lovely Rosetta. So, you’re going to get a 2 for one here and we’ll try to keep it to the minutes –
***End of Side Three***
A. Lane: (inaudible) We’re the parents of the person who has graduated from this program. We’re very proud that our son was a part of this program. We’re proud that Mike is providing
this community and the Treasure Valley this service because it has changed his life. We would hope that Meridian would be a community where you could have this service to the community,
that you could effect people's lives, especially the parents. I’ll turn it over to the lovely Rosetta.
R. Lane: My name is Rosetta Lane and I am the mother of Sam Lane. We really didn’t have any – you know it’s hard to find some place to find help. Like Arthur said, our son has completed
the program, now has a good job and is doing very well. We’re thankful that he had the opportunity.
Lane: Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. (inaudible)
Durham: That was me.
Corrie: That was you? I’m sorry, Mike. I was thinking Michael. Okay, is it Richard?
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Oh, he has left? Okay. Is there anyone else here that would like to testify? Yes sir.
Butler: Mark Butler, 52 east State Street. I’m actually here for another item on the agenda but I have helped a couple of churches go through the process. Eagle City found a certain
aspect of law quite helpful in allowing a church to get through some of the structural requirements. Because as you know churches, often times especially when they’re starting are very
limited in funds. What they found helpful, and maybe the city attorney is aware of this or not aware of it. Maybe the Council and attorney could consider it. In 2000 the federal religious
freedom and institutionalized persons act was passed and allows a lot of flexibility for governing agencies to vary their requirements to a certain extent to allow churches to have a
little bit better foot hold in the community. Maybe that’s something you could look into. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else like to testify? Council, comments?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would like to make one comment. If it is at all legal I would be willing to help them along. The only thing I worry about and it’s not the ADA. I worry about the life safety,
the fire. When you get that many people in there what kind of alarm system do you have? Do you have enough exits? Do you have panics on the door so they can’t be permanently locked from
the inside, you can always get out? That would be one requirement if I was running the program that I would worry about is the life safety. The ADA, yes, it’s very important but I think
that it seems like some business get by with it some don’t. If there’s anyway possible legally, I am one Councilman that would like to help you because I have seen the results of your
program and I, as Mr. Lane said I’ve seen a couple of young kids come out of it that it really turned their lives around and made them worthy citizens and very good employees.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: A couple of comments. I’m not sure which way to go with this thing but I agree with Keith. This sounds like a very worthwhile program that really has an impact on people’s
lives. I think everybody sitting up here at this counter is very supportive of that. I guess the problem is, like Keith said, a lot of these specific requirements that are in here some
of them are cosmetic things but some of those are life safety issues like the exiting out of the basement and those types of things. I think there’s probably some flexibility that if
you wanted some additional time to work with staff, you indicated that you were just typing this letter out an hour before the meeting. But, if you would work with some of the staff
people maybe they could have some of these items that they could put some time frames on for you that you had to have these done within but the life
safety things, the critical things, would have to be done initially. I guess I would be glad to continue the Public Hearing to give you another 2 weeks or another month or whatever to
work on some of those items with staff and see if something could be worked out with them if that would be a desirable outcome.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Michael, if you could come up here and be on record I would be much more comfortable extending you some time, if we heard what you’re saying.
Durham: I’m sorry.
Corrie: Thank you.
Durham: Yes. If we could have another month to work with staff on this it would give us a lot better idea of where our position is and we’d have our bids in on the property and probably
be in a much better position to make a sound decision here on how to move forward.
Corrie: My other suggestion would be, ADA does concern me because if you start putting all of this in here, and I don’t know how they work. If they come in and say you have to cease,
then you’ve lost everything. Maybe you can talk to that division of the ADA or whoever’s in charge of that and maybe get some kind of a compensation for that. I think they would be willing
to work with you. I hope they would be because what you’re doing is fantastic and it gives other people a chance to straighten their lives out. Like Ron said, I think the safety issues
is a must. I mean, from what I understand you have some there now. If you had a fire there and somebody got killed or burned I would feel terrible, as you would I know. I think my recommendation
would be that they give you some more time and I think the Council seems to be leaning that way. I would encourage you to check with the ADA rules and just see how strict they’re going
to be on that –
Durham: I certainly will.
Corrie: -- because it would be tragic to have everything ready to go and we approve it. Then they come in and say, and they might be blind but sometimes they do some crazy things. Any
other questions or discussion of Council? Okay, Mike thank you. Council, what is your pleasure? Would you like to continue this for some time?
McCandless: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I will move that we continue this Public Hearing until July 17th to give them time to get their figure together and see what they can do and be with the staff.
Bird: I second that with one – would you mind moving it to the 31st?
McCandless: No. That’s fine.
Bird: Because sometimes when you get contractors and stuff trying to get prices and stuff you just can’t – We don’t have a meeting the 31st?
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: That’s the 5th one that’s right. The 24th is non-land issues.
Corrie: (inaudible) the first meeting in August.
Bird: Would you go for the first meeting in August, Council?
McCandless: Fine, Keith.
Bird: Sometimes getting bids and stuff on this stuff takes a while.
Corrie: That would be the 7th.
Bird: To the 7th of August. Would you agree with that Cherie?
McCandless: Yes. If that’s all right with them.
Corrie: It may take the government that long –
Bird: I’ll guarantee it’ll take the ADA that long to get back to them.
Corrie: Okay. We have a motion for the Council to continue the Public Hearing until August 7th. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 16. Continued Public Hearing from June 5, 2001: 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:
Item 17. Continued Public Hearing from June 5, 2001: 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. 16 is a continued Public Hearing from June 5th. This is a request for 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. At this time I will open, or continue the Public Hearing and reopen it. Staff comments? Oh, I think there’s another one.
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: Okay. Then number 17 is also a request for Preliminary Plat approval for 6 building lots. So, I will also open that continued Public Hearing. Both 16 and 17. Shari.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. This is for the property located south of Troutner Business Park. It also has what is known as the old Waltman home that is located on Waltman Lane.
Originally the applicant had requested zoning of L-O and C-G and it was in a specific configuration that went with the configuration of the lots that were proposed for the plat. However,
the applicant has reconsidered the market for those properties and is now requesting to zone the entire property C-G instead of the mixture of L-O and C-G. Initially when they had come
in. We had wanted the L-O particularly adjacent to the existing residential areas. However, since that time the Ada County Highway District has constructed some very large drainage ponds
in part of the area that would have been L-O. We don’t really have the desire to have that be a mixture at this point. Also the plat was being revised to be more marketable to a wide
range of potential users. The property is also along Ten Mile Creek. As part of the development agreement for the project, the applicant had agreed to dedicate a pathway area adjacent
to Ten Mile Creek. The applicant has submitted a position statement regarding 2 items. Maybe Tom can address this pathway. Item 4, the owner agrees, states that he agrees to deed the
dedicated pathway to the city but the development of the pathway would be by others. What was written in the comments was that, that was suppose to be coordinated with the Meridian Parks
director, whatever was going to happen with that pathway. There was a statement in the comments in our staff report that said the pedestrian walkway should be installed as part of this
development. Coordinate pathway and fencing details with the parks director. We had also requested that a landscape plan be submitted as part o the plat and that it should be received
one week prior to the hearing with City Council. I don’t believe that I have a copy of that unless Will has a copy of the landscape plan in it’s file. Wait, let me double check that.
The other item that has been brought up by the applicant, our comments were that they had to provide evidence that they had put into trust funds with Ada County Highway District for
the construction of the bridge at the end of Corporate Drive. We did have significant discussions about this the first time this came through and Ada County Highway District did
finally agree to participate in the construction of half of that bridge over Ten Mile Creek because we did not want the entire cost of that bridge to fall on the property owner to the
south. So, we would ask that number 10 remain as it is. We do support the rezone to entirely C-G. We would also support removing the restriction that all uses on this property would
have to go through the Conditional Use Permit process and allow the uses that are shown in the zoning schedule of use control as being permitted to proceed without the requirement for
a separate Conditional Use. With that, I’ll turn it over to Tom Kuntz, park director and have him explain his discussions regarding Ten Mile Creek.
Kuntz: Mayor and Council, thank you. We met on site with the applicant and walked the property and actually put some stakes in the ground to set so the surveyors can come in and actually
do a legal description on the parcel that will contain the pathway. I think the only issue that we would like to comment on is contained in the Planning and Zoning Commission’s comments,
No. 4 on page 3 and also in staff comments, No. 4 on page 2 of their April 30th comments. That is where it comments about a pedestrian walkway should be installed as part of this development.
The question being who’s paying for the installation of the pathway. Staff would be comfortable recommending gravel base only at this point. Not a hard surface but we feel like the developer
should be responsible for providing that gravel base at this time as part of the application. Thank you.
Corrie: Any other staff comments? Developer of this?
Goade: Mr. Mayor, Council. I’m John Goade. I reside at 5855 Becky Drive. I do own this property. It’s a small piece of property and if we get too many demands of what I have to do, isn’t
viable to do. The bridge has no value to me as far as the development. The pathway, I could probably go along with Mr. Kuntz’s suggestion on the gravel. I don’t have any other –
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: John, I understand then that you agree to put down on the pathway, the rock on that as part of the development agreement?
Goade: Four inches of road mix, yes.
Bird: Four inches of road mix, okay. I do have a statement regarding the bridge. I agree when we have subdivisions come in we don’t make, if they stop at a point, we don’t make them
go through it for the road. That property definitely don’t need that bridge. The only people that’s going to benefit is the people in the south. When they develop then they can pay for
it. That’s my opinion.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Does that have to have a bridge or can it just be tiled with pipe --?
Goade: It depends on what the county calls for. It probably could be a large culvert.
Corrie: Shari, have we talked – go back to the other one. Right there, between one and five that comes down there and it goes across the ditch. Is that what we’re talking about?
Bird: Right there.
Corrie: Okay. Would that eventually, commercial on the other side I would imagine.
Goade: That will eventually lead to the freeway frontage I’m sure.
Corrie: Is not the trust fund for half of that bridge?
Bird: From ACHD?
Corrie: Yeah.
Bird: It’s a trust fund for half the bridge?
(inaudible discussion)
Stiles: I don’t know what formula they had worked out but they did finally agree that they should be responsible for half the cost of that crossing.
Bird: Shari, until we get plans in from those other 2 properties, or one of those properties, I don’t think they’re owned by the same people below there. Are they?
Goade: NO. The one directly across the ditch is an individual and then the freeway property –
Bird: I don’t know why we would even want to – I would just stop the road there and not even worry about the bridge.
Stiles: It’s a major collector that will be required to connect. It’s going to go down to Waltman Lane and serve all of that area south of Waltman Lane.
Bird: That’s very true but why put the bridge in now? We don’t have the ground over there. Are you just going to come it over and stop it?
Stiles: It’s not to – the trust fund is not to build the bridge. It’s to make sure the funds are in place so that when the property that’s south does develop, that half of those funds
are already in place.
Bird: From ACHD?
Stiles: I don’t know what the formula was but they did agree finally to participate.
Bird: I just don’t see this developer having to pay for a bridge that doesn’t help his property at all. It could be years down the road before the other properties develop.
Corrie: I guess my question Keith, would be a legal one. Do we have anything to say about it? I mean, we don’t have anything to do with roads, but I don’t know whether we can or not.
Bird: I don’t know how we can force somebody to put a bridge on –
Corrie: I don’t know that we can. That’s what I’m saying. If that’s a requirement of ACHD then, I don’t see how we can force him to but they might. I don’t know.
Goade: I’m required to put a turn around at the end of the road as it is shown now.
Corrie: Okay. What they’re –
Goade: For emergency vehicles, whatever. No bridge.
Corrie: They’re asking for that trust fund in case somebody happens – They’re going to get your money is what --. They’re looking at long term.
Goade: I haven’t heard anything from the county about it.
Anderson: Did they buy any right-of-way or easements from you for the road?
Goade: Yes, they did buy some right-of-way.
Anderson: For which road? Corporate?
Goade: Part of Corporate yes.
Bird: I recall originally we had a discussion on this Mayor. You brought the point up and it was ACHD was involved in that and it was a turn around that this
developer had to put at the end of that deal. Yeah, you’re right. I remember that now. On the trust, I don’t know how that goes.
Corrie: I have no trouble with that turn around myself. I don’t know how we can –
Bird: Yeah. I don’t know how we can force somebody to put a bridge in when we don’t have anything to say on the road.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. Stiles.
Stiles: When this first came up we had to struggle with Ada County Highway District and especially Mr. Goades representative, Tony Hickey at that time, did work with Ada County Highway
District to get them to agree to participate in the cost of that bridge. Now, if it were several people and they had some kind of a funding mechanism in place to share the cost with
that whole area down there, that would be one thing. But if that one R-T which shown in the picture would decide to develop by themselves, the cost to put in that bridge by themselves
would be a lot to put on one person. I don’t know if Mr. Goade recalls what the agreement was with Ada County Highway District and the fact that they did eventually make the commitment
to participate in the cost of that bridge and what kind of formula they might have worked out. Maybe they didn’t get that far.
Goade: I’m not aware of any commitment that they made.
Stiles: It would be in the previous file for this subdivision.
Bird: Actually, Shari, if ACHD is going to make that a collector then my personal opinion is they can foot the bill because that R-T section and that other place can use Waltman Lane
to get access to their property if they want to develop it.
Stiles: It’s a substandard street. It doesn’t even meet any requirements.
Bird: I know that. I mean you know, I just don’t see how you can force this developer to have to put any money into that bridge. Like the Mayor says, we don’t have much to say on that.
I can’t see as we can make that a condition either of the approval because we don’t have a say on that with ACHD.
Stiles: (inaudible)
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess, you know they city needs to at least take a stand. There are a thousand houses to the west of there that have no access. It’s just ludicrous. That eventually
will be one of them. It is a necessity. If you have a stub over here that goes nowhere and why it does go nowhere for this long when there’s all those houses to the west. I don’t understand
that since we’re not the road authority. Right there and that’s what that bridge is going to service.
Bird: How’s that bridge going to service that?
De Weerd: Well, because it’s going to go through that piece of property. I think ACHD needs to start planning how to get those people out of that subdivision because they only have
one route out and that’s the Linder. That is going to help facilitate it at some point. Every other developer has to pay for roads too. Yes, you can tell we don’t plan them.
Bird: The problem is they pay for the roads within their subdivision. He’s going to be paying for his roads within his. I just don’t see the necessity with the bridge. I don’t see where
it helps his development at all.
De Weerd: It’s not our requirement but I see the logic to it.
Corrie: It’s definitely a problem. Only one way in and out of that place down there. I get calls on it every week.
De Weerd: Well, yeah.
Corrie: (inaudible)
De Weerd: Do you give them ACHD’s phone number?
Corrie: Yes. As a matter of fact I have.
Bird: Then ACHD says Meridian why did you approve it?
De Weerd: Who was on here?
Bird: Wasn’t me.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: What’s the landscape --- you said something about the landscape plan wasn’t in ?
Stiles: We had requested a landscape plan. I don’t where John is on that.
Goade: Was that a landscape plan for the development or for the path?
Stiles: I believe it was just for the development, the subdivision and if there was any adjacent to the pathway.
Goade: I took it as the path. It is not here but I will get it in for the subdivision.
Stiles: There are landscape requirements adjacent to roadways, right-of-ways.
Goade: Okay, I’ll get that in.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor. I don’t know what you can do with the rezone. I would like to clarify this with Ada County Highway District and see what their requirements were because their letter
just says the conditions of June 2000 remain in effect and I don’t have those with me. I would like to see their take on it because I guess I feel that I fought pretty hard about this
bridge issue and I want to make sure that it’s taken care and not to put an undue burden on Mr. Goade. You know how likely it is that a bridge crossing of Ten Mile Creek will be put
on any planning programs for Ada County Highway District unless they made some commitment to have impact fee offsets to help contribute toward that bridge. It’s also very vital that
that bridge continue across Ten Mile Creek because that’s where the pathway is proposed to go. Once it gets to the --. The pathway is proposed to go adjacent to Ten Mile Creek up to
this point. I’m not sure which side of the road it would be on. Probably on this south side. Then the bridge would continue the pathway at which time the pathway would be on the south
side of Ten Mile Creek. SO, it is very important to the City of Meridian as well as those properties south. You say that he’s not going to get any benefit out of that bridge but once
it connects to the land and depending on what kind of businesses locate in here, they’re going to have a lot more business than they would if they have to go back through this maze of
trying to get through Waltman Lane or coming off Franklin Road. It’s much better access wise. I would like to at least be given the opportunity to find out what Ada County Highway District’s
final approval letter was on the previous one that they’re referring to.
Bird; Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Shari, would you feel comfortable if we were to pass him on it with the condition of the ACHD agreement as far as the bridge and road?
Stiles: Sure. If Mr. Goade is happy with that.
Bird: Of 2000, June 2, 2000, which I believe that’s when it was. I remember us having a meeting. I remember that thing being brought up. Gary’s got it.
Corrie: Where does No. 4 lot, where’s their driveway? Is it down in front of 3?
Goade: No. It comes off from Waltman Lane.
Corrie: Oh, I see.
Bird: Is that the lot that the house is on?
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Anybody care to sing?
De Weerd: I could clear the room.
Bird: I could clear the room for you. Turn out the lights, the party’s over?
Corrie: Yeah.
Bird: We need Don Meredith.
Corrie: Sorry, John to hold you up here.
Goade: No problem.
Corrie: I think they’re still looking for the answer to Keith’s question. (inaudible)
Bird: John, what did the ACDH do with the storm drains there? What’s going to be resolved there?
Goade: As far as?
Bird: Where it’s right in the middle of the road.
Goade: the drain itself?
Bird: Yeah.
Goade: They messed up the sewer from southwest fifth and also Meridian Road. So, the sewer’s going to have to come in up by lot four across the creek and it’s going to have to be deeper
and run up southwest fifth extended and back up Corporate Drive to serve the old Meridian rental property up there when they develop that. So, they created us a lot more expense there.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. We have a letter dated October 23, 2000 to Tony Hickey from Ada County Highway District. IT says with regard to sharing of the cost of a future crossing
at Ten Mile Drain, the district will participate in the cost of this facility to the following extent. 13.04 percent of the stream crossing. This is
the share of the total street construction to be paid by the district because Corporate Drive is a collector and this I the difference in cost between a local commercial industrial
street and a standard collector street. A proportionate share of half of the balance of the cost, based on the land area of the parcel owned by the district compared to the total land
area in the subdivision. That’s not a sentence. According to the Preliminary Plat this would be 1.10 divided by 6.65. 16.5 percent of the development’s share of the crossing. This factor
should be verified using the areas contained in the final subdivision plat. It appears, their total they’re showing would be 20.24 percent of the cost of that bridge. This is signed
by Larry Sail.
Corrie: That would be one fifth of it.
Stiles: Then it goes on to say, we will collaborate with the city engineer to determine the appropriate design of the crossing and it’s estimated cost. The crossing will be installed
by the developers of the property on the south side of Ten Mile Drain when Corporate Drive is extended. The developer of Waltman Court subdivision will be required to deposit 79.8 percent
of one half the estimated cost of the stream crossing with the district. The district will use the funds to compensate the developer of the south side of the Ten Mile Drain who will
extend Corporate Drive across the drain when they develop their property. I’m not sure exactly what that says.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: It sounds like John’s 20 percent, the others 30 this is 40. Then he has to pay 79 percent of the 40 which would bring it down to a little over 20 percent (inaudible). I only
went to Pharmacy school. I can only count to five.
Anderson: I think I got it. Roughly, you’re paying 40 percent.
Corrie: Roughly that’s about what it amounts to.
Bird: 40 percent now.
(inaudible discussion)
Anderson: Were you aware of that letter of that condition?
Goade: No, I wasn’t.
Corrie: Who was that letter to, Shari? Us?
Stiles: It was to Tony Hickey, the realtor that was working with Mr. Goade.
Corrie: Oh, okay.
Anderson: So, does that change your opinion on everything. ACHD is paying 20 percent and you’re paying 40?
Goade: Well, yeah. I don’t know that that changes my opinion but I’ll just have to see what we can do about it.
Bird: This would have to be resolved before Gary can sign off on the Final Plat.
Goade: Right.
Bird: There would have to be something put in a trust or something before Brad or Gary can sign off.
Corrie: Unless, I’m sadly mistaken you can make that a motion and go with that, with the staff and ACHD based upon that figure --.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: -- Well, yeah. I’m just (inaudible) a discussion here. Okay. Anything else John?
Goade: No.
Bird: Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you John. Is there anyone else who’d like to issue testimony? I know the only one that (inaudible) but anybody else? Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Okay. Shari, after reading that does that satisfy your condition in this deal that you had wanted to see ACHD’s and is that satisfactory to you?
Stiles: Yes. I guess as far as the request by Mr. Goade to change those 2 items, we would recommend that those items remain as they are currently in the recommendation.
Corrie: That’s just for the gravel base on the path.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Okay. Is there any other discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion then, if you so desire to close the Public Hearing on item 17 and 18.
Bird: 16 and 17.
Corrie: 16 and 17, yeah. I’m sorry.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we close the Public Hearing for the requested rezone of 8.29 acres from L-O to C-G for Waltman Court subdivision by John Goade.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion been made and second to close item No. 16 rezone 01-004 for Waltman Court subdivision. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Further discussion?
De Weerd: No.
Corrie: Okay. Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the request for rezone of 8.29 acre 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 and for the Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order with staff comments.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s been made and seconded to approve the request for rezone 004 with staff comments. Any further discussion? Mr. Berg, roll call vote please.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion now on the continued Public Hearing closing on the request for Preliminary Plat.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we close the Public Hearing for the request for Preliminary Plat approval on 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.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay, Motion made and second to close the continued Public Hearing on the request for Preliminary Plat PP01-007. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say
aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Any further discussion? I’ll entertain a motion on the request for Preliminary Plat.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the Preliminary Plat approval for 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 and for the attorney to draw up the proper papers and to include staff comments and developer’s comments.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made to approve the request for Preliminary Plat on PP01-007 and for the attorney to draw up the proper papers with inclusion of the staff’s comments and the developer’s
comments. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 18. Continued Public Hearing from June 5, 2001: 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 No. 18 is a continued Public Hearing from June the 5th. Request for rezone from R-8 to L-O zone for Meridian Water Department by the Meridian Water Department 2235 Northwest
Eighth Street. At this time I will open the continued Public Hearing. Staff, comments.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. This is for the property that currently houses the water department. They desire to make some changes to the interior of the building and wanted to make
sure they are in compliance with our ordinances. It is currently in an R-8 zone, which does not permit the use. So, John Shawcroft of the sewer department requested that we get the paperwork
together to make that an L-O zone so they would be compliant with our ordinances. We would recommend approval.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Bird: Who’s representing the developer? Brad, or Gary?
Stiles: Brad.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I just have one question Shari? When are they going to start this project?
Stiles: Which one? The interior remodel?
Anderson: Yeah, that one.
Stiles: I believe that the public works director informed me that that might have already been occurring out there.
Corrie: Thank you.
Stiles: Unbeknownst to the Planning and Zoning Department.
Bird: How about the City Engineer, Brad?
De Weerd: Yeah, didn’t they get a permit?
Stiles: They did not receive a certificate of zoning compliance.
Corrie: I assume that the applicant has spoken then?
Bird: He’s hanging his head.
Corrie: Is there anyone from the public like to issue testimony on this very serious development that has come before the City Council tonight? Hearing none, I hope the Council’s wise
in making their decision correctly here.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we close the Public Hearing.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to close the Public Hearing. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Discussion? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion for the request for rezone.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the request for rezone from R-8 to L-O for the Meridian Water Department and for the attorney to draw up the appropriate findings and to include all
staff comments.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and seconded to approve the request for rezone, for the attorney to draw up the proper forms and all the staff comments be included, for what they could hear.
Any further discussion?
Anderson: Can we add another condition? They should be slapped?
Bird: Yeah.
Corrie: Mr. Berg, roll call vote.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 19. Continued Public Hearing from June 5, 2001: 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. 19 has been dropped. We will need to have the proper request and motion on item 19.
De Weerd: Do you want to open it first?
Corrie: Well, --
Bird: No. You don’t.
Corrie: Yeah. I guess we could. This is a continued Public Hearing on a request for variance on a rear property setback from 15 feet to 11.5 feet to be used for single family dwelling.
***End of Side Four***
Corrie: -- Motion to close the Public Hearing.
Bird: So moved.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to close the Public Hearing. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion to drop –
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: After receiving a letter on June 18th from Kyle Basell, superintendent of John Flaherty Construction requesting that we pull the application for the request for variance of the
rear property setback from 15 feet to 11.5 feet at 2421 East Weir Creek Drive, I move that we pull it from the agendas.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s been made and second to approve the –
De Weerd: Not approve, drop.
Bird: Pull.
Corrie: Yeah, but you’ve got to approve the drop, don’t you?
De Weerd: Oh, yeah. Sorry.
Corrie: Okay. – to approve the request to pull the application on the request for variance 01-005. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes, Ma’am.
De Weerd: Does that mean that they will be taking that structure down? Is that what this means?
Stiles: What happened? I don’t have a copy of that letter so I don’t know.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: IT was received today. We are requesting that the variance application be dropped for John Flaherty Construction on lot 38, block 14 of the Thousand Spring subdivision 2421 East
Weir Creek Drive. Respectfully, Kyle Basell superintendent John Flaherty president John Flaherty Construction.
De Weerd: I’d like staff to follow up with this and make sure, since they’re not applying for the variance, they’re going to take the cause for the variance down.
Anderson: How do you know it was built?
De Weerd: I know it’s built by the letters we’ve received from the neighbors. I haven’t gone out to look but I assumed by the letters –
Stiles: There’s pictures showing it.
De Weerd: Oh, there it is.
(inaudible discussion)
Item 20. Public Hearing: PP 01-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 336 building lots and 58 other lots on 175.91 acres in proposed R-4 and C-G zones for proposed Bridgetower
Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development, Co. LLP – north of Ustick and east of Ten Mile Roads:
Item 21. Public Hearing: CUP 01-006 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 692 single-family lots, 59 townhomes, 17 office lots and 10 commercial lots on 370.55 acres in proposed
R-4 and C-G zones for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development, Co. LLP – north of Ustick and east of Ten Mile Roads:
Corrie: Okay. Item No. 20, am I right there? Yeah. 20, 21 has been requested to move to July 3, 01. So I will open the Public Hearing on item 20 and 21, request for Preliminary Plat
and also request for Conditional Use Permit. Is there anyone at this time that would like to issue testimony? You have a chance to do it. You’ll also have a chance on July 3rd. Okay,
hearing no comments, I’ll entertain a motion to continue the Public Hearing on the request for Preliminary Plat and also the request for Conditional Use Permit on Bridgetower Crossing
subdivision, item 20 and 21.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we continue the Public Hearing on the Preliminary Plat 01-005 for 336 building lots and 58 other lots on 175.91 acres in a proposed R-4 and C-G
zone for the proposed Bridgetower Crossing subdivision.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to continue the Preliminary Plat PP01-005 on item No. 20 the Public Hearing. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we continue the Public Hearing until July 3rd on CUP 01-006 for the proposed Bridgetower Crossing subdivision.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and second to continue the Public Hearing on request for Conditional Use Permit No. 01-006 until July 3, 2001. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 9. Tabled from June 5, 2001: 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:
Item 22. Public Hearing: VAR 01-008 Request for variance for the reduction of two required parking spaces for Moxie Java by TJBJ, Inc. – 1975 East Fairview:
Corrie: Item No. 22 and item No. C, no No. 9 I believe it was wasn’t it?
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: Yes. Nine, so we need to take up 9 first.
Bird: No. We need to take up 22 first.
Corrie: 22 because that’s the variance. Okay. This is a Public Hearing on the request for variance by the reduction of 2 required parking spaces for Moxie Java, TJBJ, Inc. 1975 east
Fairview. At this point I’ll open the Public Hearing on the variance request. Staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. This is for a stand alone building to be operated as a drive through facility for Moxie Java. It would be located in front of the Econo Lube and Tune
on Fairview Avenue. You have the recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission. They will be required to have a variance from their parking requirements. Econo Lube and Tune
is only one lot out of 4 in the subdivision. While they may exceed their parking requirements for the Econo Lube and Tune, should that use be changed to something else, they would have
some pretty severe parking problems there. The Planning and Zoning Commissions recommendation was that they add 2 more parking stalls or they apply for this variance. That is what the
applicant has done. The ordinance requires that for drive thru windows, 5 parking spaces per window would be required. I’m not sure if they changed that. Todd’s here tonight. I don’t
know if they changed this – we say a lot of problems perhaps with the double drive thru and some of the turning movements. If there should be stacking with this parking stalls here it
would be a very strange configuration for a 2 way drive thru.
(inaudible discussion)
Stiles: The applicant has stated from the audience that they are going to the single which would help a lot with their site plan. We would also like to note, I know we’re still on
the variance –
(inaudible discussion)
Stiles: -- The Conditional Use Permit is not a Public Hearing because it is in a commercial zone so it only requires one Public Hearing at Planning and Zoning. I would like, since the
applicant is proposing this site that he work with the property owner and the Econo Lube and Tune to remove the existing banners and all sorts of signage that is currently there that
is in violation of the ordinance. We would expect that to be taken care of prior to the erection of that building.
Corrie: Any questions of staff?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay, applicant. Come forward, give your name, address.
Mason: I’m Todd Mason. I’m at 1566 Shenondoah Boise Idaho 83712. On the stacking, we originally had put an application in at P&Z for a double drive thru but you can see the way – . We
had resubmitted it at last minute with just the single drive thru because that was what the staff report had recommended us do. So, that’s what we had went ahead and done. We’re not
even asking for a double drive thru. We’re just asking for the single drive thru. As far as you know working with Darryn Larson on getting the banners removed and stuff. You know I’ve
talked to him about that. That wouldn’t be any problem at all.
Corrie: You’re still reducing to 2 required parking spaces?
Mason: Yeah. That’s our only option. That’s what we have to do. Econo Lube doesn’t use, I don’t know if you’ve ever paid any attention but they never use any of those front parking spots
at all. They’ve got as you can see 4 or 5 there and then they’ve got a lot of parking in the back area also that they normally use because it’s more accessible on the back then it is
actually in the front. So, if they’ve got an extra vehicle, they actually park them in the back instead of parking them all the way out front.
Corrie: Okay. Any comments or questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thanks Todd. Is there anyone from the public that would like to issue testimony at this request? Okay, hearing none, Council, questions, discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion then to close the Public Hearing on the variance request.
De Weerd: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to close the Public Hearing on the variance request 008 on the Moxie Java. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Discussion? Hearing non, I’ll entertain a motion then.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the request for a variance for the reduction of 2 required parking spaces for Moxie Java by TJBJ Incorporated at 1975 East Fairview, Meridian, and the attorney
to draw up the proper papers.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to approve the request for variance for 2 required parking spaces for Moxie Java VAR 01-008 and the attorney to draw up the proper papers. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: 9, going back to that. I guess it would be 22C. This is tabled 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, CUP 01-010. Staff comments, any further comments?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor please incorporate my comments from the previous Public Hearing.
Corrie: Okay. So be it. Council, discussion? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion then on the request for CUP.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the CUP for a free standing coffee hut for the proposed Moxie Java in a C_G zone, to incorporate all staff comments to ask the Attorney to draw
up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second to approve the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 01-010 for Moxie Java, for the Attorney to draw up the proper Findings of Facts and Conclusions
of Law incorporating staff comments. Any further discussions? Hearing none, roll call vote Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 23. Public Hearing: VAR 01-007 Request for a variance to exceed the maximum 1,000 foot block length for proposed Macaile Meadows Subdivision by Hillview Land Development, LLC
– south of Fairview Avenue, north of Pine Street and ¼ mile west of Cloverdale Road:
Item 24. Public Hearing: AZ 01-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 28.59 acres from RUT to R-8 for proposed Macaile Meadows Subdivision by Hillview Land Development, LLC – south
of Fairview and west of Cloverdale Roads:
Item 25. Public Hearing: PP 01-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 115 building lots and 15 other lots on 28.59 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Macaile Meadows
Subdivision by Hillview Land Development, LLC – south of Fairview and west of Cloverdale Roads:
Corrie: I guess we have a Public Hearing No. 23, 24 and 25. Request for variance on Macaile Meadows subdivision, request for annexation and zoning on the Macaile Meadows subdivision
and request for a Preliminary Plat. At this time I will open the Public Hearing. Is there anyone here who would like to issue
testimony? We will continue to the July the 3rd meeting. Hearing none, Council, oh I’m sorry. I apologize. Yes sir.
Unidentified: Could you repeat what you wanted a response on, Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: We have a variance, an annexation and zoning and a Preliminary Plat all in one. You can comment on all 3 singly or you can also do it the 3rd.
Unidentified: Actually, we would like to comment on all 3 if possible. I would appreciate it if the Council can handle it tonight. There are 15 or so folks from the neighborhood that
would like to speak also.
Corrie: Now, you know you can do that the 3rd of July as well, but not on the same thing?
Unidentified: I think today would be much better if you don’t mind. The folks are here and we’d like to –
Corrie: Let me ask a legal question. Is that requested by the applicant, since we don’t have an applicant testifying here.
Unidentified: I am the applicant.
Corrie: Oh, you are the applicant?
Unidentified: Yes.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor. If I can interject, I think we’re a little off track here. What you said at the beginning of the meeting was that whatever point, cutoff comes, whatever hearings
are left would go to June 27th, not July 3rd.
Corrie: Okay.
Nichols: There’s been no request by anybody to move this to a specific date. He would only be moved in the event that you cutoff the hearings. So, if we don’t get through all the hearings,
usually the cutoff time is 11:00. If we don’t get through all the hearings until 11:00 you can cut them off at that time and continue them to the 27th of June. I believe that would be
your process.
Corrie: Okay. I suppose, Council if you want to cut this off at 11:00 and we’re not through, you’re going to come back the 28th and finish this up anyway. I’m going to leave it up
to the Council. Usually we close it at 10:00 because we have some other business that’s coming down here tonight. I guess, Council can I have some comment from you on this? Do you want
to move this on to the 27th? Because like I say we do have some other that we need to go through.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I now know what all these people are sitting here for. I would say let’s cut it off at 11:00 and see what we can get done and allow the people to testify.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor. I agree.
Bird: I agree with them.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. I would agree if we could maybe limit some of the time frames if we have that many people if we could cut them to 3 minutes of testimony. That way we could hear
the majority of them tonight and then nobody would have to come back --.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Okay. Due to the time, this is what we normally do anyway. So, the developer has 5 and the other people have 3 minutes and you’re welcome to come back if we don’t get finished.
If we finish and give you a judgement tonight, then we won’t be here the 27th.
Unidentified: All the better. Thanks. So, is the Public Hearing open now?
Corrie: It is.
Unidentified: Thank you.
Corrie: Yeah, but we –
Unidentified: I’m sorry, staff.
Corrie: Hang on. We’re going to have staff make comments first.
Stiles: And, you opened all 3 of these?
Corrie: All 3, yes.
Stiles: Okay. The first one deals with the maximum 1000 foot block length. We would probably need to revise what the applicant has written in. I believe this is the latest and greatest
layout of this subdivision. The maximum block lengths are exceeded pretty much every block. This block exceeds the maximum block length as well as this. They are restricted on the south
and on the west side because of existing development. There’s Crossroads subdivision that is fully
developed here. A subdivision that we recently rezoned to R-4. There are 278 lots. To the south is Westdale subdivision. You’ll recall there is Westdale Park subdivision No. 1 which
is in Boise City and Westdale Park subdivision No. 2 which is in the City of Meridian. The only access at this time, I don’t think a stub street to Pine has been constructed south of,
in this Westdale Park subdivision No. 2. So, currently the access is shown coming from Cloverdale Road down Driftwood and would enter the property at this location. All of these including
this block, this block, they’re all exceeding the 1000 foot block length. That’s what they’re requesting the variance from. I’m going to have to rely on the applicant to explain the
various iterations of what has happened with this additional road. I don’t know if this is a stub. The Seventh Day Adventist Church owns – this was the back half of the Seventh Day Adventist
property. You see the church facility here. I believe, I’m not sure it’s a daycare I think back in this area. They did not want a road going through their property. It appears from the
current layout, they’re proposing some kind of street through to Cloverdale. I think that was in response to Westdale Park subdivision’s concerns that all of the traffic for this, I
believe it’s 115 lots, would be accessing through their subdivision. There is the proposal to – I don’t know if it’s paved or gravel, or what. I would be concerned if it were only a
gravel road going back to Cloverdale. The applicant’s representative has stated that it is paved. They are requesting a zoning of R-8. Westdale Park subdivision is zoned R-8. The Crossroads
subdivision, although zoned R-4 when it was approved it was zoned I-L. The Planning and Zoning staff submitted an application to rezone that to R-4. It doesn’t quite meet the requirements
of R-4. It is somewhat of a planned development because of the open space in Crossroads Subdivision. They do have frontages as low as 70 feet but all those lots do meet the 8,000 square
foot requirement. This is at the very edge of our area of impact. This is the boundary line. North of this, you may recall, Bill Clark came in with a request for a Comprehensive Plan
amendment to change that from a single family residence to mixed use. He had requested high density but it was finally decided to be a mixed use. Eventually these accesses will go through
that property and get back to the road that comes out on the east side of Wal-Mart. The road between Wal-Mart and the cemetery there. There’s a lot of people here to testify tonight.
I think the applicant has done a good job of trying to work with the neighborhood and trying to allay their fears. I guess we’ll hear how well they did, tonight with that. We would recommend
approval of this project with all staff and agency conditions and also on the variance to reflect the blocks that are currently shown on this instead of the ones that are noted in the
application. Do you have any questions for me?
Corrie: Council, any questions?
De Weerd: Not at this point.
Corrie: I will pretty soon. Okay, applicant?
Butler: Shari could you put the subdivision back up? Mark Butler 52 North Second Street Eagle, representing the applicant, HillView Development Company. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council.
I’d like to talk a little bit about how we’ve designed the property to be compatible with the adjacent properties. Also, before going into that, though, I think this is a subdivision
that’s really good for you to see as compared to a lot of the other ones you’ve been seeing lately in the fact that this is an in-fill development. Hopefully that will help you in your
decision, understanding that we’re not going way out to the north, way down to the south. We’re filling a hole that’s actually in the city. Shari mentioned the boundary of Boise City
is right here. The property to the south is developed with the R-8 standards. It’s got an R-8 zone. The property to the west was developed as a PUD has got R-8 standards, lots that don’t
meet the R-4 standards. The church is to the east. The property to the north could be developed, the way I understand it, with not only mixed use but that mixed use incorporating approximately
15 dwelling units per acre. I don’t know if that’s a fact or not. What we’ve tried to is to develop the project so that we have a transition between existing properties and what we’re
doing here. If you look at the number of lots to the south here (inaudible). This particular subdivision here, Westdale, there’s 19 lots along the south boundary, our south boundary.
We’ve incorporated 9 lots along the south boundary by designing the subdivision with cul de sacs to the south. As you look at lot sizes, the smallest lot along the south side existing
is approximately 8300 square feet. The largest being this, being close to 14,000 square feet. The southern 300 feet or so of our property, our lots vary from, the ones over on the side
are about 7,000 square feet. Close to 14,000. The lots that actually bound the property to the south vary from approximately 9,000 square feet to 14,000. So, the number of lots is far
less on our side compared to the south and the lot sizes are very similar in size compared to the south. The Planning and Zoning Commission has a condition in the findings that requires
us to have single story homes along the west side and single story homes along the south side. Thus, providing a better transition between neighborhoods. This plan is a little bit different
in that the original plan that was submitted, and I’m showing this to illustrate our open space areas. We’re planning a park in the center of the property. We exceed your 5 percent minimum
for open space. We’re also planning some common areas along the ends of some of these blocks and at the roadway that connects into Parkdale. There will be meandering sidewalks, in particular
areas here along the roadways. Not meandering, excuse me, detached sidewalks in those locations where we’re planning the green way. The sidewalk along the park will be attached. Initially
we proposed home sizes using your code, varying from the 1100 square feet to the 1200 and then to the 1300 and larger. Through the process and again, working toward being more compatible
with the neighbors we proposed lot sizes along the west side to be that which is the minimum in Crossroads, 1350 square feet. Lot sizes along the south side to be, that which is in the
Westdale CC&R requirements minimum, 1500 square feet. The remainder of the subdivision will have lot, excuse me. Did I say lot sizes? I always do that, I’m talking about house sizes.
The remainder of the subdivision will have 1301 square foot minimum house size on it. Staff had done
a position statement on some of the issues that were raised in the findings. I did a position statement, which I have for you. I’ve got 8 copies. My issues I think are very minor. We’re
in agreement with staff’s position statement except we think a sentence could be added to one to help clarify the conditions and we believe there was a typo on one. I’ll hand those to
you now and go over those quickly. After going over these I’d like to discuss our primary access, which is a road, that connects to Cloverdale because that was a very important issue
to the neighbors. Position statement, the way I read this, is you had modifications you had to fill out a separate piece of paper. So, the first 2 pages basically say see attached. What’s
attached is a comment with regard to recommendation No. 40. What’s in the condition in the findings, in the findings it says the churches must be landscaped. I think that was supposed
to say the chokers must be landscaped. We’re proposing chokers, which are extended areas of the sidewalk on this particular location on Westdale to help restrict traffic going east and
west as much as possible on Westdale. In talking with Brad, the staff planner, he thought that what the commission wanted was for the south side of our new road that we’re planning,
for that to all be landscaped. I put a note here, we don’t recall any comments from the commission to have us landscape the south side of that road. That’s really not within Meridian’s
jurisdictional authority. That’s actually Boise City. We would hope that you wouldn’t extend your authority out Boise City and understand that this was just merely a typo. No. 42 was
a condition that staff clarified very well with regard to our proposal to barricade this road off during the infrastructure phase of the development. That is the phase where we’re installing
the waterlines and sewer lines and streets. However I would like to add a sentence to that which says the barricade may be removed for installation of infrastructure within the existing
portion of Parkdale Street. Just to clarify the issue because we will have to put the chokers in for one. We’re going to have to go into this roadway to extend the utilities. So, we
will have to do some infrastructure in that. We didn’t want to be perceived as going against your goals, the conditions were for the development. Quickly before I touch on the road,
which will the last issue. We dealt with staff quite a bit on the variance request with regard to the block length and had really good support as we still do. With staff understanding
it would be inappropriate to stub into the adjacent properties here along the perimeter. We did lengthen these lots in this location here and this location here to narrow this block
length and this block length down to 1000. So, if you measure from the right-of-way line to the right-of-way line we thought we were at 1000. So, we would argue that point but since
staff is recommending approval anyway and if you’re going to approve it, I don’t see where it’s worth the argument. But we did make a change in that. The last issue is regarding the
roadway out to Cloverdale. This will be our primary access. This is not a public roadway. If you had a chance to read the ACHD staff report, it will be open to the public. However ACHD
has not decided whether or not they want that to be right-of-way for a public road. There was a lot of discussion with ACHD. And maybe the better choice for a public road in the fullness
of time for it to possibly maybe be up to Fairview. Or, maybe in a little bit different location here or maybe realigned. Their concern for potential problem in the future was
that this area here in Boise City is planned for up to 18 units per acre. If this was a straight road, it could make it easy for a lot of trips, up to maybe 3000 trips a day to cut through
the subdivision to get to the corner once Pine is extended to Eagle Road. The Dakota Company will likely put in some sort of commercial at the corner of Eagle Road and Pine. We have
agreed to construct the road prior to the first building permit. ACHD wanted the road constructed prior to the 76th building permit. That’s what the policy manual calls out for to meet
their goals and objectives. Since the neighbors were concerned, we agreed to construct that road at the very beginning. We had hoped that we bought neighborhood support with all that
we’ve done, but we notice that 15 people would like to testify against. So, that’s the next phase of this. That pretty much covers my report on the project. The roadway will be paved
to ACHD standards with I believe a 30 foot width, 24 foot width of asphalt. It will be striped. It will be signed as a road and will be constructed before the first building permit is
issued. That’s actually one of the conditions of ACHD. I think you incorporated that, or your commission did into the findings. I’ll stand for any questions at this time.
Corrie: Council, any questions at this time?
Anderson: How wide is that access road going in off Cloverdale?
Butler: 24 foot wide paved roadway. Sufficient for 2 lanes of travel.
Anderson: Who will maintain that since it’s private?
Butler: We will be required to maintain. We will have to enter into an agreement with ACHD which is referred to in your findings and that agreement will require us to maintain it. ACHD
will maintain it.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mark, is that the road that comes from north of the church there, that goes into the churches parking lot?
Butler: Actually there’s a driveway going to the church parking lot. (inaudible) will be somewhat reconstructed.
Bird: That’s the one you’re going to use?
Butler: Yeah. We’ll have to extend that obviously because it stops at the –
Bird: It stops at the end of the parking lot back there?
Butler: Yes. If it’s not the sufficient width, it’ll have to be widened and of course it’ll have to be striped.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
Butler: Thank you.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Okay. Well, it looks like we’re going to be coming back the 27th. If everybody sticks to the 3 minutes we’re not going to get through it even at that time. We'll get started.
We’d appreciate it if you keep to the 3 minutes. We’ll time you up here. We’ll go until 11:00. Then if we’re not through, then we’ll have it the 27th. Okay. First off let me ask, is
there anybody here that is here to testify for the subdivision? This is for.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: If you’re for the subdivision, not against it.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: we’ve got a whole bunch of them that are against it but I didn’t have anybody signed up as for it. Okay. Nobody here that’s going to testify that they would like to have the
subdivision the way it’s been given to us? What is your name? Holly, okay Holly president of Westdale Homeowners. Holly Turney.
Turney: My name is Holly Turney and I am the president of Westdale Homeowners Association and I represent the 76 homeowners of Westdale Park minus those here this evening who would wish
to testify for themselves. We also have a position statement that I would like to give to you. I also have some diagrams that I will be referring to that I would like to hand out at
this time. I will do my best not to take any more time than necessary. As far as the position statement goes, we too had a few comments. As Mr. Butler pointed out, No. 40, we agree should
read the chokers must be landscaped. No. 42 we would like it to read something along the lines of the entrance to Macaile Meadows via Parkdale must be barricaded as is practical during
the construction phase. So, when they need to un-barricade the road to work on the road and things like that, we would not expect the barricade to remain in place. No. 31, I would like
to have in there, coordinate the design of these traffic calming devices or these chokers with Westdale Homeowners Association and design and exact location of traffic calming devices
with district traffic services. This is because it may become necessary with these chokers being landscaped that we may have to have individual homeowner agreement to tap into their
sprinkler system or line
somehow to take care of that landscaping appropriately. We had to make an agreement with them that we would maintain those chokers after they put them in. So, we need to have that agreement
with homeowners. So, we would really need to be involved in the design of those and know what they were expecting and what was going to be expected of us. Other than that we have 2 major
concerns with the proposed Mcaille Meadows subdivision. These concerns are compatibility with the existing developments in the area and the increased traffic that this subdivision will
generate. Now, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan is an official policy guide for decisions to guide future development in the city and it’s area of impact. Goal No. 2 of the Comprehensive
Plan is to, quote, ensure that growth and development occur in an orderly fashion in accordance with adopted policies and procedures governing the use of land, end quote. In the land
use section under residential policies, No. 2.3 U, serves to, quote, protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values. Improve each neighborhood’s physical condition and
enhance it’s quality of life for residents, end quote. No. 2.5 U states, quote, encourage compatible in-fill development which will improve existing neighborhoods, end quote. No. 1.13U
of the housing section goes on to state, quote, in-filling of random vacant lots in substantially developed single family areas should be considered at densities similar to the surrounding
development, end quote. In the case of the proposed subdivision of Mcaille Meadows that surrounding development consists of Crossroads Subdivision to the west, Westdale Park to the south,
the Seventh Day Adventist property to the east and vacant land to the north. You can see this relationship on figure 1 of the packet that I handed you. Crossroads is zoned R-4 and contains
260 lots. It is the largest of the surrounding development being more than 3 times the size of Westdale Park and more than twice the size of the proposed Mcaille Meadows. The Seventh
Day Adventist property has the church, the school operated by the church and large field spaces where they allow soccer leagues to play and practice. Westdale Park contains 76 lots and
is zoned R-4. However, it was developed in terms of overall lot size and house size more towards R-4 standards than R-8. We therefor feel that to uphold the previously stated policies
of the Comprehensive Plan this property should be zoned R-4 thereby requiring any development occurring on the property to be compatible with the surrounding developments and protect
the property values of the existing homes within those developments. Inspection of the proposed Mcaille Meadows Preliminary Plat clearly shows this compatibility is lacking with the
R-8 zoning the developers are asking for. I now direct your attention to figures 2, 3, and 4 in the exhibit I handed out to you. We have 2 and 3 that are colored and 4 is a chart. I
have figured out the approximate square footage of each of the 115 lots in Mcaille Meadows and the 76 in Westdale. Looking at these figures, you will see that I have categorized lot
size in square feet by color and quantified the information according to the number of lots in each category and the percent of the subdivision that category represents. For example,
6,999 square feet would be colored green. There are 39 of those lots in Mcaille Meadows. It comprises 33.9 percent of the total subdivision. There are zero in Westdale and therefor comprises
zero of the total percent of Westdale. Clearly, Mcaille Meadows is not compatible with Westdale
in lot size as compatibility would be indicated by the same colors occurring on both figures 2 and 3 with approximately the same frequency. As you can see, the plat of Mcaille Meadows
is predominately red and green. Westdale is not predominately red and green. In fact 103, or 89.5 percent of the lots in Mcaille Meadows fall within the first 3 categories, between 6,000
and 8,999 square feet. Westdale by comparison has only 8 lots or 10.5 percent in the same categories. A difference of 79 percent. The bulk of Westdale’s lots, 71 percent as a matter
of fact fall in the 10,000 and 11,000 and 12,000. Westdale’s average lot size is 10,965.09 square feet. 92.1 percent or 106 of the 115 lots of Mcaille Meadows are smaller than that average.
Further more the whole of Westdale is approximately 24 acres in size. 76 lots on 24 acres makes the density of homes per acre at 3.168. If Mcaille Meadows were to build at that same
density, no more than 91 homes would be built upon the 28.59 that they are proposing. I urge you to take these figures into account in determining whether or not the proposed Mcaille
Meadows and R-8 zoning is the best fit for this property and the existing developments around it. The traffic issues that we have had, some of them have been resolved with this direct
access now that we have to Cloverdale and we would appreciate that the road to Cloverdale Road act as a public road until the connection to the north is made. We have gathered the required
number of signatures on a petition for speed bumps as recommended by Planning and Zoning and I have a copy here. The Homeowners Association would also like to be included in the design
of the landscape chokers as I mentioned previously. I’m ready for questions and I thank you for your consideration.
Corrie: Do you realize speed bumps, we don’t have (inaudible)?
Turney: Yes. But Planning and Zoning did have in their recommendations to you that if we gathered 80 percent of the signatures that you request ACHD to put them in, (inaudible).
Corrie: (inaudible)
Turney: Well, I know that but we did it anyway.
Corrie: Just so you know that. They don’t always do (inaudible). Okay, any questions at this point?
Bird: I have none Mayor.
Corrie: Okay. (inaudible) Linda, Crossroads, is she here? Linda, I’m sorry I won’t try to attempt the last names –
Marshell: Glenda Marshell. I live 1108 North Principle Way, Crossroads Subdivision. I don’t have that (inaudible) statistics and facts as she does. I’m just here basically to get my
input and my feelings on this subdivision, to make it very
brief and blunt. We just do not want it. I came here from Portland, brought my kids and the quality of life here was what brought us here –
***End of Side Five***
Marshell: -- everywhere you go there’s subdivisions, everywhere. I understand that’s part of growth and we accept that. But, it’s become a point to where it’s taking over. I mean you
don’t have parks anymore. You see a subdivision. It’s just disappointing. I would love to see these farmers that sell their property to see something more constructive. This is such
a family oriented community and we want to see it stay that way. I’m just here to say that, you know, granted these developers have tried to work with us but they’ve also, as the first
gal earlier with the Tuscany subdivision stated half truths. A lot of it has been. We have been mislead in a lot of ways. The church telling us, and it’s been in writing, we’ve had people
from day one 2 and a half years ago tell us this church wasn’t going to sell this property. It was going to be a low key field, a soccer field or a park. That’s what we’ve all believed
from day one. Now to have this bombarded to us, it’s very disappointing. I just hope you will consider strongly our views on this and try to control the growth of Meridian. I appreciate
it. Thank you for your time.
Corrie: Thank you. Christy Wentworth?
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Okay, Greg Holman?
Holman: Yes. Greg Holman, 992 North Principle Way Crossroads Subdivision. I moved here about 2 years ago. I did some extensive research before I bought the property. I was one of the
last lots that was bought. Made up my final decision, built a nice home, again going with the last testimony. Nothing would be built there, which I was told by many contractors and the
church. I wish I had exact names and numbers now. 7 to 10 years, (inaudible) probably build something, a low key park. Maybe a housing development for their elders, something to do with
the church, very low profile so we could still see the mountains. It looks like we’re going to be losing it. We spent extra money on the lots. Also the fence along Principle Way belongs
to the property owners now. Are we going to get any rebates for that if this goes through? What are we going to do about our skyline that I paid extra money for? We’re losing it and
that’s our concern. The roads, if you put those roads going up through Wal-Mart --. The traffic is unbearable right now. We cannot afford to put anymore traffic into Fairview. It’s a
nightmare. We all have to drive that now. A good example, try to get out of Crossroads Subdivision in the morning or in the evening off Presidential going out to Eagle, turn left. You
can’t do it. It’s impossible. (inaudible) turn right go to a stop and go light, make a few loops around to get going the other way. The only way out is (inaudible) but (inaudible) does
work. That stop and go light, whoever invented that did a good job there. It works for
everybody. I go to work every day. I see at least one accident to 2 accidents every day in front of Wal-Mart, people trying to wait to get out to Fairview. They can’t get out so they
cheat and they go on and get clobbered every day. That’s all I have to say. Are there any questions?
Corrie: Okay, Greg. Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you Greg. Mary Hopkins?
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: I’m sorry.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Okay. Fred Hodges?
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Okay. Maria –
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Okay. Wills, last name Wills? Treasa Connelly
Connelly: Members of the City Council, my name’s Treasa Connelly. I live at 4177 East Driftwood Drive. I just wanted to reiterate, there’s 76 homes on Driftwood Drive with 89 small kids
that most of them are elementary age or younger. My main concern is to keep our subdivision safe for our kids that live and play with their friends in this community. I like to think
of our subdivision as a community> We know our people and we like to talk to our neighbors and our kids have a lot of friends. They ride bikes, scooters and are all over the street.
With this proposed subdivision, I foresee additional cars that are not needed at this time. I was sitting here thinking what would be a good thing? It’s kind of like putting a foot in
a shoe that’s too small. If Pine Street was extended, if Cloverdale Road was adequate to handle the additional traffic. Also with Fairview Avenue. If the surrounding area was capable
of having the additional homes I wouldn’t be so opposed to this subdivision right now. But, I am because of the inadequate structures. If this subdivision is approved I would like to
request that the developers be required to put a sign up that says no dogs, no alcohol, no loud music et cetera to keep our neighborhood and our subdivision a nice quiet peaceful place
with a lot of kids laughing and yelling. I don’t want to see stray dogs running through. I don’t want to see garbage. I don’t want to see a bunch of construction workers coming in with
alcohol and music which is what I saw when
the school was built. You know, we had to deal with that. Several times I called the school to tell them, you know control your people. I just would really like you guys to really consider
this area to help keep us safe and to help keep our kids safe. Thanks.
Corrie: Thank you. Joan VanAnberg.
VanAnberg: I’m Joan VanAnberg and I live at 1068 North Principle in the Crossroads Subdivision. I am in total agreement with the Greg Holman with what he said. Because many of us who
live back there did pay extra because we had a view. We were told by the church that there would be nothing built behind us for 7 to 10 years. My other concern is traffic problems. If
you’ve ever tried to get out onto, down Fairview to make a right turn on Cloverdale in the morning or in the evening, it’s virtually impossible because the traffic is backed up in both
directions. Also the impact that it’s going to have on the fire and police department because right now, we are in dire need of more officers and firemen and it was voted down. So, I’m
just curious about what the impact would have on that. That’s about all I have to say.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you Joan. It’s 11:00 rather than break up a family clan, in case you have to come back and she wouldn’t have to—we don’t want to start a family fight so I’ll
have you (inaudible) the last one. If you’d like?
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: She said it? Okay. Well, we’ve got 1, 2,3 4, 5 more. IS the Council ready to make a decision tonight you think?
Bird: Let’s (inaudible)
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: We’ll be here another 2 hours.
Corrie: I was going to say the 27th we’ll continue this because I don’t think it would be fair to you or to the developer to make a decision tonight based on – not everybody’s been
heard. Yes, Ma’am?
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: If you’ve got something different to say. Otherwise, it’s on the record. We’ve got it. We’ll have it there.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: If you have something different, yeah. It would be the same thing. At this point then I will ask the Council to continue this Public Hearing until the 27th of this next week.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we continue the Public Hearing for the request for annexation and zoning of 28.59 acres from RUT to R-8 for proposed Mcaille Meadows subdivision by HillView land development
LLC. until June 27, 2001.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and second to continue the Public Hearings on the Mcaille Meadows subdivision until June the 27th at 6:30 in the evening.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Well, we (inaudible). Is there any comment? All in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: I cut myself off.
Anderson: You did, used up your time.
Corrie: All right, I used up my time. Okay then we will have that meeting next Wednesday night.
Bird: That also included the other 2 Public Hearings? You had put them all together?
Corrie: All together, yes.
Item 26. FP 01-010 Request for Final Plat approval of 16 building lots and 4 other lots on 5.17 acres in an R-4 zone for Devlin Place Subdivision No. 2 by J-U-B Engineers, Inc. – north
of Cherry Lane and south of Devlin No. 1:
Corrie: Final plat approval of 16 building lots and 4 other lots on Devlin Place Subdivision No. 2 by JUB Engineers north of Cherry Lane and south of Devlin Place No. 1. Council, you
have the request for final plat. (inaudible) staff comment on the Devlin Place then we’ll have the department reports.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Shari, on Devlin place, comment?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. This is on property that was previously approved for an assisted living, Alzheimer’s care facility. It was known as Prestige Care. The developer has
since rezoned the property back to an R-4 for this area here for Devlin Place subdivision. The property adjacent to Cherry Lane still remains zoned L-O. We will probably see an application
before too long on the remainder of that property. We would recommend approval of the Final Plat with all staff and agency conditions.
Corrie: Okay. Council do you have any questions about plat approval?
Bird: Cherie you get to make the motion.
McCandless: I do?
Bird: Yes.
McCandless: Okay. I move that we approve the Final Plat of 16 building lots and 4 other lots on 5.17 acres in an R-4 zone for Devlin Place subdivision No. 2 by JUB Engineers and have
the Attorney draw up the appropriate papers.
Bird: I’ll second it.
Corrie: Now that we have Mr. Anderson back, the motion was to approve the request for Final Plat Devlin Place and have the attorney draw up the findings and facts on that. Is there
any further discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none, roll call vote Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 27. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
Corrie: Delinquency turn off schedule for 6-21. This is to inform you in writing that if you choose to have the right to a predetermined hearing on Tuesday June 19th before the Mayor
and City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts to defend the claim made by the city that your water, sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. The service
will be discontinued on June 20, 2001 unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to
contest his or her water, sewer and trash delinquency. Let the record show mine’s not on there.
Bird: Mine either, I don’t think.
Corrie: You are hereby informed that you may appeal to have the city reviewed by the Fourth Judicial Court pursuant to Idaho State code. Even though you do appeal your water will be
shut off. The amount of the turn off list is $30,660.34.
Any discussion on the water turnoff?
Smith: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes sir.
Smith: The water superintendent has asked if we could also have June 27th as a turn off date if needed.
Corrie: And June the 20th?
Bird: Yeah.
Smith: And June 20th. June 20th and 27th, if needed on the 27th. Thank you.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, while you’re on this. There’s 2 things I’ve got to ask you. One thing is why are our bills coming out on the 7th and you’re late if you don’t pay them by the 11th? It’s
happened this month. I didn’t mind the 2 phone calls I got at work but I did when I got home from the wife. She’s wanting to know, so I’m asking. Also I had a couple of retired people
call and ask why we can’t direct pay from their bank, if that’s possible. I told them I’d get back to them and find out.
Corrie: We can if the Council so desires to do it. We’ll get the information on it.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The problem with the easy pay, is it needs to be a set amount each month.
(inaudible discussion)
Nichols: Well, that’s the problem. That’s what the bank will require. That’s why you can have money taken out of your checking account for a certain amount. It’s a fixed fee every
month and it doesn’t fluctuate. Unless you’ve got a water and sewer bill that doesn’t fluctuate that easy pay type automatic deduction doesn’t work.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: Gary, --
Smith: Mr. Mayor. I think we might be talking about 2 different things. What Bill is talking about is what’s called a level pay, which establishes an amount that you pay each month throughout
the year similar to what the gas company has. The request that Councilman Bird has received is an automatic withdrawal from a checking account, is that correct?
Bird: Yeah. That’s what this gentleman – and he said he’d done it before.
Smith: So, regardless of what your bill is, the amount of the bill is transmitted from City Hall to your bank and it’s automatically deducted from your checking account.
Bird: Yeah. Idaho Power does it. That’s what he was saying. When they travel, at least the retired people were having problems.
Smith: Leslie has done some investigation into that because I think she’s been asked that question before. I’m sorry to say I don’t have information in my memory bank as to what she
found out. I’ll certainly get that for you and present it to you so that you can perhaps make a decision on how you want to proceed with that.
Bird: I think if it’s practical to do and other agencies are doing it. I think it’s something that we should offer too because some of these people go out for a month or 2 months and
find out they’re delinquent or their water’s been shut off.
Smith: Right.
Bird: I think that we need to do that. Also, 4 days from the time you receive your bill until you’re delinquent is not right.
McCandless: No, it isn’t.
Bird: We either get our bills out earlier –
Smith: Well, I don’t understand that –
Corrie: I don’t either because the cut off date’s shown here is on 4-30-2001 and this is the June 20th and 27th. (inaudible). I (inaudible) and it wasn’t on it.
Bird: Was yours the 7th? Did you get your bill the 7th and was it delinquent the 11th?
Smith: No. Mine wasn’t.
Bird: Mine was.
Smith: If there’s an amount that’s not paid from the previous month, it’ll show up on a delinquent amount on the bill that you get for this month. But, if the previous bill has been
paid there shouldn’t be anything showing up as delinquent on—
Bird: No, it don’t say delinquent. I mean it doesn’t show a delinquent. It says if not paid – you get it on the 7th if not paid by the 11th you’re delinquent. Now, we got one at 1022
West State. Ours said the same thing and we had no delinquency and 2 elderly people called me and had the same complaint. That they received it on the 7th which was a Thursday if I remember
right and it was delinquent as of the 11th.
McCandless: Mine says the 16th.
Bird: These said the 11th.
McCandless: If it’s not paid by the 16th it’s delinquent.
Bird: It said by the 11th on these.
McCandless: These are not even consistent.
Bird: Our billing thing has got to be –
Corrie: Gary, --
Smith: I’ll find out.
Corrie: -- we better sit down and figure out what it is. Because anybody showing on this delinquent list hasn’t paid, usually for 30 days. Maybe something’s in the verbiage that may
be wrong. But, looking at this, everybody is at least 2 months behind.
Bird: I didn’t look at mine. I just took my wife’s word for it.
Corrie: Well, I would too, if I were you. Okay. Well, we’ll find out about it then. I’ll entertain a motion then for the delinquency turn off schedule and then for June 20th and 27th
if need be.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the delinquency schedule and have the turn off dates at June 20, 2001 and June 27, 2001.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and second. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Department Reports:
Public Works Department – Gary Smith
Wastewater Treatment Plant Water Line Project – Change Order No. 1:
Corrie: Gary, department reports.
Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I’m going to have Brad Watson run through these department reports for the public works department.
Corrie: Sorry, they can’t do it if it says you on there.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: It’s kind of late for you DAVs isn’t it?
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: They know what that means.
Watson: Can you repeat it for the record. Thank you Mayor and Council. I’ll try to run through these fairly quickly. At least the first couple. Item No. 1 is the wastewater treatment
plant waterline project change order No. 1. The net increase on this is $2,913.71 to increase the total contract to $70,607.71. If there are any questions I would recommend that Council
approve change order No. 1 in that amount and authorize the Mayor to sign and the clerk to attest.
Corrie: Okay. Any discussion?
Anderson: I have none.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I move that we approve change order NO. 1 for the wastewater treatment plant waterline project in the amount of $2913.71 and authorize the Mayor to sign and the city
clerk to attest and I believe that was Hemminger Construction. Is that right?
Watson: Herminger Construction.
Bird: Herminger Construction.
Corrie: Motion been made to order No. 1 change in the wastewater treatment plant waterline project. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Agreement for Roadway Construction/Water and Sewer Improvements – Locust Grove Road, Fairview to Ustick:
Watson: Thank you. Item No. 2 is a cooperative agreement for roadway construction with water and sewer improvements on Locust Grove Road, Fairview Avenue to Ustick Road. Hopefully, you’ve
read through that. Basically, we’re doing the same thing we did on the Franklin and Meridian Road rebuild a couple years ago, finishing out some water and sewer in conjunction with ACHD’s
road improvements. We’ve hired the same consultant that ACHD is using. This agreement simply reimburses ACHD for their contract administration, some field testing and some of those cost.
What they have given me so far is a maximum of $6,000. I’ve requested verification on both that amount and the total admin cost from ACHD. I haven’t received that back from them yet.
I think 6,000 is probably a low number if anything. If it does come back higher, we’ll have to come back and talk to you about that. This is what I’ve got right now. They’re trying to
get this bid out and they need to run this through their commission too.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Brad, this is just not to exceed, if you think it’s going to go over 6, do you want to move it up to an 8 or a 10, not to exceed? That way the Mayor can sign in and then if it’s
6 or under, we’re great. But if it’s over you don’t have to waste 2 weeks coming back to see us.
Watson: Councilman Bird, Mayor and Council. I really don’t have any feel for what it could be. I just haven’t gotten very good information other than the $6,000 figure that was given
to me 3 weeks ago.
Bird: But when you put out a not to exceed, you know, you’re just setting a limit there. So, if it comes in at $6,005, if we pass $6,000 the Mayor can’t allow it. You’d have to come
back. You’d to have to wait the 2 weeks to come back before us. If we raise it to 8 or 10, even if they’ll come in at 6,000, it would still be good.
Watson: Councilman Bird, Mayor and Council. If you’re comfortable doing that, I have no problem.
Bird: I have no problem there. Do you Ron? Mayor, do you have any problem with that? Cherie? With that I would make a motion that we accept the agreement for roadway construction, sewer
and water line improvements with Ada County Highway District for construction contract administration in the amount not to exceed $10,000 and authorize the Mayor to sign and the city
clerk to attest.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and second to approve the agreement for roadway construction of water and sewer improvements not to exceed $10,000. Further discussion? All those in favor
of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Biosolids Dewatering Facility – Increase to Carolla Engineers’ Professional Services Agreement:
Watson: Thank you. Item No. 3 is an increase to Carolla Engineers’ Professional Services Agreement for the biosolids dewatering facility at the wastewater plant. The memo outlines some
of the causes in the increase in their budget. I had, when the project began, knocked them around pretty hard on getting this cost down. As it turned out, some of the things that happened
on a related project out there and just the normal course of getting this thing done has caused some increases in their required time spent. The total increase they’re requesting is
$7100 which would increase the contract amount for this task to $52,424. Unless you have questions we would recommend approving the agreement amendment with Carolla Engineers for $45,324
to $52,424.Are there any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion.
Bird; Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the agreement amendment with Carolla Engineers for the biosolids dewatering facility, increasing the construction service task order amount from $45324 to
$52424 and authorize the Mayor to sign and the city clerk to attest.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to approve the Carolla Engineers Professional Services Agreement in the stated motion. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Standby Generators at Wells No. 17 and No. 19 – Lease Agreement:
Diesel Delivery and Storage Trailer Unit – Lease Agreement:
Watson: Thank you Mayor and Council. Items 4 and 5 are somewhat related. 5 is something you’ve seen before. It’s the lease agreement for standby generators at wells No. 17 and 19. At
the May18th meeting we had discussed and you had asked us to gather some more information. One was to see if we can get a month by month lease amount from Western States for the generators
and also to talk with Idaho Power as to the likelihood of power outages. You can see from the memo that Western States did offer a modified lease price. Although, not very much lower
than what they had originally quoted if you calculate it out. Gary Smith has spoken with Arden Davis of Idaho Power. To my knowledge has not received any written information from him
as was requested.
Smith: Mayor and Council. I talked to Arden and he was going to send some information to me. I did not receive anything from him.
Watson: the front page of the Valley News, I noticed tonight says Lane Dobson says they expect no power outages. I don’t know anymore than that. I talked with the water department, Rick
Clinton today. I guess it’s our thought that this is a safety valve. It’s an expensive safety valve.
Corrie: They said that to me too. There wasn’t going to be blackouts.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I think, how readily available are these generators and stuff? I mean it’s about a $10,000 insurance policy but if something happens, we’ll be happy to have that $10,000
insurance policy.
(inaudible discussion)
Watson: Councilman Bird, Mayor and Council. First of all, if we went July 1st through September, the total cost for the 2 generators would be $13,800. The second part as to availability.
They are available but the ones that we want have to be modified to plug into the receptacles that we have at the well sites. They don’t come with our specific receptacle. Everyone’s
a little different. The ones that we requested quotes to include a cost for, they call it I don’t know. It’s a technical term. It’s a pig tail that they have to actually order and put
on. It’s not
like if a power outage happens at 12:00 we could go get one and have it plugged in by 4:00. It’s a couple day thing from what I understand.
Corrie: They wouldn’t anticipate a power outage more than about 3 hours (inaudible).
Bird: What would that do to us and our water?
Watson: We have 4 wells somewhat evenly distributed around the city including the new reservoir site that has a generator. The question is not whether there’ll be water it’s a pressure
question, whether we can provide the pressure (inaudible). We are updating the computer model. Until that’s done this fall, I don’t know that we can run those modeling (inaudible) very
accurately with the (inaudible).
Anderson: Brad, that 13,000 is only part of the cost because then this diesel delivery is the other part of the cost too.
Bird: Oh, yeah. (inaudible).
Corrie: (inaudible)
Watson: If we don’t use the fuel, they’ll buy it back. We just have the truck rental. Correct. Mayor and Council one other item that I just learned this afternoon talking to the assistant
Superintendent of Nampa Meridian, they have reduced their water flows to 60 percent, right now, today. They’ve cut them back to 60 percent of what they had yesterday in the ditches.
The assistant Superintendent was, he said it was probably unlikely they would go beyond September 1st with irrigation water. In that regard, we’re going to be looking at an additional
demand on the water system in the month of September for irrigation.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: You didn’t need a decision tonight did you, Gary or Brad?
Watson: Councilman Bird. The quotes on the generators were open for 30 days which expired yesterday. I did make contact with Western States and he’s working with us. He says they’re
still there. I told him I was bringing it to Council tonight. He did ask if there would be a decision and I said that I would give him a yes or a no one way or another tomorrow. It’s
not that he will give them away. It’s just that he can now. The diesel fuel thing, I don’t know that there’s any immediate need to decide on that. Councilman Anderson was right. The
total cost for the program I’ve outlined here would be 25,250 for the 3 month period.
Corrie: Okay. If you want to make a decision now –
Bird: Let’s go ahead.
Anderson: I’m ready. I guess I appreciate the work you did but I have to rely a lot on what Idaho Power is telling us. I just don’t feel that there’s that much urgency. I think what
I’m hearing, what I’m seeing in the news and everything else is that people are being more power conscience now and they’re scaling back and Idaho Power is indicating that they think
they’re going to be okay at this point. If we had information to contradict that then I would say yeah, we ought to do this. At this point I think it’s $25,000 of taxpayers money that
we could save for another project.
Corrie: They’ve been telling me they’re not going to have it.
Bird: While we’re talking about energy, I think the city needs to get an energy program. I don’t know if you have to have your computers on all the time. Very rarely is a computer turned
off in this city. I don’t know why they have to be on. They suck up a lot of power. I know we turn all of ours off. (inaudible) as much as Tammy wanted me to bring it up. I think Mayor
you need to talk to them about turning off the computers at night. (inaudible).
Corrie: You have to have them on. You can turn them off at the base (inaudible). There’s a possibility that (inaudible) people that come in and do the audit for us. Then we can get
a loan and maybe it wouldn’t cost us anything. The Treasure Valley Partnership that would go through the new police station and do the wastewater treatment plant and the whole thing.
I know that, where was it, Weiser, or one of those, They saved $35,000 just in the wastewater plant. So, I talked to Kent Baker and we can get them and it can get be paid for by the
Treasure Valley Partnership grants and it can save us quite a bit of time too. (inaudible) on the whole city. I’ve been working on a possible plan that I’m going to show you probably
this week to ask that they turn the lights off and the computers off and save what (inaudible). Every little bit helps. You’ll be getting it probably Friday or so.
Watson: Mayor and Council. I have instructed my departments to shut their computers off at night. We’re doing that. We’re making sure that when we’re leaving the office, we’re turning
our lights off and trying to do a little bit to conserve power. It’s like Councilman Anderson said on this proposal tonight that that is 25, $26,000 that can be spent on a project. The
information that we have been able to get is certainly not conclusive that there’s going to be a problem. Councilman Anderson is really close to that I’m sure because of the emergency
service that he’s dealing with. Mayor Corrie is getting that same information from Idaho Power. I didn’t get any real good conclusive evidence from Arden Davis. I guess it’s not a real
– there isn’t any real concrete information to support the request. I guess maybe there’s some concerns that we’re picking up from neighboring states, particularly California. With the
summertime temperatures,
with the increased amount on our water system, it’s like an insurance policy I guess. You never know.
Corrie: You won’t die and they’re betting they do.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: If we don’t do it, it’ll go. If we did it, it wouldn’t go.
Corrie: Okay. Just let it ride?
Bird: Yeah. Well, I don’t know. Cherie, what do you want?
McCandless: I don’t know. I kind of agree with Ron.
(inaudible discussion)
McCandless: I had trouble saying that, you understand?
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Okay. Mr. Mayor. I’d move that we adjourn.
Corrie: Okay, hear a second?
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: We adjourned at 11:30 P.M.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:30 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK