HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 03-20Meridian City Council Meeting Tuesday, March 20, 2001
The regularly scheduled City Council meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Robert D. Corrie on Tuesday, March 20, 2001.
Members Present: Robert Corrie, Tammy de Weerd, Ron Anderson, Keith Bird.
Members Absent: Cherie McCandless.
Others Present: Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Bill Gordon, Bill Nichols, Dave Bowman, Will Berg.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Tammy de Weerd X Ron Anderson
Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird
X Mayor Robert Corrie
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Corrie: Council, you have the agenda in front of you. I will have a motion for the adoption of the agenda. Are there any corrections?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that approve the adoption of the agenda as published.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the adoption of the agenda as noted. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of February 6, 2001, City Council Meeting:
B. Approve minutes of February 13, 2001, City Council Special Meeting:
C. Approve minutes of February 13, 2001, City Council Workshop:
D. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 00-057 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a new office / warehouse building in a flood plain for Big D Builders
in an I-L zone – King Street and Baltic Place:
E. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Denial: AZ 00-022 Request for annexation and zoning of 118.4 acres to R-4 for proposed Springdale Subdivision by Gemstar Properties,
LLC – east of McDermott between Cherry Lane and Ustick Road:
F. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Denial: PP 00-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 385 building lots and 9 other lots on 118.4 acres in a proposed R-4 zone
for proposed Springdale Subdivision by Gemstar Properties, LLC – east of McDermott between Cherry Lane and Ustick Road:
G. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AP 01-001 Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Director’s interpretation of the definition of “flashing sign” for A to Z Rental
& Supply – 1603 East 1st Street:
H. Development Agreement: AZ 00-012 Request for annexation and zoning by Opal Farrington of 4.70 acres from R-1 to R-4 for proposed addition of a home – northwest corner of East Pine
Avenue and Adkins Way:
I. Development Agreement: AZ 00-010 Request for annexation and zoning of 40.33 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Timber View Subdivision by Victory 41, LLC – north of Victory Road
and east of Meridian Road:
J. New Beer and Wine License: Smokey Mountain Pizza and Pasta – 114 East Idaho Avenue:
Corrie: Consent Agenda Items A through J; are there any additions or corrections or anything that needs to be pulled off or discussed?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I did not see, and I might have missed it in my packet, the Smoky Mountain Pizza and Pasta.
Corrie: It is in your stuff tonight.
De Weerd: It is in front of you.
Bird: Oh, it is in front of me. I am sorry. No more questions. All development agreements signed and everything that are on the Consent Agenda? All the Development Agreements have been
signed?
Corrie: Shari?
Bird: Shari?
Corrie: All of the agreements have been signed in the Consent Agenda?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council I believe they have been signed; however, I would request that Item I be moved to the regular agenda for discussion.
Corrie: It is a Development Agreement for annexation and zoning on the Timber View Subdivision.
Stiles: Yes.
Corrie: Chief, you have signed the beer and wine license on the Smoky Mountain Pizza?
Bowman: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, there was a bureaucratic glitch involving that, and thanks to the City Clerk I think we were able to approve that tonight pending an investigation
which I will take care of first thing in the morning. Smoky Mountain Pizza does have a State beer and wine license and also a County so I do not anticipate any problems, but we received
it a little bit late. I would recommend we pass that.
Corrie: Councilmen, is that satisfactory?
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: Any further corrections, additions, or changes? Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of moving item I to Item 5.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made to approve the Consent Agenda with Item I being moved down to Item 5 in the regular agenda. Any further discussion? Roll-call vote Mr. Clerk.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, absent; Bird, aye.
Corrie: All ayes, motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 4. Department Reports:
A. Mayor’s Department – Mayor Robert Corrie:
1. Refund of Transfer of Conditional Use Permit Fees for Julie Huerta, All About Kids Daycare:
Corrie: Is she here this evening? Would you like to explain to the Council or if you want me to I can -- why you are requesting that refund.
Huerta: Will you do that?
Corrie: Okay. Council in your folder is telling the schedule of fees, changing the expenses and refunds. The fees to be charged for the various procedures stated above are not refundable
expect when the petition or application is withdrawn at least one week before the date of its scheduled Public Hearing and then only by order of the City Council. This was done as you
remember the last week before and request that this refund be made since the original application was withdrawn. The applicant at this point is requesting that that fee be returned to
her. City Clerk, have you got anything else on that that you want to --?
Berg: No.
Corrie: Okay, what is the amount of that fee? Do you remember? Julie do you remember what that fee was? If you will come up here please.
Huerta: $213.26
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess in light of the circumstances then I would make a motion that we refund the money to Julie Huerta in the amount of $213.26.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to refund the $213.26 to Julie. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
B. Public Works Department – Director Gary Smith:
1. Will-serve letter relating to land owned by W.H. Moore at Ustick and Eagle Roads:
Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council, I submitted a letter to you, a memo dated March 19, 2001, concerning my review of the map information which is a concept drawing of the development
of the property along with some topographic map information regarding the ability of the city to provide or accept gravity sewer service from this entire 50-plus-acre parcel, which includes
the 12-plus acres that is being discussed with the City of Boise as far as transfer from their impact area to the City of Meridian impact area. Based on the information that was provided
to me, the property will serve by gravity into the sewer line that is being projected by the City of Meridian to be extended up the South Slough. I think that was the question that was
asked of Public Works Department at the last Council meeting.
Corrie: Any questions from Council?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I have a question for the attorney: what is the procedure that we go through on this? We are willing to accept those 12 acres, and it will be a real (inaudible) flow to the South
Slough. What do we do, pass a motion? This is just something that goes before the commissioners and they reassign the area from Boise to us. We got a letter from Brent Coles, they are
agreeable.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I think there are two separate issues here. One is can we serve the property and yes we can, so it is a can serve letter in my opinion. The second issue is one that is supposed
to be addressed next week. If we do the exchanges in our area of impact boundaries, does that constitute a change in Comprehensive Plan or the Land Use Map? So I believe that that is
a total separate issue.
Anderson: Actually, Mr. Mayor if I could.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Actually, I think there is a third issue then because I think the applicant was asking if we would be willing to extend our sewer service outside of our city limits.
Corrie: You have three issues here that you are going to have to address. I think tonight the will-serve letter that the city Public Works Director has told us that we can service
it. Now the question is do you want to service it or will you service it? Plus, will we take the land exchange that the City of Boise wants to give in the area of impact to us, and then
also we have a choice about giving them some land that they would like to have in the south part of town to correct an oversight they had there. I guess my question to you Mr. Attorney
is do we do anything at this point?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, I think you need to make some sort of decision as to what the next step is at the very minimum. Although there is a letter in your packet
from Mayor Coles from Boise City, which is a letter to the Board of Ada County Commissioners asking to start the renegotiation process with regard to these different areas of impact.
The state statute says, and this is Idaho Code 67-6526 subsection E, says prior to negotiation or renegotiations of areas of city impact plan and ordinance requirements; the governing
board shall submit the questions to the Planning and Zoning commission for recommendation. Each commission shall have a reasonable time fixed by the governing board to make its recommendations
to the governing board. Then there is another statute, which specifies that; the Planning and Zoning commission can recommend changes to the Comprehensive Plan only every 6 months. The
draft Comprehensive Plan that is close to being presented to the Planning and Zoning commission for its review and so forth, and then they would presumably do their work and then have
a plan which they would recommend to this body for adoption. It would seem to me that your choices are you could indicate to the WH-Moore company the circumstances under which you would
be willing to serve and that could be contingent upon the actual renegotiations of the area of impact boundaries to include that one 12 acre parcel. It could include any other conditions
that you think are appropriate for that extension of services. Or you could say you are going to remand it this question to the Planning and Zoning commission for them to review it and
indicate what conditions they think would be appropriate in connection with renegotiations of the area of impact boundary. Then I would say that all of this needs to be tied in on the
map that is going to be with the Comprehensive Plan revision that is going to be recommended to this council. So that you do not get caught in this whip-saw, we have changed the Land
Use Map now we cannot do anything on the Comprehensive Plan for every 6 months that you bundle it together so that you do not have that problem. I do not know, Mayor and Council members,
if I have adequately addressed your question or left it out there.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I had a question then. Bill, I guess kind of the way you present that I am confused because I do not know how you can wrap this into the package at this point without messing
up the Comprehensive Plan, if that is going to be seen this summer. How can you bring this issue into that without clouding that?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Anderson, and members of the Council I cannot recall of the proposed map how this area is zoned now. How it is proposed on the Land Use Map now the area
that is already in the area of impact that is owned by Mr. Moore. Assuming that the use is not inconsistent at this point with his proposed plans or even if it is it can still at the
Public Hearing stage, WH-Moore or anybody else, can say this area ought to be designated this type of use and by the way, we think this 12 acres over here ought to be in your area of
impact. I do not know that it really messes up the plan, but I am not the one that is putting the plan together; Shari is. So I would say that she ought to have some input here. It would
seem to me that it is best do them all at once because you have two things; one this 12-acre parcel then there is another piece south of the freeway next to Boise that they want in their
area of impact. I think there is an area of impact line that goes through a rural subdivision there. I think you can do it together. It may be more problematic in the abstract then it
is in the actual getting down to it.
Corrie: Shari.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council we can revise the proposed new map to include all of these changes as part of the overall plan. Then it will be up to the Planning and Zoning
commission to make the recommendation, and we will explain to them what the changes are to the area of impact. We can include those areas.
Corrie: So, if I am hearing you right, it is best to reprimand this back to Planning and Zoning then to tie it up into one package. Correct?
Stiles: If what I am hearing from Mr. Nichols is that this is going to constitute a change, yes we would like it to be consolidated in with the new plan.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, I need to emphasis too that if any of the council members feel that there needs to be some additional – there needs to be some additional
discussion on this particular issue because even if the services are extended and it is outside Boise’s area of impact, it is in the county, the city will not receive any impact fees
in connect with any development that goes on there. The cities Landscape and Subdivision Ordinance will not apply. The city will not receive any building permit fees for anything that
is done out
there. So, there are some questions as to whether you want to do that. At the same time you recognize that that is a portion of you area of impact that you have wanted to protect as
far as be able to bring into the City of Meridian when it is contiguous with the city limits.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: As I recall when this was brought up all that was asked was if we could service it with gravity flow and would we service it when it became contiguous to the city limits. I do
not recall anything being said different than that. I thought this was strictly, as I know it affects the Comprehensive Plan, which Shari just said. I do not know why you have to tie
in three different deals when all they are asking is just a will serve letter to get it changed from Boise to our deal to our impact area. That is what I thought was being asked I could
be wrong. It was just a will serve letter, can we and will we when it becomes contiguous to the city.
Corrie: I understood the request for the will serve letter to be different. That request was to extend services outside the city limits and even if it was not contiguous, but the applicant
is here so maybe they can clarify that.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I do have the letter in front of us. They are saying that they would like the services brought out to them until and annexation could be begin, and they would like
to start construction. So in essence they would be paying all of their fees to the county and Mr. Seel had mentioned to us that in the long run we would recoup those costs back. I would
like to say I have been very consistent in my position that we run our services as we annex into our property and that would be my position.
Seel: Jonathan Seel, W.H. Moore Company. When we initially presented the letter and came in front of the council and the Mayor, our request was that we were asking for your approval
to take that land which is currently within the City of Boise and put it into the City of Meridian impact areas. But however tied to that is that we get a will serve letter so that the
time the sewer service is available we can connect to it regardless of whether we can be annexed. As I said, the last time I stood up here, we do not have a dispute with being annexed.
If we could be annexed right now, we would be, but there is no apparent path at this time. Now maybe a year from now there might be, but what we need is that assurance that at the time
that sewer is there, we can go ahead and tie to it. We also said that we agree that we would not fight annexation at the time that they become available. And again I think that is in
the near future. I think possibly within the next year, but it is critical that we get the will serve letter in addition to the annexation and it not be tied that we would be contiguous
to the city. So I do not know if that answers your question or not. The other thing that I responded to is that I think in the short term, yes there is not impacts to you that are not
favorable, but I think in the long term I think this will be an extremely beneficial project to the City of Meridian, and it is one that we would like to get started on at this point.
That is what we are really looking for. We are looking for a way that we can start this entire project and make it work and begin our marketing and our development and our approval process.
We believe that within the next year the sewer will be there. And again as Councilman Anderson said, he asked if I was looking for a guarantee, and we are not. We understand there is
no guarantee that it will be year, but we think within the next year the sewer will be there. That will dovetail very well with our project and be able to move in. But at that point
if there is not annexation, we do not want to be held back.
De Weerd: I was very clear on your intentions. You are saying you want to go ahead and submit your application through the County?
Seel: Yes.
De Weerd: They need the letter of our willingness to service that from us in order to approve it.
Seel: No, we can do one of it through the City of Boise right now. In other words, we can move forward with the City of Boise and the 12 acres immediately. We have talked to the city
to Wayne Gibbs. That is not a problem. We think it is probably in our best interest to try and merge them all together and do this project in one city, instead of having a dividing line
down potentially your road this part is in the City of Boise and this part is in the City of Meridian. I think it will be difficult. We can do it, but it would be difficult. So our feeling
is more if we can give you the 12 acres, you provide us with the will serve letter, which gives us the insurance that at the time the sewer is there we can tie to it. We would also agree
that at the time that we can be annexed into the city, whether that is tomorrow or a year or a year and a half from now, we would not contest that. We would be in complete support of
that. We would make that a condition. We would just like to be able to move forward in this project. We just felt this would be a simpler way, we can do it other ways, but we feel this
would probably long term be the best way.
De Weerd: And Mr. Seel, I would like to see that happen too. However, this Council made a commitment over a year ago that the way we were going to grow and service that development would
be that we would grow from the inside out, and the developments that we served would be contiguous and annexed into the city at that time. That would be my concern. I know that your
developments are very nice; we would like to see that a part of the Meridian community, but we are not out there yet. I know that that is your concern, but how we set a priority that
that is kind of the path of logic that we were going to follow. All I am saying is I would like to remain consistent with that, and yes we will serve you, but we will serve you when
you can be annexed into the City.
Seel: Yes, I guess that is our dilemma because we do not have any control. We would love to make that possible tomorrow. Unfortunately, we are not in that position, so I guess our
dilemma again, and I am probably repeating this, is we would like to move forward on this project, which we think again will be a real benefit and a plus to the city long term, but we
cannot at this point. We do not see any option. There is no immediate path. We wish there were if there was we would do it. I would prefer to do it that way than go through this process.
This process so far has been rather convoluted, and we have not accomplished anything, very little at this point. I have only begun this process, but this is the only way we can see
it happening at this point. Sure, as you say waiting until the land potentially, somewhere down Eagle Road move over and then we can do that. But we do not know when that is going to
be. Until then, it just simply sits there as farmland, and that does not do anybody much good other than farmers maybe.
Anderson: Farmland is a good thing.
Seel: It is a good thing, but Winston does not purchase land for farming. So that is our dilemma, and that is the reason we have started this thing, and it is kind of going between
a series of different groups. Getting approval here, getting approval there, and getting approval okay everybody is okay then moving to the next step. We started at the City of Boise,
they said yes that that seemed fair and reasonable to them. The county said it seems to be fair and that they could work with us. The next process is the City of Meridian thinks that
this makes sense, is something they are willing to work with us on? I understand your concern about annexation. I wish we could do something about that, but we cannot. That is why we
are kind of asking for some help in enabling us to get going. I do not this project – this project would probably take a year before we have the roads and the infrastructure in at best,
so I think a lot of it would dovetail. If we wait until we are annexed and then begin it, we are that much further behind.
De Weerd: I think that is what every developer who comes in front of us has to deal with. The timing of the issue, and we understand that, but we can only do it in that logical growth
pattern.
Corrie: Who would sewer our part?
Seel: We would connect at this point, if this does not become an option, we would simply go back to the City of Boise and we would connect to their sewer and do that development.
Corrie: Just on the 12 acres.
Seel: Yes on the 12 acres and we would keep that in the City of Boise then. Sewer and water is available right now. It is zoned where we can do a commercial development within that
area, so again from that standpoint, that is
an easier way to do it, but we think long term having the whole project within the City of Meridian is more to our benefit and also to your benefit. So short term there may be some impacts
that you do not like, such as maybe fees that you are foregoing, but I think long term there is going to be a lot of benefits to it. We are just trying to get that train rolling at this
point. And I guess we need some help.
Corrie: Who is going to drive the train? You or us?
Seel: Well, I think it is going to be a combination. I have talked to the county, and the county recognizes that ultimately this package is going to be given to the City of Meridian.
Someday, whether that is a month from now, two years from now, it is going to be annexed in the city. Let us say hypothetically that we go ahead and we do a development agreement with
the county, if we just hand it to you and it is something you do not like that is not very fair. So they recognize the importance of working with you through the process. We also do
too. We are not thinking or suggesting that we are going to go the county, do an application, do this development, and then kind of hand you something whether you like it or not. So
there is going to be a great deal of involvement with the City of Meridian. The county, making sure that it is something that you want when it is annexed. So I think there will be I
think fortunately or unfortunately there will be more than a few people driving this train.
Corrie: It is just a matter of whose timing we are going to use. Yours or ours. You want to do it now.
Seel: We would like to begin the process now.
Corrie: And we do not want to do it now because we have not got the avenue yet. I see.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would offer my two-sense. I think your proposal has several major points, and I agree with about 75% of those points. I think it makes sense for all of that to be in one
city’s impact area. I think it makes sense to sewer it all one direction if you can. There is the issue about as the project develops and as plans get reviewed and stuff like that, our
staff would have additional time reviewing those plans just like the county, and we would be out those funds that the county would receive. But to me that is really the minor issue.
The biggest sticking point for me on this whole project is the precedents that it sets with that will serve letter, and that to me opens up a whole can of worms because we have a whole
gaggle of developers that are waiting to develop out there on the outside. And the minute that we do something like this for you, we have set a precedent that is just going to open the
flood gates for request after request to do
the same thing for their project. And everybody agrees that we will sign letters, we will annex as soon as we could, all that was said in southwest Boise when Boise extended their sewer
lines outside the city limits of Boise too, and now we are seeing the impact of that years later in the arguments that are occurring in the legislature and things like that. So that
is my reservation on your proposal. I agree like I said with 75% of it. I agree with Tammy, we think Winston is a very reputable developer. We would love to have his project, but the
timing at this point is just not right for us; therefore, I am not going to throw my support to the letter of intent to serve. That is the point that is bothering me.
Seel: Well if I understand and might I correct it, I had understood that recently and I may be off on this that this same situation was done for someone else or has been done in other
cases, is that an incorrect understanding?
Anderson: I do not know that it has.
Bird: It has, we took the water out to Summers. We took the water line all the way to Summers Funeral Home out there.
Seel: And I know Winston has thrown that at me and said they have done this in other situations too. I am not suggesting and unfortunately I do not have the name of that, but I ask
that as a question here.
Anderson: That issue is completely different than this. That one was a situation where we already had the county approve a project in our area and there was no way to get the fire
protection there, and so that was a project that was approved and we did that just in the interest of getting the fire protection. So it was not a matter of a letter of intent to serve
or sewer lines or things like that, so I see this as a complete different set of circumstances to it. So I do not think we have set a precedent with that one.
Seel: Okay.
Anderson: In my mind.
Corrie: Any other comments?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Then the question is do we want to have the will serve letter written to W.H. Moore’s property on Ustick and Eagle Road?
Anderson: Well, I guess the clear direction is I think everybody agrees with all of the points here except for that letter with the will serve, and so if that is the sticking point
for you and there are other issues then I guess take the 12 acres to Boise, and we hate to see it leave.
Seel: I do not want to make that sound like a threat or thing because it is not. It is just the situation we are faced with, and that is what I wanted to emphasis last time I was here
that to say yes we will take the 12 acres, but without the opportunity to tie in the sewer when it becomes available does not really do us any good. So we need one with the other and
without then I guess we pull back and head in another direction, so again that is not meant as a threat. We have to evaluate our options here and that is the only pursuit of options.
Corrie: Thank you. Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Seel: Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you, Jonathon. Gary, item 2.
2. Easements – Bridgetower Subdivision:
Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor. The second item is a presentation of an easement document for Bridgetower Subdivision, which is located on the north side of Ustick Road between Ten Mile
Road and Linder. These two easements, one is sanitary sewer line; one is for water as the temporary easement at the end of a street that is going to be extended in the future. The sewer
line is a connection of the subdivision to the existing sanitary sewer trunk line along the north edge of Five Mile drain. If you have any questions, I can try and answer them.
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: I have none.
Anderson: I have none.
Corrie: No questions.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I believe he needs a motion to accept that, does he not?
Corrie: Yes.
Smith: Yes, please.
Bird: With that I would move that we approve the sanitary sewer line and water main easement with Primeland Development Company, LLP.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the sanitary sewer line and water main easement. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Members of Council.
3. Nahas – Central Valley Corporate Park – Landscape Irrigation:
Smith: The next item I have is a request by developers of Central Valley Corporate Park, Bob and Ron Nahas, for a refund of water connection fees that they paid for sprinkling of common
area, landscaped common areas. This connect fee was paid for a single-point connection for water that would be used after the ditch water was not available from the Eight Mile Lateral.
They refer to this as shoulder season water, it is not utilized all summer long, but it is utilized prior to ditch water availability, and it is utilized after ditch water availability.
Their intent is to drill a well on site. They have petitioned the Idaho Department Water Resources for this permit for a shoulder season irrigation well. It is my understanding that
they are going to receive that drilling permit. In that regard they have requested a refund on the $8,500 that they paid for water assessments. They have been paying their water user
fees as the water has been used. The $8,500 would then be used by them to drill and outfit the well, and they would disconnect from the city system for this shoulder season water.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: So clarify for me Gary, when you say the water user fees, we are not refunding the money for water that they have already used at this point are we?
Smith: No. The $8,500 is a connection fee that they paid for capacity in the system. It is just like anybody pays that connects to our system. They pay for a capacity requirement for
our ability to provide the water and then they pay for the water as a user fee. They have been paying their user fee as water that goes through the meter, is measured through the meter.
Anderson: This is kind of off of that subject but is that grass that they have out there on that berm, is that some kind of weird grass? It does not look like normal
grass. With this water that they get help to make that look any better? It looks like clumps of grass that somebody forgot to mow or something.
Smith: That is a type of grass that they use low maintenance type of grass –
Anderson: It does not take much water?
Smith: -- well it is not supposed to, but they may be putting too much on it, too. I have not seen anything from Mr. Nahas, either Bob or Ron Nahas concerning this drilling permit or
the status of the permit. But if you decide that this refund is appropriate I would think that it should be based on their submittal of documentation from Idaho Department of Water Resources
that they do have a valid drilling permit for this type of well.
Corrie: Any other questions on the request.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve this $8,500 pay back with the condition of the completion of the pump, the well, and everything attached, not showing but upon the completion of this
well pump and everything.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to return the $8,500 with the conditions on the motion as stated. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Members of Council.
4. Well No. 22 Test Well Drilling:
Smith: The next item I have is a request for approval to enter into an agreement with Stevens and Sons Well Drilling to drill a test well near the future production well that will be
drilled in the Bear Creek Subdivision City Park Area off of Stoddard Road, south of Overland. Stevens and Sons has completed at least 6 wells for the city during the past 5 or so years
that we use to design the production well that would be drilled after that. We are anticipating that the production well for this area for the Bear Creek Subdivision will be drilled
during this summer. The proposal from Stevens and Sons is to drill the well on a time and material basis with a not to exceed $24,900. There is also some consideration for this well
to drill at such that we can utilize it at a later time for
irrigation in the park area. Supplement the water that we would be getting from the Irrigation District for that purpose, so we do not have to rely on city water. Public Works recommendation
is to award the contract for drilling this Bear Creek test well to Stevens and Sons for time and material not to exceed $24,900 authorized Mayor to sign and City Clerk to attest.
Corrie: Council, you have heard the request from the Public Works. Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: No.
Corrie: Okay, I will entertain a motion then on the recommendation –
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve awarding the contract for drilling the Bear Creek test well to Stevens and Sons Well Drilling, Inc., for time and material amount not to exceed $24,900
for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to award the contract to Stevens and Sons Well Drilling, not the exceed $24,900. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Members of Council.
5. Well No. 22 Pumping Facilities Agreement for Professional Services:
Smith: The next item I have is the proposed engineering agreement for professional services for designing the pump and pump facility for Well No. 22, which would be the production
well in the Bear Creek Subdivision City Park area. This proposal is presented by Civil Survey Consultants in Meridian. Civil Survey has been doing all of our well pumping facility designs
for us. They have done an extremely good job. They are very reliable and very cost effective. The construction of the facilities has always been without any change orders to speak of
at all, so they have done a great job for us. Their proposal is to provide the design for the facility at $16,020 and construction services, which is their looking after the construction,
at $6,830. Both of those fees are on a time and material
with a not to exceed those numbers. I think you have a copy of the agreement that they are proposing to use, and hopefully Mr. Nichols has had a chance to review that, and it is similar
to or exactly the same as the agreements that we have had in the past with Civil Survey Consultants. So Public Works recommendation to you is to award the contract for preparation of
the design documents for Well No. 22 pumping facilities to Civil Survey Consultants of Meridian, Idaho in the amount of $16, 020 for design and $6,830 for construction services on a
time and material basis with a not to exceed those numbers to authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest.
Corrie: Council has heard the request from the Public Works Director. Any further discussion? Hearing none, I entertain a motion.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I make a motion that we award the contract for Well No. 22 pumping facilities professional services agreement to Civil Survey Consultants and a not to exceed an amount of
$16,020 for design and $6,830 for construction services and authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request on recommendation of the Public Works Direction on the motion. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Members of Council.
6. Contract Award for WWTP Standby Generator Procurement:
Smith: The next item I have is an award of contract for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Standby Generator Procurement. This is 400KW standby generator for the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
We received two bids one from EC Power Systems for $51,613.34. The other bid was from Cummings Intermountain at $54,407.85. Bid prices are near estimates and within budget. The generator
will be installed as part of a larger upgrade project later this spring that is under design right now by Taylor Engineers. So unless you have any questions of me, I would recommend
from the Public Works Department that this contract be awarded to EC Power Systems for the Wastewater Treatment Plant standby generator in the amount of $51,613.34.
Corrie: Any discussion?
Bird: I have none. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the awarding of the contract with EC Power Systems for the Wastewater Treatment Plant standby generator in the amount of $51,613.34 and authorize the Mayor
to sign and the City Clerk to attest.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to award the contract for the standby generator to EC Power Supplies in the amount of $51,613.34. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in
favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Thank you Council.
7. Digester & Clarifier Facilities Project Agreement for Completion:
Smith: The last item I have is kind of a closing agreement for the project that is coming to an end at the Wastewater Treatment Plant for the digester and to clarify our facilities.
We have had some issues with the contractor and this sub-agreement to our construction contract agreement clarifies some of the issues that have been at hand. It specifically references
change order No. 4, 5, and 6 and it outlines a revised deadline by which all remaining work must be completed and redefines the liquidated damages if the work is not completed by that
deadline –
*** End of Side One ***
Smith: -- the agreement has been reviewed with Mr. Nichols, and I believe that Mr. Nichols is satisfied with it. So your Public Works Department recommends that the agreement be approved
to authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest for this agreement of completion with Turn-Key Incorporated for the digester and clarifier facilities project.
Corrie: Any discussion, Council?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I have one question. On this $500 date, have we got retainage and stuff that will cover that?
Smith: Yes sir.
Bird: Okay, with that then I make a motion that we authorize the Mayor to sign and City Clerk to attest the agreement for completion with Turn-Key Incorporated for the digester and clarifier
facilities project.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Turn-Key Incorporated for the digester and clarifier facilities project. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Smith: Thank you very much Mr. Mayor and Members of Council.
Item 5. (Items moved from Consent Agenda)
I. Development Agreement: AZ 00-010 Request for annexation and zoning of 40.33 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Timber View Subdivision by Victory 41, LLC – north of Victory Road and
east of Meridian Road:
Corrie: Now we have an item that was taken off of the Consent Agenda which was Item I, and we need to address that at this point. It is the development agreement on the 40.33 acres
from RT to R-4 on the proposed Timber View Subdivision north of Valley Road and east of Meridian Road. That was requested by the Planning and Zoning Director so you have the report.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, the Development Agreement has been signed by the applicant; however, there is one item that has really not been able to be resolved. It would
be Item 5.2 on page 5 of the Development Agreement, a condition of the annexation and Preliminary Plat was that there be a landscape buffer along the west side of the development, a
planting strip, due to the fact that there is a gravel pit there currently. We had agreed that if they could obtain a letter from the adjacent property owner stating that they were in
the process of reclaiming that and the property is likely to be converted to a residential use that we would waive that 20ft landscape buffer requirement. We did receive a letter from
Mr. Andy St Claire; however, it was not in keeping with really what we had requested. He is not willing to sign a letter just stating outright that it will be residential. He wants to
keep his options open incase he will attempt to do some kind of commercial development or something else in the future. Do you have the letter from Mr. Mike Caven? I do not have a date
on it.
He has come up with a compromise that he would be willing to either include in his covenants or requirement that the property owners put in two trees along their rear property lines
and also to put a 20ft landscape set back on the back of those lots. And if the covenants are not adequate that he would be willing insure himself, insure the Council that he himself
will provide for those two trees per lot to be planted in the backyards of all of those lots. I did talk to Mr. St Claire, and he reiterated that he is reluctant to say that he is not
going to try something else besides residential. He is in the process of reclaiming in. He said all of the property adjacent to this, it is actually Observation Pointe, he is the process
of reclaiming that, and they are bringing fill in and the only area that they are currently extracting material from would be along the northern boundary of his property. I do not know
quite how to handle this unless Mr. Caven just handed me addendum that was prepared by Mr. Nichols. He is quick, and it has been signed by Mike Caven. And if you feel that is adequate
and would like to approve that, we would recommend that you approve the Development Agreement with the addendum.
Corrie: Okay. Council, do you have anything with that?
Bird: I do not have anything. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Hearing the staff’s comments and the first addendum to the Development Agreement, I would move that we approve the Development Agreement request for annexation and zoning of 40.33
acres from RT to R-4 for the proposed Timber View Subdivision by Victory 41, LLC with the first addendum at 5.2 inserted.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the insertion of the 5.2 in the Development Agreement. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Stiles: Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you, Shari. Okay before we get started here now, we have 11 Public Hearings in front of us. Whether we are going to get to all of them tonight, I do not know. The Council
has some early morning meetings, and they want to close this off about 10 p.m. So we are not here until midnight, so we will see where we are. We will go down in order, and if you are
going to testify be sure you sign on those cards in the back. Has everybody signed that wants to testify? With that being said, when we get to the public hearing I will tell you how
we are
going to do it and give some time limits so that we can get through -- maybe we can get through all of them. We will try.
Item 6. Ordinance No. 01-913: AZ 00-012 Request for annexation and zoning by Opal Farrington of 4.70 acres from R-1 to R-4 for proposed addition of a home – northwest corner of East
Pine Avenue and Adkins Way:
Corrie: I will have the Clerk read that Ordinance by title only at this point.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Members of Council Ordinance No. 01-913, an Ordinance finding that certain land owned by Opal C. Farrington Trust, which lies contiguous or adjacent
to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho. And finding that the owner has made a request for annexation in writing to the Council and said land be annexed
to the City of Meridian and zoning designated low density residential district R-4 and declaring that said land by proper legal description as described below be a part of the City of
Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho repealing all Ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof in conflict here with, in directing the City Engineer to add said property to
official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the Ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada
County recorder, auditor, treasurer, and assessor and the state tax commission of the state of Idaho pursuing to Idaho Code section 50-223 and section 63-2215.
Corrie: Okay, you’ve heard Ordinance No. 01-913 read in its form; would any one here like to have the Ordinance read in its entirety? Hearing none, Council I will entertain a motion
on the Ordinance numbered 01-913.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that approve Ordinance No. 01-913 a request for annexation and zoning for Opal Farrington of 4.70 acres from R-1 to R-4 for a proposed addition of a
home on the northwest corner of East Pine Avenue and Atkins Way with suspension of the rules.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay, Ordinance No. 01-913 has been moved and seconded to approve the Ordinance by suspension of the rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, a roll call vote Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, absent; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 7. Ordinance No. 01-914: AZ 00-010 Request for annexation and zoning of 40.33 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Timber View Subdivision by Victory 41, LLC – north of Victory Road
and east of Meridian Road:
Corrie: If the Clerk would read Ordinance No. 01-914 by title only at this point.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Members of Council Ordinance No. 01-914 an Ordinance finding that certain land to be know as Observation Pointe subdivision lies contiguous or adjacent
to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, and finding that the owner has made a request for annexation in writing to the Council and that said land be
annexed to the City of Meridian of zoning designated low density residential district R-4 and declaring that said land by proper legal description as described below be a part of the
City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho repealing all Ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof in conflict here with, and directing the City Engineer to add said property
to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the Ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with
the Ada County recorder, auditor, treasurer, and assessor and the state tax commission of the state of Idaho pursuing to Idaho Code section 50-223 and section 63-2215.
Corrie: Further reading of Ordinance 01-914 by title only, is there anyone in the audience who would like to have the Ordinance read in its entirety? Hearing none, I will entertain
a motion on Ordinance No. 914.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 01-914 request for annexation and zoning for 40.33 acres from RT to R-4 for the proposed Timber View, better known as Observation Pointe
subdivision by Victory 41, LLC. with suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Ordinance No. 01-914 by suspension of rules. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I just wanted to comment while that Plat is up there on the overhead that I appreciate the developer doing something a little bit unique in Meridian, and that is putting
something other than 8,000 square foot lots in. These are nice size lots and has a little less density to it, and I think that this will be a project that Meridian can be proud of and
is a welcome addition to our community.
Corrie: Any further comments? Roll call voter Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, Absent; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 8. Tabled from February 20, 2001: FP 01-002 Final Plat approval of 82 + 2 existing single-family dwelling lots and 6 other lots on 43.33 acres for Observation Pointe Subdivision
by Victory 41, LLC – north of Victory Road and east of Meridian Road:
Corrie: Council, you have seen the Final Plat. Shari, any changes? Gary?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council we did get a revise plat last week. We have not prepared any comments on it. We had several problems with the project because of the fact that
a revised plat was submitted to the city. The city did not submit that or the applicant did not submit it to Ada County Highway District either. So the comments that were prepared for
the Preliminary Plat were based on two different plats. One that the city saw and one that Ada County Highway District saw. What we just had submitted last week, they tried to resolve
a problem created by the city’s approval of one thing and Ada County Highway District’s approval of something different, and that would have to do with area in this corner. There was
some concern from the residents of Meridian Greens that this was going to create a lot of cut through traffic through their subdivision. They wanted to have some kind of traffic calming
in this area. What the applicant had proposed to the city was to provide a landscape median in this area in an attempt to slow down the traffic and make it not quite as easy. Ada County
Highway District would not approve that plan. Also, in original plan that the City of Meridian approved, it did show all of these as lots within the subdivision and this would be the
Kennedy Lateral that runs through here. All of this area down here is not sewerable; it is in a different drainage area. Ada County Highway District indicated they would not sign the
Plat unless there was a bridge constructed over the Kennedy Lateral to serve these lots. And that the access to Victory Road was taken out because the Plat that Ada County Highway District
also showed a cul-de-sac coming off of Overland Road with some lots in here. The applicant had submitted a new Plat to the City of Meridian showing that still as a lot, but their intent
was to leave the remaining home there and to not develop that portion until the gravity sewer was available an appropriate trunk sewer line. This is showing you the difference between
what was actually approved by the City Council and what was proposed to Ada County Highway District. They felt this was going to
create too much of a problem and an obstruction, and what they had approved apparently is this choked down version. They have not approved this specific configuration, but with slight
modifications, they have felt that they could approve this configuration. As we have not prepared comments, I hate to hold this Plat up, but in lieu of us not having comments, it is
difficult to recommend approval because we have not reviewed this latest Plat and made any comments. And also we need to address the fact that this latest Plat that they have submitted
shows that area down here in the southwest corner as being unplatted now. Which would require them to come back at a later time if they ever wanted to develop that property and submit
a new Preliminary Plat, and I am not really sure how that would work. The Kennedy Lateral is shown completely excluded from this latest Plat that has been submitted. I do not see any
readily apparent problems with it. We would like them to indicate in Note No. 8 that the single-family structures are to contain a minimum of 2100 square feet excluding the garage as
was offered by the applicant during the approval process. And also we would reserve, if you approve this without our comments, the right to check this for conformance with the approved
Preliminary Plat and make sure that all of the lots meet or exceed what was approved with that approval.
Corrie: Is the developer here this evening?
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: Maybe you can answer some of those questions for us and then we can see if we have some more. Thank you.
Caven: Mike Caven, 6874 Fairview, Boise, Idaho. Any questions?
Corrie: Could you answer some of those questions that she had?
Caven: I think it makes sense to have that piece down in the corner to be unplatted, but that was a mistake by the engineer when he submitted it. So it is still intended to be a lot
if that is what you want it to be, but we would like to submit a Preliminary Plat at some point that the sewer is there. Right now, it is a different drainage, and we would like to hold
it out. But if not we can go ahead and put it in as platted lot in the subdivision. It would probably be a second phase instead of in the first phase. So that is the issue there. The
choker to the north in lieu of the island, ACHD did not like the island, they asked us to come up with some ideas. I came up with 2 or 3, they did not like any of those and came up with
the choker idea, and I said whatever makes anybody happy. I just need to move forward on here, so they have come up with the chokers at the corners there, which is acceptable to us.
I think those are the only two questions, unless you had anymore. We do intend on the Plat to put 2100 square foot minimums that was another question that came up. We do not have a problem
with that. We intended that that would be the minimum square footage of any home in this subdivision.
Corrie: Council, questions?
Bird: I have none.
Caven: Thank you.
Corrie: Okay, any questions of staff? Then I will entertain a motion on the question of Final Plat.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor --
Corrie: You cannot make a motion.
Nichols: I know and I do not intend to.
Corrie: Okay, Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council just to let you know when I prepare the order on the Final Plats, we always have staff comments to attach to that, and at this point you do
not have any staff comments because this Plat was just delivered last Wednesday. To let you know it is going to be a little bit difficult to put the paper work together until we see
what Shari’s comments are.
Corrie: Well, okay. I have a feeling of what is coming next.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve this Final Plat for 82 plus 2 existing lots and 6 other lots on 43.33 acres for Observation Pointe subdivision formerly known as Timber View subdivision,
Victory Road and Meridian Road, to incorporate the staff’s comments when they come about.
Corrie: Okay, do I hear a second to that? Hearing none, motion lacks a second. It dies. Any other motions?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we table approval of this Final Plat until P & Z staff has a chance to review and comment and we do this properly by our normal procedures, and
put it on the council meeting for April 3, 2001.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to table until April 3, 2001 to give staff time to make their comments, for the attorney to draw up the Final Plat approval if it is given at that
time. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
Corrie: Two ayes, motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE NAY, ONE ABSENT
Item 9. Continued Public Hearing from February 20, 2001: AZ 00-026 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.4 acres from Ada County RT zone to R-8 for a proposed planned development for
proposed Kodiak Development by Hubble Engineering – west of Meridian Road one-half mile south of Overland Road:
Corrie: What will be doing here is I will open the Public Hearing, and we will have the staff do the comments first. Then we will have the developer make their comments, and then if
you have signed up for this particular one anyone who is in favor of the annexation and zoning and then we will have those who oppose it. And then last we will have the developer answer
any questions that comes up with the other two testimonies. We limit the testimony to 3 minutes. I will give the developer 5 minutes if they need to take it. If they need more, let us
know and we will judge from there, so we do not have all this time tonight. I will open the Public Hearing now on request for annexation and zoning of 5.4 acres from Ada County RT zone
to R-8 for the proposed planned development, proposed Kodiak Development by Hubble Engineering west of Meridian Road one half mile south of Overland Road. And I have nobody signed up
to have testimony on that one. Staff comments first.
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council the issue at the last council meeting was sewer serviceability of this property from the extension of sewer that exits Elk Run subdivision through
a common lot near the southeast of Elk Run at Highway 69. Last Thursday sometime, I received some engineering information from the applicant’s engineer, Hubble Engineering, that drew
some cross-sections for the field information that was developed several years ago concerning the location of the underground telephone fiber optics and the relation of the fiber optics
to the proposed extension of the sewer line which at the time Elk Run was built was a problem. They were conflicting with each other, both in horizontal locations and in vertical location.
The information that has been submitted indicates that we probably do have although I have not been able to concretely determine, but it appears that we do have a problem in extending
the sanitary sewer to the south in its present alignment. The proposal by Mr. Jewett is to pick up the sanitary sewer before it gets out into the right-of-way of Highway 69 and extend
it south generally along the right-of-way line or slightly outside of
the right-of-way line. Without any other information available as far as utilities other than the power poles that exist out there, it appears that that extension is feasible. I think
that we can probably extend that sewer farther south in that alignment. It will require an easement from the property owner, permanent easement. We will probably require some restrictions
as far as landscaping in that area is concerned. Obviously, no structures would be built. Possibly a signage could be restricted to some degree, but it appears that in order to extend
the sewer south along the frontage of this property and into and along the frontage of the property owned by the Nazarene Church to the south of Mr. Jewett, it is going to be necessary
to get outside of the existing right-of-way of Highway 69 or along the right-of-way line of Highway 69. I think with the partnership or with being able to work with the land developers
to insure that we have an easement if indeed it is resolved that it is outside the right-of-way and that we have access to that sewer line. That it can be extended to serve this project
as well as the Nazarene Church project. And I say that with the understanding that there has not been any engineering information developed for other conflicts that may exist out there.
As the engineering plans are developed, the detailed plans are developed for the extension because that is not known at this point, but the big question at the last council meeting was
whether or not this sewer line can be extended. Based on information that we have looked at to this point, I believe that it can, not in its present alignment, but it can be extended.
Again, it is going to take the cooperation of the landowners to allow the easement if necessary on their property along the frontage of the property for this sewer line.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I am not so sure Gary that the issue was can it be because we have been told all along that it can be. The problem was it was in an area where we do not have easement, and
the City Council did not feel good about approving a project that we do not have all of the easements and the right-of-way to get the sewer there at this point. And it does not sound
like anything has been resolved towards that other than we are down the road 3 weeks later now, and you guys are still saying it can be if everything gets worked out. I guess what I
was expecting is that things got worked out during those 3 weeks, and it does not sound like to me that they have.
Smith: Councilman Anderson, Mayor, and Council it was my recollection that the concern was whether or not the sewer line could be extended in the right-of-way with the fiber optics
being where they are. When I left I meeting and then called a meeting with the developer and his engineer that was my question was what can we do with sewer within the public right-of-way
to see if it can be extended without having to get easements for the extension. That is how I left the meeting, and that was my understanding. I had in my mind a question whether or
not that conflict could be resolved within the right-of-way. The information that has been compiled based on previous field exploration and then plotting that information in cross-section
views, so we could see where things horizontally, where things where vertically. I do not believe that because of the depth of sewer we have enough space horizontally within the right-of-way
to locate the sewer and not impact either the roadway or the fiber optic ducts.
Anderson: I understand that. So what you are saying is it cannot go in the right-of-way. We need to get additional easements to put the sewer there, right?
Smith: Correct.
Anderson: So that needs to be worked out before we can approve this project, right?
Smith: The conditions of the approval of the project could be that the easements have to be granted in order to extend the sewer, I would assume. I think that can be a condition of
the approval of the project. I have talked to Mr. Jewett; he does not have a problem with it. I have not talked to Nazarene Church, but it is an issue of either the easements are granted
if indeed the easement is required, the easement is granted or the project cannot go forward.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Gary, what kind of a condition do we have on the church, that sits on south farther there and we annexed them and said we would put the sewer down there. Of course, I guess this
fiber optic thing had not been brought up at that point. We committed to getting the sewer down there to them.
Smith: The fiber optics has always been an issue. It has always been known that it was a problem. All the information that I had in my file from the time when the sewer was extended
out of Elk Run and into the right-of-way was given to the engineer for the Nazarene Church. I told the Nazarene Church at that time that I did not have a solution for the issue.
Siddoway: Mr. Mayor, I think I can shed some light on this and speed this up. Mayor and members of Council the church property has been annexed and zoned, but any development on the
property would have to go through the Conditional Use Permit process. And so a condition that can be imposed through the CUP process would be that they grant that easement for the sewer
alignment that goes along the front of their property. It is not an exaction because it is related to the use that would intent to put there, so that could be done. Also, I guess my
question is would Elk Run’s common lot have to give an easement, Elk
Run Subdivision would have to give an easement to the city for this sewer line in addition to Mr. Jewett?
Smith: The Plat says that there is a 10ft utility easement common to exterior boundary of the subdivision, and the exterior boundary is, if you interpret the exterior boundary as being
the rear of the lots then the common area is outside the rear of those lots.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Gary, does that take us down to Mr. Jewett’s property then?
Smith: Yes.
Bird: I mean the right-of-way through Elk Run takes us down to his property and then on to the –-
Smith: The Kennedy Lateral runs along the south boundary of the Elk Run subdivision, south and west boundary.
Bird: But where you come out to the east there and come down the right-of-way that is all Elk Run until you hit his property, other than the lateral through there.
Smith: I am sorry, I did not hear what you started with.
Bird: His north end of his property butts up to the south end of Elk Run except for Lateral.
Smith: It butts up to the south boundary of the Lateral.
Bird: Of the Lateral. So we have to go through the Lateral.
Smith: Yes, it has to go under the Lateral. I am not sure if that Lateral is on – I guess it is on the Elk Run property. It is part of the Elk Run property, and then it was given as
an easement or it is an easement to the Elk Run property. The fences on Elk Run are held back off of that Lateral so there is an access road along there. The Lateral was piped along
its entire length of the boundary, adjacent to the boundary of Elk Run subdivision, so they would have to bore under the Kennedy Lateral to extend to the south.
Bird: I had a question of just making sure that we could easements, that we did not have some other property owners involved.
Smith: Right. Well, I have talked to Mr. Jewett and he is agreeable to that.
Corrie: Any other questions at this point?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Developer.
Jewett: Jim Jewett, 4002 West Teeter, Meridian. I concur with Gary and we have discussed it. I agree with the easements. The Church is here, they will agree with the easements, so I
will stand for questions. I would just like to move forward.
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: I have none.
Jewett: Thank you.
Corrie: Okay, thank you. Nobody signed up, is that correct?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we close the public hearing.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Public hearing, Item No. 9 is closed. Discussion?
De Weerd: I have none.
Corrie: Then I will entertain a motion on the request for annexation and zoning.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the request for annexation and zoning of 5.4 acres from Ada County RT zone to R-8 for a proposed planned development for proposed Kodiak Development
by Hubble Engineering to incorporate all staff
comments in addition to the most recent discussed tonight and for the Attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request for annexation and zoning with incorporating all staff comments and the attorney drawing up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions
of Law next meeting. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I just we want to make sure that we clarified in the motion about those easements because Gary said when he was talking about it that it could be a condition. I just want
to make sure that that is one of the conditions that you want to put on?
De Weerd: That would be my intent.
Corrie: Any other comments? Hearing none, Mr. Berg if you will give us a Roll-call vote please.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, absent; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 10. Continued Public Hearing from March 6, 2001: VAR 00-019 Request for a variance to exceed maximum building height of 35 feet and reduce the 30-foot setback requirement to 20
feet along the 63 feet of the one-story section of the building for proposed Ameritel Inn by B & A Development – Eagle Road north of I-84:
Item 11. Public Hearing: CUP 00-053 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a three-story, 87-room hotel in an L-O zone for proposed Ameritel Inn by B & A Development - Eagle Road
and I-84:
Corrie: Now Item No. 10 and 11, Item 10 is a request for variance on the Ameritel Inn and Item 11 is the Public Hearing request for a Conditional Use Permit. I think we are going to
have to switch those around. 11 needs to come before 10. Conditional Use Permit before we have the variance. So at this time I will open them both and we take Item 11 first.
Corrie: We will take the Conditional Use Permit first and have staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, you are opening both Public Hearings at the same time?
Corrie: Yes.
Stiles: Okay. Mr. Mayor and members of Council this is for the property located just immediately west of the existing Chevron, McDonalds, Credit Union on Eagle Road and Magic View
Drive. It is directly south of the existing Green Hill Estate subdivision. There was a previous application for a planned development of this lot that included both of these lots for
a use of 3 office buildings, one with a two-story building and one perhaps with an accessory restaurant. They are now returning with a new plan to provide a three-story Ameritel Inn
on this lot. And the variance that they are requesting would be for the height requirement. To exceed the height requirement which is currently 35 feet, and the setback requirement of
20 feet along what is now know as Allen Street, the new section that has been constructed to connect to Magic View Drive from the signal light on Eagle Road that goes into St. Luke’s.
You have our staff comments and the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning commission. This is the proposed plan, site plan that was submitted with the application, the landscaping.
There was a question on the height that according to the initial elevations that we received, we had believed this to be a parapet, which according to our definition in our zoning Ordinance,
a parapet would not be included as part of the overall height. The way our Ordinance reads is that it would be from the finished floor elevation up to the roofline. However, when we
received some additional elevations, it did indicate that this was not a parapet and through consulting several other architects they indicated that they would consider that to be a
gabled roof, and therefore, they would be required to have the variance to the height. We did get another letter dated March 15, 2001 from Mr. Chris Korte indicating that he still believes
it does not apply to this building because of the way the Ordinance is written. But we still believe with staff that it is a gable roof and needs to be included in the overall height
of the building. And that a variance would be required as a part of the application. The setback requirement, even though Ada County Highway District has determined that Allen Street
is not a collector, when the remaining within the Magic View subdivision is re-designated to another use besides single-family residential and the 5 acre residential lots are not there.
It will well exceed the requirements for a collector. Ada County Highway District stance in the past has been to not designate anything, much of anything as a collector, because that
would require them to participate in the cost of constructing the roadway. We have a difference of opinion as to what a collector is. The Planning and Zoning commission did recommend
denial of the project. We have their recommendations. It is a beautiful building. It would be a great addition to the city of Meridian. It was just felt that this was not the appropriate
location for it. Since I think we are in here for a while on this one, I will end unless you have any questions.
*** End of Side Two ***
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, my name is Byron Smith. I reside at 650 East Cougar Drive in Meridian. I am the Corporate Architect for Ameritel Inns. I just wanted to give
you a little introduction as to who Ameritel Inns is. We are a locally owned business. Our corporate offices are about two miles east of the proposed site, and I just wanted to give
you kind of a little overview on what we are. We cater to mid-upscale type corporate travelers, and we take a lot of pride in our properties and the communities that we locate in. We
are primarily based in the northwest. As part of your packets, I think you got some pictures of some of our properties here. This is our Ameritel Inn in Idaho Falls; it kind of shows
you what exterior kind motive is of our corporate image there. This is the lobby of our Boise spectrum property, and we are proposing to do the same type of quality construction at this
facility. This would be our breakfast-lounge area out at the Spectrum property. This is a typical room, it is a kitchen suite, and this is a typical conference room. We do have a small
conference facility in the hotel. This would be a spa suite that is part of spectrum property, then an executive suite. We are not proposing a bar/restaurant. We do offer a continental
breakfast. We are exciting about the possibility of locating in Meridian. The owner of the company, Mr. Black, has lived in the Meridian area for a number of years. With that I would
like turn it over to our consultant that we have hired. Chris Korte to help with some of the issues that have come up on this project to work with neighbors, and with that I will turn
it over to Chris. One last thing, this is just kind of an example of some of the exterior landscape. This is the Spectrum property, which is over by the Edward’s theatres. This property
was opened in November of 1998, as you can see we go far beyond the minimum requirements of the Landscape Ordinances. When we develop our projects we want to establish a presence and
look like we have been there for a while instead of waiting 20 years for the landscaping to mature. Thank you.
Korte: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council my name is Chris Korte and my office address is 499 Main Street in Boise, Idaho. I have had the opportunity to work on two other Ameritel Inns
in the Boise area, and I am very proud of my client. I am very proud of what he builds. It is a joy to work with him because they do not skimp on anything. They go the extra mile and
Glen Black asked me to get involved in this issue because of our neighboring property owners and some of the issues and concerns that you are fairly well aware of over the past years.
Before I get into the specific presentation, we have a series of photographs that you have seen, I think that we put in your packet to you, but I would like to be able to go over and
explain some of the things that we have done. First I would like to talk to you just briefly about why Eagle Road and Interstate 84, why as Ameritel Inns looked at this location. What
is very important to them is the issue that Highway 55 and Eagle Road, which is Eagle Road, and the Interstate, Highway 55 is the only north/south highway in this valley that goes anywhere.
It carries a significant amount of tourist traffic as well as does Interstate 84. It is very important to have a presence near that tourist traffic. Though that is not perhaps the largest
portion of their business, it is a very important segment of their business. Also, as you know there is a tremendous amount of land use
change going on in this general area. You have Jabil that has been built, which has corporate offices that bring in people into this community. You have the Treasure Valley retirement
community, which is being built east of St. Luke’s medical center, which is going to be a tremendously large project that is going to also have need for hotel accommodations. Tonight
you will be looking at a Sundance Center, a project by Sundance, on the south side of the freeway. You have Blue Cross; did you receive a letter from Blue Cross in support of this project?
They did submit a letter to you. I do not know if you got it in your packet, but I do have a copy of it that I can provide to you. They have indicated that they support this request
because they have numerous individuals that come into town and would like an upscale hotel facility near them to be able to provide accommodations, and this letter comes from Blue Shield.
The next issue is St. Luke’s Meridian Regional Medical Center, there is no doubt in my mind, I worked for St. Luke’s in the past, that that facility will be the largest medical complex
in Treasure Valley, and it is coming very fast as you know. There are many, many people that will be coming to that because it is a regional facility and have friends and loved ones
that are going to operated on and worked on and having an opportunity for a hotel of this nature across the street from St. Luke’s, we believe is a very important opportunity. And being
directly across the street, there is not a lot of travel involved. We also know that there a physicians that are going to be attending St. Luke’s that come in that would like to have
an upscale hotel capability adjacent to that hospital where they can come back to their suite and go back over to St. Luke’s. St. Luke’s is going to build a significant amount of office
development at that location as well as other entities are going to building medical office. There is also some corporate offices going in. I think you may have received a letter from
Hubble Engineering which has their corporate office adjacent to this site, who also are in favor of this request because they have clients that come into town and having that opportunity
for this type of facility near them is important. Finally, as it relates to that intersection, just as shopping centers look at specific corners of an intersection so does a hotel. Shopping
centers like to be on the going home side of traffic. The northwest corner of the interchange is very important because Highway 55 terminates there and turns into the freeway and of
course the interstate itself. If you go south of the interchange down to Overland from our clients perspective, which relates to that traveling public, it is almost like falling off
of the earth because that end of the interchange is almost ¾ of a mile away from what is going on the northern portion. So all of those land use issues are driving an urbanization of
that intersection, as you know. It is a very prime location. Now understanding that we have an existing subdivision located there, and I am concerned, my client is concerned and I think
we are all concerned regarding the residents within that subdivision. They have had a bomb dropped on them. When Eagle Road was built and the interchange was built, this massive land
use change has occurred, and what you are seeing here is classic urbanization. You are seeing a change of land use driven by a major project that the public put in. We want to do everything
that we can possibly do to help them and our presentation tonight will graphically explain what we did in doing this. We had one neighborhood meeting
that we held here. We held another meeting at the Ameritel Inn at the Spectrum to try and explain to our neighbors and get their input on what we want to do, and with that Shari if we
could go with the ground existing. This is looking to the west on the property, this would be Allen Street and the road coming around, if you continue to move over these are the houses
on the north side of the street with about a 3ft berm located along the area. And as you continue around over to Eagle Road and the St. Luke’s project sits to the east. The next one
Shari. Now from the perspective of a buffer this is looking towards the west, and if you continue across this is the type of vegetation that exists during 6-7 months out of the year.
Basically that entire area is heavily landscaped and heavily buffered, from a buffering issue if we were in Seattle, we probably would not be having an issue there because the entire
area would be forested. As you look at that you can tell that the buffer in the summertime is almost complete. If you added just supplemental landscaping in there that would be such
a dense type of situation you would not see it. The next one Shari. What we have done here is place the fence approximately 6ft in height from the ground level, and this picture was
taken at the corner of the location of where the building would be located. These trees in here, we have agreed to place 12-15 trees in here that are a minimum of 15ft in height strategically
located in relationship to each on of these houses. You can see the red line there, that is 15ft, you can see a person standing there that is 6ft, and then this goes to the end of the
property. Now after meeting with the neighbors and working this, we are willing to establish as a condition of approval that we will extend that fence all the way down to Eagle Road
to help mitigate some of the problems and issues that have been brought up with the convenience store and the gas station that is along the south side of the road. We think that that
is the right thing to do. The neighbors have been working with us and we will agree to have that as a condition of approval. If you could do the next one, Shari. This would be an example
of that 6ft fence in the summertime. Again with the type of vegetation that is already there in the summertime and again placing the 15ft trees strategically located as it relates to
each house. So in essence what you see there from a ground level perspective is a complete buffer. All the traffic that is going to be on this road, and incidentally whether Ameritel
Inn is there or not that road has been built and that traffic is going to be there. So the opportunity to help build that fence and buffer that off to me is a great attribute to the
neighborhood. Then what we did is we went and we got a lifter, lets look at the cross-section, what we did is we started looking at from a house, single-story and two-story, what type
of buffer is needed in this location to shield the building. There is about 340ft between the house itself and the structure. As you can see, if you get 15ft to 20ft in here the white
lines represent the person sitting or standing on the ground and the purple lines represent being from a second floor window. So if we look at placing a berm in here 4ft with a 6ft fence
and minimum 15ft tall trees with the berm 4ft in here and those same type of trees clustered in the berms, we can start to create an effective buffer from the project. So we then went
and got a lifter and this would be the existing condition in the wintertime from the third floor. This would be looking to the west, what I want you to notice in this picture is the
series of out buildings that have been
placed by the residents that effectively shield the vast majority of these homes from any view at all towards this site. If you go along here from that third floor view, if you will
stop right here, this would be the butt end of the building, in other words, the narrow piece of the building faces towards the neighborhood. There are no windows for rooms located there,
so anybody that is in the hotel would not be looking at this area here at all because that would be the stairwell that goes down. Probably a view out of a window would be from approximately
this location here going over towards St. Luke’s. With this in mind, we then again placed the 6ft landscaped fenced, which is part of the Development Agreement to the west and bringing
that across. Again strategically locating these trees in locations in relationship to the homes then this fence would continue on down at a minimum of 6ft in height all the way down
to Eagle Road to take the issues of the lights and the traffic that is currently being done at the Chevron.
Corrie: Chris, I am going to ask you not to go through all of those.
Korte: Okay, I will just go through two more from the lot no buffer. One of the neighbors was gracious enough to allow us to go into their backyard to place this building to take a look
at how this buffer would work. You will see the forklift and that is basically level with where the third floor window is located. So with this being the existing condition, this would
be with the 6ft fence located and the landscaping, and what you can see is the butt end of the building is all you see as you look at the property. The further to the west and the further
to the east you go, the more of the building you can see. One more, so what we have done here, this is 135ft of landscaping, I think your Ordinance would probably require 20ft, this
is berm, a series of large, mature trees. Here is berm located here. This piece of property is about 57 percent landscaping in this plan, far and excess of anything that Ameritel Inn
has done before. We believe that the building itself is going to mitigate some of the issues that the neighbors have been concerned about. A lot of them see the McDonald’s sign. A lot
of them see the Texaco sign, and a lot of them see those very bright lights that are in that Fast Eddy’s Chevron. This building will shield some of those neighbors from that type of
impact. In the development of this project, we have agreed not to request a large sign, a freestanding sign, of any sort. The sign would be placed upon the building itself, and we would
go to the bromine, and some of this issue is going to relate to the variance request that has been submitted with this application. Ameritel Inn is very proud of their architectural
design. They believe that the design of the building is what attracts people knowing that this is a class operation. We can come in and we could cut right across here and be underneath
the 35ft height limit, and I think that you can visualize what you would get with that situation. The ceiling of this building is under 35ft. It is the architectural treatment that makes
the building interesting, that is what you see in this application. It is the essence of the building. By being able to put an internally illuminated sign on this portion of the building,
aesthetically is very pleasing, it is buffered from the neighbors to the west because it is not a freestanding sign. This sign would not be proposed on the north side, and that sign
would be located on the south side over in here.
These trees by the way are about the height of the trees that were planted in their project in Idaho Falls. The height and the mass of the building are a very, very important point of
this application. If I can go to the variance issue, you have two definitions in your Ordinance. One is what the definition of building height is, which Shari went over, and the other
is what is called exceptions to height regulations. The height limitation contained in the zoning schedule does not apply to spires, belfries, copulas, pole antennas, or other appurtenance
not usually required to be placed above level and not intended for human occupancy. This facility right here has no human occupancy in it at all. It is an architectural treatment that
is very important to the building itself. We believe that Council has every opportunity to interpret your Ordinance to indicate that that architectural feature, which does not have any
human habitation or does have some mechanical equipment in it, is exempt form the height regulation. If you believe that a variance for that is required, we believe that the adequate
finding can be made that that application is an intricate part of the architecture of the building. You may made a similar Finding of Fact on the United Heritage building, where they
came in and requested a height variance. I would suggest that the Council consider amending your code to make a height exception a Conditional Use Permit, so that you can then be able
to look at architectural features and put conditions on them appropriately. So we believe that as it relates to the height exception that you can easily rule, if you so believe that
it is an architectural appurtenance to the building that this portion is appropriate. Now I do have a picture here. The picture that I have submitted to you is an Ameritel in Washington,
and what you will see there is the parapet center portion with no roof. It is chopped off and placed in the back. Underneath your Ordinance that would be considered a parapet and would
be allowed. My client after doing that once said that he would never do it again because in his opinion a pretty cheesy looking addition to the building. It just does not fit or conform,
but that would be considered a parapet and would allowed under your Ordinance. So I hope that you would end up considering that variance to be allowed. The swimming pool variance on
the back of the building, it is not designated as a collector street. If it is not designated as a collector, we do not need a variance because the setback is only 20ft. If it was deemed
a collector, it needs to be 30ft, but I think it is only single-story in height. It is well landscaped and well buffered, and there are no residential uses around it, so we hope that
you would consider that variance as appropriate if you believe that we need a variance. In summary, I know that I have tried to pack a lot information into a short period of time. My
client has gone the extra mile in this request. He has agreed to not put up a freestanding sign, he has agreed to 135ft of buffered, mature landscaping. He has agreed to add additional
trees to the berm. He has agreed to build a fence at least 6ft in height all the way out to Eagle Road, and he has agreed to build a very quality product and project in Meridian in our
opinion in a location that is highly justified. I think that you have to look at, and I know that this is a tough one when they are tough like this they are hard on you, but you have
an urbanizing interchange and there are demands and needs that go with that interchange, and we think that we have met the standard to buffer the neighborhood. We have worked with those
people,
and I hope that you will consider approving both the Conditional Use Permit and the Variance. And I assume I will have some rebuttal time, sorry to take such a lengthy period of time,
but there is a lot of information. Thank you.
Corrie: I have a Don Reiswig that is speaking.
Reiswig: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council my name is Don Reiswig. I reside at 3360 North Montvue Drive, and I speak also as representative of the Touchmark of the Treasure Valley. I
have looked at this project here, and they have taken into consideration the needs for the traffic to get out on Eagle Road, which is a problem. There is traffic there. With the growth
of the medical office building and the medical community in this area and with the retirement community that is coming in here, I feel that this is a project that we can support, we
would request that you give serious consideration for the approval of this project.
Corrie: Dave Percy?
Dave Percy: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council my name Dave Percy. I live at 675 Wells Street in Meridian in the Magic View subdivision. It would just be west of this project. I fully
support the Ameritel Inn at the present conditions that they presented it. Thank you.
Betty Percy: Betty Percy, 675 Wells Street, Meridian, Idaho. I live just west of the Ameritel Project that they are proposing, and I just wanted it on record that I do support the Ameritel
Project.
Winn: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council my name is Randy Winn. I live at 3071 South Slate Creek in Meridian, and I am in favor of the Ameritel Inn. I believe it will be a great contribution
to the City of Meridian. I think it is time we started looking at some other assets for the community, and this seems to be a good one. I think the location is going to be very helpful
for us. Thank you.
Corrie: Okay, those are the ones that we had signed up for the project. We have three, four here that are against. Gary Childe?
Childe: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council my name is Gary Childe. I live at 3157 Autumn Way. My property is at the corner section of Eagle Road and subdivision. I am opposed to the project.
I am not opposed to the architectural features in some respects. I think it is a great design. I do think that possibly approving a variance of up to maybe 20ft additional in height
when you have a gable roof sitting there, not a parapet, a gable roof, so you 20ft additional that you are looking at proposing on top of the 35ft. From my house we are looking at an
increase probably a 70% increase in height that I am staring at all of the time. One thing that was not spoken of is the lighting. I did not hear anything about lighting on the site
other than the sign that they are going to move to the one side of the building. I am concerned with how many light fixtures are going to be on
the property. They indicated about landscaping, which primarily only affects those adjoining the hotel directly in view of the hotel on the north end. The talk about landscaping, putting
trees up. As Byron Smith says, we do not want to trees that resemble something that is just put in. We want to have something that looks like it has been there awhile. Well, I guess
in order to do that you would have to determine how big a tree would be over a 20-, 25-year period and probably suggest or put into the plan that those trees be implemented all the way
down to Eagle Road and not just in the very short section of what they have proposed to do. They show these views of what the trees look along our fence lines in the summer. Well six
months or so out of the year those trees are bare, and they did not show any views of what our houses are right now looking down upon all of the service stations and the McDonald’s signs.
I am concerned with the height, as it is the signage, the lack of introduction to the lighting as part of the package that they are looking at presenting. I think their fences are admirable
that they would come forward and suggest that, but I have not seen anything myself personally on exactly where and how that is going to be located on the berm itself, and also in relationship
to other landscaping that should go all the way down to the end of Eagle Road. I have contacted Ada County Highway District two weeks ago. I have asked them about the traffic situation
on that corner. I have asked them why they have decreased the synchronization of the timing for the lights on that corner, and they said well because we have a lot of traffic. If you
go down to that corner right now, you cannot cross that light at all. You cannot cross it without running because that light changes within a matter of 15-20 seconds. Again, they have
indicated that there is a lot growth. You have the hospital, you have a hotel being proposed, you have gas stations, you have Jackson’s which is bringing up to 200 to 300 semis a month
being parked on their lot as a weigh station for unloading into Walgreen’s and Albertson’s and Wal-Mart. I do not think that that is right. We are looking at possibly more problems with
the added feature of a hotel, which is only going to create more problems with congestion and traffic and the problem with Ada County not wanting to stand behind their requirements that
they should be looking into here with the traffic situation. I do not think any amount of height in the fence or trees is going to take care of the traffic, congestion, noise, or pollution
that we have created in that corner right there. I think that if you approve this hotel, I think you should stand by your code, and I think you should keep the height at 35ft. I think
there should be a comprehensive landscaping package and lighting package that has been addressed or should be addressed. I think there also should be a fire protection plan that goes
with this. Because I have not heard anything about how they are going to take care of the needs of this whole area when you have a lack of fire protection and police protection for the
City of Meridian. So I think there are a lot of issues to be looked at here, and you have a big job as far as the growth ahead of you. And I do not think that dumping it on that intersection
is the right move. Thank you.
Seger: Rick Seger at 2951 Autumn Way also a resident of Green Hills Estates. Mayor and Council would it be okay if I showed a couple of slides very quickly on this projector underneath
here?
Corrie: Sure, you have three minutes.
Seger: I would be curious if some of the folks for this, I think for the record it would be nice to know if any of them are residents of Green Hills Estates. There were several people
that came up, and I am just curious for the record if they were residents. I do not think any of them were. I would like to make just a couple of quick points, and I will try to make
this very quick. First off, we think there are a lot of options for this hotel. It is not a choice of approval versus letting the land stand. It is going to get used. This is the busiest
intersection in Idaho; it is going to get used. It is going to have something on it. Let us put something that is in conjunction with the current plan. Let us go with what we agreed
with the developer on, let us go with what we agreed with Planning and Zoning, and let us go with what we agreed with City Council last time around as to what the plan was to be. Let
us not take the first option. We think that -- again this is not an option of approval versus losing a hotel that the city needs. The hotel wants to be here, there is plenty of land
still available. There is going to be multiple hotels that will vie for that land as long as there are customers and there is a hospital going in there. So I think that saying that the
first one along is the one that we approve is a big mistake. The number one issue that I personally have with this and talking with other residents is the fact that you are putting a
24-hour facility right next door to where our kids are playing on a regular basis. It is in our backyards. I would be happy to stream a whole slew of people from the neighborhood here
to hand you letters that say we are not in favor in this. I am not sure what one letter from a Blue Cross or Blue Shield what that means. It is kind of irrelevant. We are not bringing
a steady stream of people that like to play soccer in these backyards and like to know that they are safe back there. It is just a fact that when you plan for a development, you plan
it correctly. I want to address the bomb that got dropped on us is not Eagle Road, we have predicted Eagle Road for years, and the members of Green Hills Estates have been coming to
these meetings for years. We recognize that this is going to happen. We are not against the growth. We just are asking for the growth according to the Agreement that we have always had
in place here. The last time all this went. There is a certain amount of trust that needs to be developed. Now, when we talk about the trust, I want to show you a couple of pictures
of what we have been experiencing over the last couple of years. Number one the fence currently adjacent to McDonald’s is pretty consistent to the one that they showed here in council
when they got approval originally, but they also showed us a beautiful fence just like the one we are seeing now adjacent to our houses. We are seeing all of those beautiful fences again,
seeing the beautiful pictures again, and yet this is what actually happens. After it is approved, there is no enforcement of what is shown. This is the entryway into Meridian; this is
the first impression that people are getting based on the work that has been done so far. Back to a little
bit of trust here, I feel like the pictures that you were seeing are quite deceiving as to what is really happening and what the real view – this is a picture standing on the property,
the Ameritel property, whatever kind of lens he is using to show those beautiful pictures to us, it is an exaggerated view pushing the real image way out. This is an actual picture taken
with a regular camera standing on their property and shining straight into their yards. You cannot see it on the bottom here, but you can actually see there property right here at the
bottom of the screen all the way through to the quote 4ft berm that we were promised. Now, let me just go through a quick list for you, we have been promised that the Texaco sign was
not going to be the way that it was, of course this thing somehow got passed through without the neighbors ever knowing, the Chevron sign, and there is now a truck stop there when we
were explicitly told that this was not going to be a truck stop when all of this went in. You can go there at any time during the day and find anywhere from 9 to 12 trucks hanging around
there. These are directly in our backyard, and they are using this road right here because they cannot turn around anywhere else. They are being told to use this area as a staging point.
They have got all this talk of a beautiful 6ft fence that was going to be between these properties and ours; they do not exist. They have never been there. We get the chain-link fence.
We were told a 4ft berm, again a beautiful presentation, great show, it never happens, and we have seen this over and over again now. The latest was, we were told and I have for your
record, the last plan that was submitted and approved, agreed to by the rest of the community, and it shows a one-story building up against our neighborhood. That is still what we are
insisting be there. A one-story building like it was originally agreed to. This was the plan from the developer that said that was what was going in. I am more than happy to leave this
with you. I will leave those with you as well. The last point I wanted to make was that literally the only bomb that has been dropped on us is not Eagle Road. We have expected that.
We have been planning with you for years. The bomb is a 24-hour facility, three stories, directly in our backyard, and no matter how their lenses make it look the reality is that it
is directly in our backyard and it is directly looking at this. We are on record as being absolutely against another set of fiascoes where it gets approved and there is no control as
to what goes in. I want to tell one more story. He said he is working with the neighbors. And it kind of bothers me because we did go and talk to Chris and try to get an 8ft fence or
do some kind of concession to add to this, and the comment was well if you want to kick in your own money but we are not going to do it. I will also point out that the last time they
presented at Planning and Zoning, they were 22-foot trees all along this fence, and he shows a picture of what is probably a 25-foot to a 30-foot tree right there in front of the building
and says it is just what is at the other locations. I feel like we are getting deceived again or getting set up, and I would love to hear the rebuttal but nothing that is going to be
said here is going to convince me that a 24-hour facility in our backyard is going to be justifiable. It is more irritating than anything that they keep trying.
Corrie: Thank you. Okay, Michael Lloyd.
Lloyd: Hi, I am Michael Lloyd. I live at 3091 East Autumn Way. The thing that I wanted to say is that we had a 9am to 5pm business in the Credit Union just to the east of this property.
We now have a 9am to 5pm unit in terms of Mountain State Bank just to the west. The neighbors believed and thought they were going to have similar types of development on this property.
Ameritel had gone to some great lengths to improve the buffer, go beyond what they were expected, to extend the fence down the way, and I believe that the Council can put into place
if they approve this development, directly into the CUP the type of requirements that would make sure the mistakes would not happen again. I think the Council needs to do that. But the
point I wanted to make was that in my opinion this is not an issue with Ameritel. This is an issue with the type of use that goes into this area. I know that the city may not agree with
me, but I believe that they should sent a strong message to the developers that for this area one-story buildings, office 9am to 5pm is what should be developed behind our homes. And
that is my personal opinion. If they cannot do that, I can tell you something that would be worse for me, and it may not be worse for all of the neighbors. What would be worse would
be to leave this thing open-ended with that provision in there for the CUP so that the developer can come back over and over and over again with additional hotels, 24-hour restaurants
which to me are just as objectionable, or those types of developments that ultimately could be much worse than the Ameritel that is proposed. In all honesty, a one-story budget motel
in my opinion may meet all of the requirements for height that the city has, but that is going to be even less acceptable to me personally than some of these other things that are there.
Again, I honesty believe that the issue is the use, and the issue about that use applies to all inns, all lodges, all hotels, all restaurants other than an ancillary restaurant which
was originally proposed which would be something internal to secondary to an office building. And that is all I would like to say.
Corrie: Thank you. Let us see, I think it was Chuck Horel.
Horel: Mr. Mayor and members of Council my name is Chuck Horel. I live at 3043 Autumn Way, which is in Green Hill Estates. We are directly behind the proposed project here. A year ago
we were all here before you, and the Development Agreement that was reached with WH-Moore was accepted. It was not contested by the residents of Green Hill Estates. It was entered into
in good faith. That particular Development Agreement as you all know called for a buffering with one-story, professional buildings between the residents and subsequent commercial developments.
In the past, we have almost become on a first name basis. It seems like not last names with the Chevron and the McDonald’s and that development over there. Originally there was a hotel
proposed over there, and you all denied that. You concluded that that was not in the best interests and it did not comply with the Comprehensive Plan that you all have in place, and
it did not serve as a buffer between that subsequent commercial development and the residential properties. We would hope that you would feel the same way about this project. This is
a very nice project. I am not going to say it is not. The presentation of this is very nice. And I think most of the members and residents
of Green Hill Estates would endorse this project if it were to be placed across Magic View Drive, on the south side of Magic View Drive, which puts us out of that buffering zone if you
would. I do not mean to step on anybody’s toes here, but roughly a month ago the Mayor gave the speech on the state of city address and in part of that it was reported by the Idaho Statesman
and –-
*** End of Side Three ***
Horel: -- the Mayor made was that we have a plan in place, and we are going to stick by it. I take that we as a cumulative we of the government in the City of Meridian, and that includes
all of the Council members here, and Planning and Zoning members. Planning and Zoning has already denied this application. We ask that you also deny this application. We know that there
is roughly 70 acres to be developed over on the south side of Magic View. Again, we would endorse the Ameritel Inn or subsequent developments of that sort to go in over there, but we
are asking you to keep in place those types of buffering between residential and commercial/professional offices or whatever that development is deemed. And keep those things in place
that we talked about before, that we have professional offices, single-story with nice landscaping that are 8am to 5pm that are not 24-hour services. One question to you all, and I do
not know if you can answer this tonight or not, but if a variance is granted for this project, and another project comes on line and is applied for are you setting a precedent by allowing
for the variance? And then if that variance is granted is the subsequent project guaranteed?
Corrie: The answer is no.
Horel: It is not. Thank you, I appreciate that candidness. One more comment and I am done. And I know the people came up and said they endorse this project live in and around the proposed
project and probably stand to gain monetarily by the appreciation of value in their properties on a commercial type basis if this project is okayed. I appreciate your time, thank you.
Corrie: Thank you, Chuck. We will be on a last-name basis. That is all we have.
Byron Smith: I just wanted to clarify one thing just very quickly. I think this concept plan I suspect was given to you, which is what we submitted approximately a year ago. And I guess
I just want to make a clarification because I know the issue of trust is important and I can appreciate that. That when we submitted that that was precisely that, a concept plan. It
was our best guess at the time. The reason we needed to do that was in order to get the street going with ACHD, which we did construct for them. So I do not what the Council to get the
impression that that was cast in concrete. If you look back through the minutes, it will speak to the fact of concept, and in fact, in the Development plan it does say that if it is
anything other than office, we will come back for a Conditional Use Permit. Again, it was a concept plan, some people might say it
was a swag. It was the best guess at that time, and that is all it was because we frankly did not know at that time.
Corrie: You have the rebuttal. Lets keep it down, thank you.
Korte: Thank you Mayor and Members of the Council --
Corrie: I will give you five minutes Chris.
Korte: -- I would just like to comment regarding Mr. Seger’s comments. I have been in this business almost 30 years, and my success in my business is my reputation. I did those pictures
specifically so that you could understand the elements of what we were doing. I take it very badly when somebody comes in here and indicates to me that I am trying to do trick photography.
My goodness gracious I was trying to present to the Council and to the neighbors exactly what the issues were and how we could help mitigate their problem. I hope that you understand
that. It really frustrates me. I have put together a project trying to meet the concerns of that neighborhood, putting in those trees, putting that fence. Now, regarding the issue of
the fence, we have met with some of the neighbors. At the Planning and Zoning commission meeting, there was probably four times the amount of testimony in opposition to this request,
and we have continued to work with them. Regarding the fence from this location out to Eagle Road, we have agreed to put in a 6ft-vinyl fence, and this is the type of material. It is
a 30-year guaranteed type fence. Some of the neighbors on the north side of the street would like to see that 8ft in height, and we have agreed to work with them. We would agree to install
a 6ft-vinyl fence the entire length of that property out to Eagle Road. The neighbors have agreed, some of them have agreed to help share in the cost to go 8ft, so we would like to work
with them to accomplish that task. If it needs a variance application, we will submit a variance application to the City of Meridian to accomplish that task. They have given us six options
for that fence. So we want to work with them, and I when I have a condition of approval here that I am going to give to you, it says construct a vinyl fence a minimum of 6ft in height
from the end of Magic View Partner fence to Eagle Road. I am saying a minimum because if indeed this is approved and the neighbors want to go eight feet, we will be coming back to you
with that variance. I think that Shari said on the C-G zone, we could go 8 feet. So really only half of the fence would be an issue in going 8ft in height. The Development Agreement,
I know Jonathon Seel hit on that. I cannot indicate to you what you adopted. You know what you adopted more than I do. I can say that that Development Agreement specifically said that
the office plan was outright allowed, but it says specifically in that Development Agreement anything else is a Conditional Use Permit. And as being a Conditional Use Permit then the
Council can establish higher standards for a development to help mitigate neighboring impacts. Indeed that is what we have done on this application is to mitigate those impacts. Regarding
the issue of lighting, I would like to indicate to you that – Shari, could you go to the site plan – if this piece of property were developed as an office
zone, as just an office use I do believe that your setback standard for a parking lot is 20ft. Is that correct, Shari?
Stiles: If it were a collector we would ask for 30 feet.
Korte: Okay. Within that buffer between that neighborhood is 135 feet of landscaping and a berm, trees, flowers, et cetera. If that was developed as an office building, you could have
an office parking lot 30 feet or 20 feet from the edge of that street. That buffer that you are going to see built in this location in here is going to help shield all of the issues
of those lights. The other issue I would like to address is people stay in a hotel for the purpose of sleeping. And anybody that resides in that hotel is as sensitive to lights as their
neighboring property owners are. And so we are concerned about the lighting of this project and will indeed establish a lighting plan that meets the Ordinance but meets our tenants and
meets our clients. There was some testimony from Mr. Childe who lives at the corner of Eagle Road. He moved into that house in September of 2000. He moved into that house knowing that
Fast Eddy’s was there, knowing that those signs were there, knowing that all of those issues were there. Okay, if I have made a mistake then I will apologize. I was under the impression
that he had, but in any case we are willing to build that fence to help mitigate the problems that were caused by previous applications. We are willing to build that fence to help mitigate
those forms of uses. To assure that those conditions are met, I would like to submit to you at least three added conditions of approval that we would like you to consider. First would
be compliance with plans on file dated blank or as amended by the Commission or Council, that date is the files and information that you see this evening on the March 20, 2001 hearing.
Second would be supplemental landscaping shall be placed along the north berm. Said landscaping shall consist of a minimum of 12 evergreen columnar trees, a minimum of 15ft in height.
And contrary to Mr. Seger’s comments if you noticed what I showed on those pictures, I showed 15 feet to 20 feet in height. I did not exaggerate that. We have agreed to do that. Strategically
located to buffer existing homes directly to the north from the hotel. What we want to do there is to be able to go in and work with those neighbors and be able to locate that building
and go in and locate those trees strategically so that they buffer those people’s homes. The putting in of those 12 specific large trees, I mean these are big trees, may come as we build
the hotel, or we will go out there and we will scale the hotel in and we will sit in their backyards with them and put those trees in. The third condition would be construct a vinyl
fence a minimum of six feet in height from the end of Magic View Partner fence to Eagle Road, and that condition would also, we would like to be able to submit a variance application
to you for an 8ft fence for those portions of that fence that those neighbors want an 8 feet fence built. Finally, I suggest, and I have not written this down to commit our commitment
to you that no occupancy permit shall be issued to this hotel until all conditions of approval have been met and signed off by the City of Meridian. Now, by placing those forms of conditions
of approval on this application, we know what we are getting because I do sympathize with those neighbors. We
want to make sure that our commitment is met in putting the fire on us that we are not going to let you occupy that building until those improvements are not bonded are met. And that
indeed will make sure that that type of stuff is built. Regarding the issue of height. The height is only 13 feet not 23 feet as indicated by one gentleman. The height is from the top
of the wall, not to the top of the peak. That is a very, very important architectural element of this building. My client has indicated to me, he will not build a building – regarding
the issues of hotels and motels and neighbors. I am going to submit to you a series of pictures. This is an extended stay that was built on Vista Avenue in Boise, Idaho. It is a two-story
facility, but this facility is located directly in an urban residential neighborhood, directly in it. You can see directly behind it are homes. The type of buffer that we propose is
not even remotely close to what you see in these photos. So I will leave that one with you. This is the Holiday Inn Express in the City of Boise and again I want you to look at the architectural
differences between what my client proposes and how they build these facilities. But basically this application is directly in a residential neighborhood. They even actually share streets,
and this request which was approved in the City of Boise for the AmeriSuites, all of these are residential uses surrounding this piece of property. Now, all be it they are not the acre
lots subdivision, but they are all owner occupied townhouses, and this is an indication to you that a hotel or motel is not some evil, vile, 24-hour use that is going to have a dramatic
impact upon a neighborhood. These types of things are done all over the country, and even with our particular area. I talked with Jim Pibbs of the Boise Police Department; he is the
gentleman you see on Television, regarding his opinion of a hotel and from the standpoint of crime. He says is not necessarily even of the radar screen. He says yes lower, lower, lower
end in some bad neighborhoods there is some problems. He says alcohol, events with alcohol, and schools are much more dangerous than things like this. In fact, he said the most dangerous
thing for a police officer is domestic violence in a single-family subdivision. He says it does not have anything to do with necessarily income. There are more problems with vandalism
of cars and theft on residential streets than there are in hotel parking lots. So we believe that this application can be compatible, that we have met the standard, my client wants to
be in Meridian, they want to be here, and I hope that you will see to it that we can. This is a very important location. Mr. Moore submitted a letter to you, and I do not know if you
had the opportunity to read it, but he had been approached by three different motel operations. Winston Moore does not sell property. He develops income property. He knew the quality
of this type of development and the importance, and he was willing to sell the property because he does not sell property. So with that I am sorry for taking your time, thank you very
much, and I hope that you will support the project.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Could I just ask one question. I have a little site map. Could you show me what areas you are talking about, this berm and this fence, where you would build that and how
far?
Korte: The berm runs the entire distance of Magic View Properties ownership, so it would run from here to this location here. This is the one that was built in front of Fast Eddy’s.
The fence that we propose to build, the 6ft-vinyl would go from the western property line of Magic View all the way out to Eagle Road to this location here protecting the vision triangle
that the Highway District requires at that corner.
Anderson: And these trees that you are going to put?
Korte: The 12 trees are graphically shown in this here. What I tried to do was place the trees before I had the fence in, so you can see a house here, a house here, and a house here.
These are the houses that are closest to it, and one over here as well in here.
Anderson: So would these trees basically be adjacent to your property?
Korte: No, they would be on the berm.
Anderson: Yes, on the berm adjacent to your property?
Korte: Correct. In a cluster fashion that is graphically shown here. And these were the conditions Mr. Mayor plus the one about the private occupancy that I did not write down. If you
have any other questions, if not thank you very much.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would like to clarify something that was said with Mr. Childe. When did you buy your property? Did you buy it in September of 2000?
Childe: Right.
Bird: Is when you bought the property?
Childe: Correct.
Bird: Okay.
Childe: That is all you wanted to clarify is when I bought it?
Bird: Yes, I thought you said that was wrong when he was –
Childe: Well, he was indicating that I purchased the property knowing darn well of the signage –
Bird: I just wanted to make sure that that was right for public record.
Childe: There is many issues with what has happened with Jackson’s and so forth, that is not part of this issue, and it should not have been part of his discussion.
Corrie: Any other questions that the Council has?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: If Council does not have any questions – I will go ahead and – I will entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Bird: For both of them, Mayor?
Corrie: Yes, this will be for both. We have had testimony for both of them. Okay, this is the planning and real estate (inaudible). A note that is being put as part of the record.
So if Council did not have any other questions, does anybody on the public testimony?
Anderson: I have none.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none, I will entertain a motion then to close the Public Hearing on Items 10 and 11.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we close the Public Hearing on the request for Conditional Use Permit and for the Variance request for the height for the Ameritel Inn.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Items 10 and 11 on Ameritel Conditional Use Permit and a height variance. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all
those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Discussion of Council on the requests?
Corrie: To get this started, let us do the Conditional Use Permit first.
Bird: Number 11 is first, right?
Corrie: Number 11.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess I will just open up some discussion then with some of my comments. First of all, I think what has been said here tonight is compared to kind of a bomb being dropped
on the neighborhood there, and I tend to agree with some of those statements. We all knew that Eagle Road was going to be a 4-lane road, but we did not know that we were going to have
all of this commercial development, but it kind of stood to reason. Now, that that is here I guess what we are trying to do is trying to make that compatible with the existing neighborhood
and to make it work to make it fit in. The Council is very much aware of some of the ongoing problems and concerns of the neighborhood, and we are doing the best that we can as projects
come forward to try and lessen the impacts of these developments. Things like the berming and the landscaping and even things like the Credit Union. And looking at the hours of operation
and how we are trying to shield the neighborhood, so we are trying to do all we can to buffer or to build a buffer in-between the neighborhood and all of this commercial development.
That is not an easy task, and as we have tried to do this, when I first read the information on this project and as I have heard the testimony, my first thoughts were that this is a
bad mix. That you should not put a three-story hotel next to a residential neighborhood. It just does not fit in, and like a lot of you there has to be other pieces of property in Meridian
that this could be built on. As I kind of look at this a little bit more, I will say that the Ameritel Inns are probably one of the best quality of motels that are being built in Idaho
today. In fact, I frequently stay in them in my travels, and by the way I love those chocolate chip cookies at about 6pm for the guests when you come in. But having said that, I am really
concerned and we have had a number of issues that have come back before the Council regarding buffering and landscaping, and I find it very interesting even just a couple of weeks ago
we had another project that was back before us again, and the neighbors were asking for a little more quality and a little more upscale in the buffering and fencing. And the answer was
no, and now all the sudden that we have a new project now we could come in and we could improve that. Now we could put a vinyl fence and we can do additional footage that two weeks ago
we could not do. That really bothers me, and that concerns me that we are willing do some little things now to get a project approved. I think everything that Ameritel is trying to do
in this are good things. I think the size of
the landscaping, the maturity of the landscaping, all of those things are excellent things to be trying to do, and I am having a real tough time with issue tonight because I know that
the things that they are offering to do are probably going to make a big impact, and it is really going to buffer that neighborhood, and it is really going to improve the looks of that
whole project area versus if we deny them. Like one gentleman stated, you can have a one-story motel that is not near this quality and not get any of that buffering or any of those improvements
that I know the neighborhood would like to see, and I know the Council would like to see that just have not occurred. So I am still probably the guy that is right on the fence on this,
I have been vacillating from no way should it go to this will make the improvements that we need to really help the neighborhood. I throw those comments out, and maybe the rest of the
Council has some insight that I do not have, but I am in a dilemma on this one.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I agree with Councilman Anderson. I believe that this project is definitely a first class project. Ameritel Inns do a great job of building. I like the design. I like the buffer
they are putting up, this will help the neighbors not only for this project for all projects back there. In our conditions, we can see that that happens, make sure that that happens.
They have agreed to meet all of the conditions before they get an occupancy, so I think we can possibly control that part. I feel sorry for the residents, but I guess when you have a
hospital and everything over there on Eagle, motels, and restaurants, offices are going to follow. You just hope that you can put in the best quality development that is possible. That
is my opinion.
De Weerd: There is no question that this a first class project, and there is no question that this is something that would be very desirable in our community. You have done your homework.
You have a tremendous project that you are presenting to this Council. The only thing I cannot forget is the commitments that we have made in prior agreements, and I believe that those
commitments exist, and I do understand that if anything changed they needed to come back with a Conditional Use Permit, but the concerns last year were the same concerns today. Single-story,
hours of operation, and traffic and this does not change any of that. So no matter how much I would like to see this happen, and no matter how much the applicant has gone beyond what
I have ever seen an applicant do, I still have to say that this city made a commitment. They made a statement when they denied a previous application for a hotel on this site. This Council
made a commitment to the neighbors when the passed and when the approved this particular development to begin with, and I have to stand by that agreement.
Corrie: Okay. I made my statement in the State of the City Address, and I am standing by that one.
De Weerd: He already knows he cannot break a tie with three people.
Corrie: Personally, I think it is an excellent hotel. I would like to see it somewhere else rather than right there, but I think that it would be a great asset to the City of Meridian
in that general area. I have some doubts about what is being put there now, and what it could be committed in the Development Agreement earlier is not being followed, so my thoughts
would be if they would like to put that in a little different spot, I would not have any problem with it. Like I said before, we are going to see a lot of things come down the pike for
Meridian. We have a plan and we better stick with it, so that is where I am coming from. Again, you are absolutely right, I cannot break a tie tonight. Unfortunately, one of the Council
people is sick with the flu, so you will have to make your decision with the three of you. I would not want someone to think it is a cop-out but it is not. I really think the hotel is
good but in the wrong place. Okay, with that being said anything that anybody would like, Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Let us bring it down where the rubber meets the rubble, and I will entertain a motion and we will see which way it goes.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit for a three-story 87-room hotel in an L-O zone for the proposed Ameritel Inn and for the attorney to draw up the
appropriate Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Corrie: Okay, motion has been made to deny the Conditional Use Permit on the Ameritel Inn and that the Attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Is there a second?
Anderson: I will second it.
Corrie: Okay, motion has been made and seconded.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Discussion, Mr. Bird.
Bird: If we deny this permit then the motion must include a statement of what it would take to get it approved.
Corrie: I do not think the motion has to include that. There is confusion there.
Bird: Discussion does then. At least discussion if not the motion.
De Weerd: I think prior to my motion I put it in my discussion that I do not feel that this conforms to the intent of when we approved this original project, and no matter how bad I
would like to see it go there, I just cannot in good conscience deny the commitments that were made then or the commitments made by previous councils by denying of a hotel there before.
Bird: That does not say what it takes to get it approved.
De Weerd: Well, I could not approve a hotel on that piece of property.
Corrie: Does not necessarily have to a hotel either, does it?
De Weerd: A 24-hour, three-story application, how is that?
Corrie: Discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson?
Anderson: I will just add to it for Keith’s benefit and for the applicant to clarify more. I think wrong piece of property for this motel. I think it is a beautiful motel, and it is
just the wrong application. It is not what I would be looking for to do the buffering that I would like to see between this heavy commercial area I think it is going to be and the residential
neighborhood.
Corrie: Any other discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay, you have heard the motion of the denial of the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Clerk will you have a roll call vote, please.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, absent; Bird, naye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Two ayes and one naye. The vote is for denial of the Conditional Use Permit. The next is the variance. So Council I will need a motion for the request for variance on Item
10.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we deny the request for a variance to exceed maximum building height of 35 feet for Ameritel Inn by B & A Development.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to deny the variance on Ameritel Inn on Item 10. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess just a point of discussion for staff, I think they were correct to interpret this the way that they did because to me there was a lot of mechanical stuff in there
and that was a room underneath there, and it was not just a parapet wall. I just wanted to pass that on to staff.
Corrie: Any other comments? Okay, roll call vote Mr. Clerk.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, absent; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Now as I mentioned at the first of the meeting, we want to get out of here and we are not going to make it with all of these Public Hearings. We are down to Item 13 now.
Bird: Item 12 is the next one.
Corrie: Item 12 is right, the Sundance subdivision and number 13, so Council making that statement you have the opportunity either to continue until you want to quit or we still have
to do 20, 21, 22,and 23 which are not Public Hearings.
Bird: These Public Hearings have to be moved to April 3, 2001.
Corrie: April 3, 2001.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: My thoughts on it are there are way to many Public Hearings on here and we will be here until 3am, and I would just as soon postpone the rest of the Public Hearings and skip
down to Item 20 and finish the meeting.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: According to the Council over here we need to do it separately.
Item 12. Public Hearing: AZ-00-021 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 70.72 acres to R-8 for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L Voigt Development – northeast corner of Ustick and
Meridian Roads:
Corrie: With that I will open the Public Hearing on Item 12 a request for annexation and zoning of 70.72 acres to R-8 for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L. Voigt, northeast corner
of Ustick and Meridian Roads.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we continue the Public Hearing for the annexation and zoning of 70.72 acres to R-8 for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development, northeast corner of
Ustick and Meridian Roads.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to continue the Public Hearing until April 3, 2001 on Item No. AZ 00-021 request for annexation and zoning. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all
those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 13. Public Hearing: PP-00-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 214 single-family lots, 4 future office lots and 23 common lots on 69.79 acres for proposed Sundance Subdivision
by G.L. Voigt Development – northeast corner of Ustick and Meridian Roads:
Corrie: I will open the Public Hearing and entertain a motion for the continuance.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we continue the Public Hearing for Sundance Subdivision Preliminary Plat No. 00-020.
De Weerd: To what date, Ron?
Anderson: To April 3, 2001.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to continue the Public Hearing on Item PP 00-020 request for Preliminary Plat on Item 13 to April 3, 2001. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all
those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, before we clear the room with all of these continuances. We apologize, but we just have to do this.
Corrie: These will come down the same way. They will be first and they go right down the line. So these will be right at the very top and 6:30pm.
Item 14. Public Hearing: AZ 00-027 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.97 acres from RT to R-4 by Hubble Engineering for proposed Inglenook Subdivision – east side of Locust Grove
Road and north of Victory Road:
Corrie: I will open the Public Hearing and entertain a motion for continuance.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we continue to April 3, 2001 AZ 00-027, request for annexation and zoning of 5.97 acres from RT to R-4 by Hubble Engineering for propose Inglenook Subdivision.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been seconded to continue the Public Hearing on Item 14. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 15. Public Hearing: PP 00-028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 21 building lots and 3 other lots on 5.97 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by Hubble Engineering for proposed
Inglenook Subdivision – east side of Locust Grove Road and north of Victory Road:
Corrie: I will open the Public Hearing at this point and entertain a motion for continuance.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I make a motion we continue the Public Hearing for a request for a Preliminary Plat approval for Inglenook subdivision until April 3, 2001.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to continue the Public Hearing on Item 15, Inglenook Subdivision. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 16. Public Hearing: CUP 01-001 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an office building for O’Neill Homes in an L-O zone by Toothman-Orton Engineering Company / Johnson Design
– Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road at 385 South Locust Grove Road:
Corrie: I will open the Public Hearing on Item 16, request for Conditional Use Permit No. 01-001 O’Neill Homes at this point and entertain a motion for continuance.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we continue to April 3, 2001 request for Conditional Use Permit for an office building by O’Neill Homes in an L-O zone by Toothman-Orton Engineering Company/Johnson
Design, Franklin Road and Locust Grove.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to continue the Public Hearing on Item 16 for O’Neill Homes. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Excuse me Mr. Mayor if this is a Public Hearing can I address the Council?
Bird: No it is closed. We continued it.
Corrie: We are continuing it.
Item 17. Public Hearing: AZ 01-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 78 acres from R-1 to C-C and C-G by Larson Architects for proposed Silverstone Corporate Center – southeast corner
of Overland Road and Eagle Road:
Corrie: I will open the Public Hearing and entertain a motion for continuance.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we continue request for annexation and zoning of 78 acres from R-1 to C-C and C-G by Larson Architects for proposed Silverstone Corporate Center to April 3, 2001.
Corrie: Motion is made. Do I hear a second?
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to continue the Public Hearing on Item 17 request for annexation and zoning of Silverstone Corporation Center. All those in favor of the motion say
aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 18. Public Hearing: PP 01-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots and 1 other lot on 78 acres in proposed C-C and C-G zones for proposed Silverstone Corporate
Center by Larson Architects – southeast corner of Overland Road and Eagle Road:
Corrie: I will open the Public Hearing and entertain a motion for continuance of the Public Hearing.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we continue the Public Hearing for a request for Preliminary Plat for Silverstone Corporate Center until April 3, 2001.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 19. Public Hearing: CUP 01-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a commercial planned unit development and floodway approval in proposed C-C and C-G zones for proposed Silverstone
Corporate Center by Larson Architects – southeast corner of Overland Road and Eagle Road:
Corrie: I will open the Public Hearing and entertain a motion for continuance.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we continue the request for Conditional Use Permit for a commercial planned unit development and floodway approval in proposed C-C and C-G zones for proposed Silverstone
Corporate Center by Larson Architects until April 3, 2001.
Corrie: I have a motion. Do I hear a second?
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to continue the Public Hearing on Item 19 a Conditional Use Permit for Silverstone Corporate Center until April 3, 2001. All those in favor of the
motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: At this point Council, I would that through the City Clerk we make sure that we have that list ahead of time as much as possible. Because I would like to if we have to come
earlier to get these done this time. What I am trying to say is if we have to go at 5:30 p.m, we might have to do that. To make sure we get these at that point. If the Council agrees.
Bird: I agree with you Mayor. Because we probably have that many waiting on the agenda for that night.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I just had a comment about that. I think, whoever is putting this together, I mean I looked at this morning and said there is no way you are going to be able to
fit in a presentation from COMPASS and an Executive Session in 30 minutes. It is just ridiculous if you cannot plan better than that. And then I think if the staff reports or the Department
reports are going to last that
long. We did not start this meeting until 8 p.m when we got to the first agenda item, then we have to move them back to the back. We have to speed that up so that we can get through
some of the agenda.
Bird: I agree with you, but we keep shoving these down. And now you have some that have already been noticed and scheduled for April 3, 2001, and we have just shot 9 more Public Hearings
onto that. What is the Mayor supposed to do when he puts the agenda on? It is already set. I thought going to one extra meeting would take care of it, but it has not because we keep
continue it because we wait to find out if we have a –-
*** End of Side Four ***
Bird: -- you know they have sat here since 6:30pm until 10:20pm thinking that they were going to get a Public Hearing.
Anderson: Well, those people did not. They came back in late. The missed the Mayor’s announcement when he announced at the start that we would not go past 10.
Corrie: We are going to continue as long as we have this growth in Meridian. We are going to have this continually. We have to do the best we can with it. So maybe we are going to
have to start at noon to get everything done, but we are playing it by ear right now. It is going to get rougher.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council I think because we have announced that these things are continued, and now people know that the meeting starts at 6:30pm instead of 7:30 like
it used to. You have already added an extra hour onto your meetings, essentially. And I would also point out that because it is a Public Hearing maybe you can start the meeting earlier,
but figure on you better hit the first Public Hearing at 6:30pm because that is when the folks are going to be here. If you try to do it at 5pm or try to do it at 5:30pm, you may miss
somebody that shows up at 6:30pm when they heard it was going to be continued. So if in the future we are looking at speeding up a meeting or starting it earlier in the evening then
we should say that in the motion that the continuation is on that date at that time so that we do not have some problem with somebody showing up after that particular matter has already
been heard.
Item 20. FP 01-003: Request for Final Plat approval of 31 building lots, 1 other lot, and 1 City lot on 8.04 acres in an R-4 zone for Tumble Creek Subdivision No. 6 by Pinnacle Engineers,
Inc – south of Ustick Road, east of Linder Road:
Corrie: Staff comments on that one?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, staff has not prepared Final Plat comments on this project. It is the 6th phase of a project out at Linder and Ustick known as Tumble Creek
Subdivision. They were the subject of a previous application that you heard for a variance for reducing the lot frontage on 4 lots to about 78ft. I know you know you do not want to pass
on something without our comments, but we would ask that consider approving this with our standard Final Plat approval comments, similar to the ones that were presented for Tumble Creek
Subdivision No. 5.
Corrie: I guess my question is why do we not have the staff’s comments?
Stiles: We have not had any time to prepare them.
Corrie: Then I will entertain a motion to table this.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we table this request for Final Plat of 31 building lots and one other lot by Tumble Creek Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers until we get the staff reports.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Staff are you going to get the report by April 3, 2001? Because we have set a date.
Bird: We do not have to set a date on that.
Corrie: We do not have to, but –-
Bird: How about the 17th, April 17, 2001.
Stiles: We could by the 17th. That would at least give them some time to respond if they had any objections to our comments.
Bird: With the second’s approval, I would move the tabling until April 17, 2001.
De Weerd: I have no problem with it. I will not be here on the 17th.
Corrie: The motion has been made to table until April 17, 2001 on Item 20. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 21. FP 01-004: Request for Final Plat approval of 48 building lots and 5 other lots on 10.19 acres in an R-8 zone for Wilkins Ranch Village Subdivision by Steiner Development,
LLC – east of North Black Cat and south of West Ustick:
Corrie: Staff?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council we did not prepare staff comments on this application. We did not even make an attempt to you because the property is not annexed and the Development
Agreement has not been signed. Table it until next year for all I care.
Corrie: How did it get on here, Mr. Clerk?
Berg: Mr. Mayor, no I cannot. Shari may have a little bit more of why it was on the agenda. I do not know. Did we get an application? I do not know why.
Stiles: I did not realize that we had been having some problems with some of the annexations. We have got some annexations out there that have been approved, the Development Agreements
have been prepared, sent out to the applicant, but the Development Agreements have never been returned. And an Ordinance annexing the property has never been passed by the City Council.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Bird: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we table this until April 17, 2001.
Corrie: Do I hear a second to table this?
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to table Item 21 until April 17, 2001. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 22. Time Extension: Request for Time Extension for recording and signing of Final Plat of Pintail Pointe Subdivision originally approved June 20, 2000 – south side of Cherry Lane,
east of Black Cat Road:
Corrie: Staff, why do they need extension?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council Jeff Manship who had owned this property is in the process of trying sell it. Just another point on this subdivision, they are requesting that
the lots shown in this location be split into another lot so that this can be a drainage area, and it would make this lot roughly almost exactly 8000 square feet, slightly over 8000
square feet. At least it is my opinion that that is a change that should have to go back through the Public Hearing process. I do not know if Gary has any opinion on it, and in talking
to the potential buyer today, the reason given for making it an above ground drainage pond instead of an underground is that it would cost $20,000. I guess it would be my recommendation
that if the plat is extended it be only for this plat and not for a change and addition of a drainage lot.
Corrie: Gary, any comments?
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council I have had a couple discussions. One with the engineer for the project, J.J. Howard and the other discussion was with the representative from
the Highway District, Gary Inselman. We talked about this drainage pond. The engineer has told me and the Highway District has told me that the reason for the change was because they
were not able to make the design work with the elevation of the groundwater out there that they had originally submitted. And that was to put infiltration trench under the sidewalk within
the right-of-way, and they do not have enough vertical distance between the bottom of the trench and the groundwater in order to make that work and meet the Highway District requirements.
Now why that was not determined in the beginning when they designed the project, I do not know. The Highway District is saying that they will not accept it the way it is designed that
they have to go to a drainage pond. So the question before Shari and I is then they want to split that lot that has block 2 showing in it on the screen into two lots. The southerly about
37ft of dimension would be the drainage lot. The northerly portion of that lot approximately 8,050 square feet would be the building lot. Our concern is that this thing went through
a Public Hearing and it was presented in this configuration in the Public Hearing for public comment. If we put a drainage lot in there and a drainage pond with the development that
is going on next door, English Gardens Subdivision, it is our concern that that property owner could come back and say, you guys changed this plat. How come you did that? What was the
reason for that? I do not know legally speaking where we are, and Shari has already expressed her concerns and her desires. From an engineering standpoint, it is a change for engineering
purpose, but that is the background I have on it.
Corrie: Thank you, Gary. Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we allow this time extension for the recording and signing of the Final Plat at Pintail Pointe Subdivision but off of the original plat, no changes.
It is only the original plat as specified.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to extend request for time extension and recording and the signing of the Final Plat on the Pintail Pointe Subdivision only off of the original plat.
De Weerd: So that would be extension to what date?
Corrie: Until June 20, 2001. Am I correct?
Stiles: 2002.
Corrie: 2002, it was supposed to be 2000.
Bird: It was supposed to be 2000.
Corrie: No, you are right, 2002. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I do not know, but I guess based off of what I heard Shari and Gary say, it does not seem to me like we ought to grant an extension that we let it expire and let them go
back to square one and re-do this thing almost because it sounds like there is problems with this current plat. I do not know why we would just extend that.
De Weerd: Since the deadline is not up already, huh?
Anderson: Am I off base, what are we doing by extending it a year? We are not solving anything, are we?
Corrie: If they have to do it off of the original plat, they are not going to be able to do anything.
De Weerd: Is this something that ACHD asked them to change?
Smith: Yes, it is my understanding.
Stiles: Are you sure it is? Have they put it in writing?
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council it was my understanding in talking to Gary Enselman at ACHD that that is the case that the design that they offered on this existing plat will
not work the way they have it designed and that they are going to have to have a drainage lot. So what Councilman Anderson is saying is correct. The plat is not going to work the way
it was submitted, and it is a situation where there apparently was not enough engineering work done at the time the storm-drainage system was designed even though we require them to
locate groundwater elevation so they can design this stuff so that it will work and it will comply.
Corrie: With that in mind I would entertain a substitute motion.
De Weerd: I would withdraw my second.
Corrie: Alright, second has been withdrawn.
Bird: I will withdraw my motion.
Corrie: Okay, motion has been withdrawn. I will entertain another motion.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we deny the time extension.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay, Motion made and seconded to deny the time extension on Item 22. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 23. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
Corrie: That is to inform you in writing if you choose to have the right –-
Bird: Mr. Mayor I have an Item 23. I am looking all over to find out where Item 23 is on the agenda.
Anderson: It is not on the agenda, but we got it in our packets. It is another time extension.
Corrie: Oh, well I got a revised one as of 3-19-2001, I guess I did not get the right one.
De Weerd: They still got a packet for it. That was the confusion.
Anderson: Which one?
Corrie: Item 23 then is a time extension –
Stiles: They want a time extension, and they have not even signed a Development Agreement yet, so… They are trying to market the property without making any commitments themselves.
Bird: Was it supposed to be on the agenda tonight?
Stiles: We told Shelby to take it off.
Bird: Well it is off then.
Corrie: Alright back to this. This is to inform you in writing, if you choose to, have the right to a predetermined hearing at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 20, 2001, before the Mayor
and City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and to defend the claim made by this City that your water, sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel.
This service will be discontinued on March 21, 2001, unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her water, sewer and trash delinquency?
Hearing none, you are hereby informed that you may appeal or have this decision of the City reviewed by the 4th Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho State Code. Even though they
appeal, their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn off list is $34,148.49.
Smith: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes Gary.
Smith: May I make a comment or ask a question?
Corrie: You certainly may.
Smith: The water Superintendent called me today and said that they have 570 turn offs on the list, and their staff can accommodate 250-270 in one day. So he asked the question, do
we want to carry this over for 2 days?
Corrie: We pretty much have to.
Smith: I do not know that we have any choice.
Corrie: We do not have a choice, and however gets the second day will just get an extra day.
Smith: Because we typically list this turn off day as one day, I do not know whether you need to make that adjustment in your motion.
Corrie: Yes, we will.
Smith: Okay, thank you.
Corrie: So whoever wants to make the motion needs to make the adjustment in the motion that the turn off day will the 21st or the 22nd depending upon how many they get to that day.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would love to make the motion, but I have one question first. Who in February decided to resend the Council’s order as far as turning off delinquent bills? There was no turn
off in February I was told.
Corrie: Oh, we did not have the list is what I understood.
Bird: I have the list and we passed it.
Anderson: We did not have the list in our packet.
Bird: Yes we did. I have the February list and we past it. It was a week later.
Corrie: Something happened in the computers or something, we could not turn them off because we did not –- it was lost somewhere along the line.
Smith: I am sorry. I cannot recall.
Bird: That is okay. I also have one other question. Why is an owner of a property not notified when the account goes into bankruptcy or gets way –- we are talking about $6,000-$8,000
behind? When is our policy to notify the owners of the property? If the renter leaves, he is responsible, so we have his name.
Smith: The owner can make arrangements with the billing system whereby the bills are sent to the renter for payment, and ultimately of course as you say, Councilman Bird, the owner
of the property is ultimately responsible for the bill, but there is a paper that is signed, a form that is signed by the property owner, that allows MUBs to sent the billing to the
renter for payment. Otherwise the billing is sent to the owner for payment. So as far as I know there are only two alternates for that.
Bird: With that Mayor I would move that we approve the delinquency turn off to be done on 3-21-01 and 3-22-01 and for the sum of $34,148.49.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: I will find out what that was. There is something to it, but I cannot remember what it was. There was a foul up somewhere.
De Weerd: Just two quick things. I want to know how we are progressing with this Mill Levy thing. Are we going to hold a public meeting, what are we doing?
Nichols: Mayor and members of the Council, Mr. Berg and I were talking about that today and he has been working with the County Clerk on the issue on the issue of precincts and ballots
and that, and he can speak to that.
De Weerd: I do not care about that. I am just more concerned about selling this to the public.
Nichols: Well, Councilwoman de Weerd my point is that you have to have those items done in order to pass your resolution which calls for the election.
Bird: What is your other short item?
De Weerd: Just to see if the Mayor was told that we wanting a meeting set with the Ada County?
Corrie: Yes, and we are getting it just as fast as we can. We have it on line already, but they said they would do it as soon as they get all three of them together?
Anderson: Are suppose to get our census numbers this week?
Corrie: I heard that and I heard it from COMPASS and I think the Clerk is getting it this week.
Anderson: I just it would be really helpful because I saw those numbers Janice has pulled together for this Mill Levy, and if we had those current numbers before we started putting
any information that would be helpful.
Corrie: As soon as I get them you will have them in your box, if you want me to call you I will do that too. I aim to please.
De Weerd: I move that we adjourn.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:50 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK