HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 05-15Meridian City Council Meeting May 15, 2001
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:30 PM by Mayor Robert D. Corrie.
Members Present: Mayor Robert Corrie, Tammy de Weerd, Cherie McCandless, Ron Anderson, and Keith Bird.
Others Present: Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Dave Bowman, Brad Watson, Tom Kuntz, and Will Berg.
Corrie: All right, I’ll open the City of Meridian City Council regular meeting at 7:34 PM and have the City Clerk give roll call attendance please.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Tammy de Weerd X Ron Anderson
X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird
X Mayor Robert Corrie
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Corrie: Thank you. The second item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We do have a request on consent agenda 3-F to have that one postponed until the June 5, 2001 by a request
from the Dan Bradshaw (inaudible) constructions. Are there any other additions? There’s a new one out there (inaudible).Okay, hearing none, I will call for the consent agenda with the
corrections.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we adopt the agenda as stated by the Mayor with the item F on the consent agenda being pulled at the request of the applicant until 6-5-2001.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s made and second to approve the consent agenda, or the adoption of the agenda with the exception of item 3-F. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those
in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of April 10, 2001, City Council Workshop:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: AZ 01-004 Request for annexation and zoning of 16 acres from RT to R-15 for proposed Fountain Park by David Waldron – southeast corner
of Locust Grove and Wilson Lane:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 01-007 Request for Conditional Use Permit for planned development, proposed Fountain Park on 16 acres for apartments within a proposed
R-15 zone by David Waldron – southeast corner of Locust Grove and Wilson Lane:
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: RZ 01-002 Request for Rezone of 0.51 acres from R-4 to L-O for Idaho Banking Company by Idaho Banking Company – 403 West Cherry Lane:
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 01-004 Request for Conditional Use Permit for Eagle Concrete Pumping in a flood plain overlay district in an I-L zone by Eagle Concrete
Pumping – north of King, east of 5th Avenue, and west of Baltic Place:
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 01-009 Request for Conditional Use Permit for planned development to include office, retail and industrial for proposed Treasure Valley
Technical Center by Meridian Freeway Associates and DBSI Industrial Limited Partnership – ¼ mile east of Linder Road, north side of Overland Road:
G. Development Agreement: AZ 99-021 Request for annexation and zoning for a continuing care retirement community, single- and multi-tenant residential, office and retail use by Touchmark
Living Centers – Joseph A. Billig – east of St. Luke’s between Franklin Road and Interstate 84:
H. Tabled from May 1, 2001: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 99-039 Request for Conditional Use Permit for planned unit development including continuing care retirement
community, single- and multi-
family residential and office and retail use by Touchmark Living Centers – Joseph A. Billig – east of St. Luke's between Franklin Road and Interstate 84:
I. April 2001 Addendum to Development Agreement with revised Phasing Plan for Touchmark Living Centers:
J. April 2001 Addendum to Development Agreement with St. Luke’s:
Crossing Agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation for a sanitary sewer line crossing the Five Mile Drain to serve Hartford Subdivision – northeast corner of Ustick and Ten Mile Roads:
L. Approval of the Judges and Clerks for City Special Election:
Corrie: Okay. We have the consent agenda.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the consent agenda as printed with the exclusion of item F which has been moved to June 5, 2001.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second to approve the consent agenda except for item F which has been removed to June the 5th of this year. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll
call vote Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council, roll call vote.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Department Reports
Corrie: Department reports, item 4. Director Shari Stiles.
A. Planning and Zoning Department – Director Shari Stiles:
Discussion of Administrative Approval of “Stealth” Cellular Towers:
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council we have been approached by a cell tower provider in the area. What they would like is to be able to put up some towers that have been stealth. We have
discussed with them whether they have the ability to do that. They do. You have in your packets hopefully a brochure of some of their proposals for the stealth towers. We don’t really
have any standards for the stealth. I don’t know how many we might see of this type of facility. What we wanted to know is if you would approve administrative approval of those towers
or you want them to continue to come to you as Conditional Use Permits for all sites. Technically if someone came in for a request for an antennae, a simple antennae or a flagpole, we
don’t have any height requirements or limitations on those flags. The people that had approached us are here tonight and willing to answer any questions that you have. They do have another
brochure to hand out to you and they could discuss some of your concerns or some of the concerns that we had talked to them about were if they did have a flag, the size of the flag.
What kind of noise would be generated from it flapping in the wind? Some kind of criteria on fall zones in case the tower would collapse. Also in the case of the American flag, of course
they would be required to illuminate that at night and if it would cause some disturbance if there is adjacent residential properties. We’ll go whichever direction you want. We’re probably
going to see a few of these in the area. If you would consider them stealthing those as being accommodating enough to not require the Conditional Use Permit. That would be great. If
it’s your decision that you still want them to go through the Conditional Use for all of these towers. We just want some direction from Council. They are here tonight and if you have
any questions for them.
Corrie: Okay. Tom, the one that approached you, is it the same company that this represents? Or are there different ones?
Kuntz: Mayor, Council. The company that approached us was Crickett. I believe it’s the same company that Shari’s dealing with.
Stiles: Yes.
Kuntz: I don’t know if they want to come.
Corrie: Okay.
Kuntz: It’s sites specific for Tully Park and I have not followed up with a meeting with them to get more information on it.
Corrie: Okay. Council do you want to hear some?
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: Yeah. That would be fine.
(inaudible discussion)
Longstaff: My name is Mark Longstaff representing Crickett Communications. Address if you need it is 5511 Kendall Street in Boise. First of all thank you very much for inviting us to
attend tonight. We appreciate it. I view this as kind of a question and answer session. We’re not here as much to talk about specific sites as we are to kind of discuss the scenario
of stealthing versus non-stealthing. What we’ve come up with in cooperation with Planning and Zoning staff is what we consider to be a win- win situation for the City of Meridian and
for Crickett Communications. Basically we have the need to erect two facilities here in the City of Meridian. In our initial discussions with planning staff it was determined that there
may be a way to utilize the stealth technologies, and stealth is simply a word we use in the business, which means we disguise a cellular antennae facility to look like something else.
In our discussions with staff it was determined that by stealthing our facilities we could save time which is very important in our business and seek approval via an administrative process
as opposed to a Conditional Use process. So, in accordance with that, we’ve put together some materials, which I think we’ve provided to you on a previous occasion. Then you have a new
booklet tonight, which shows some examples of the type of thing we’re talking about when we talk about stealth. What I would like to offer tonight is we have several people here with
us and just to be able to answer whatever questions you have specific to stealth design. What we can do. What we can’t do. What the options are. Miss Stiles brought up some other concerns.
We’re certainly prepared to answer those too. Anything you’d like to know about our idea. Again we think it’s a real win-win for the city and for Crickett. It’s not the common way of
developing these networks but I think it’s a good solution here in the city of Meridian.
Corrie: Do all the companies, AT&T, Verizon and Voicestream use your poles or is it the same company?
Longstaff: Yeah. Actually we are not a pole builder. We are a cellular phone provider. We are like AT&T and anybody else. So, we don’t build poles just to build poles and provide space
for other tenants. We build poles for our facilities. Our facilities are co-locatable, meaning they provide space for additional carriers. That’s a big issue in our business is making
sure that if you’re going to build a new structure make sure other carriers, if they come along, it suits their needs, can go on and we do that with these. These are designed to provide
network coverage for Crickett Communications which is an incoming cell phone provider here in the Boise area. You probably haven’t heard of them yet but you will come summertime.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: What is the, do you have a standard height that they have to be at, or is the location make a difference?
Longstaff: Both make a difference and both vary. When you’re designing a network like we are here in Boise. We’re reaching from all the way out in Caldwell back to the east side of Boise.
Every site kind of works together. Each is a piece of the whole puzzle. How high they need and where they are is a factor of terrain. It’s a factor of demographics. It’s a factor of
how much foliage is in the area. There’s a whole bunch of things that go on. We have some that are probably as high as 130 feet, 140 feet maybe. We have some that are very low because
potentially they’re on higher ground. Maybe they’re 35 feet. It’s very much an issue of topology, where we’re trying to cover and what obstacles we’re faced with in terms of visual.
This is a radio technology so it’s largely line of sight. You have to be able to see the user.
Bird: In our area, do you see anything that would have to exceed 140 feet?
Longstaff: No.
Corrie: !40 feet. How big is that pole circumference or diameter?
Longstaff: Yeah. 140-foot pole and I’m going to be guessing because actually the diameter of the pole is actually a function of more than just the height. It’s also a function of the
type of foundation you need which is a function of the soils that are bearing the weight of the pole. 140-foot pole might be, gosh maybe a 3-foot diameter at the base and of course it’s
tapered up. But again, we’re not talking about 140-foot poles in the City of Meridian. I think both of our sites are well under 100 feet, that we’re considering and both of them as we’re
proposing. One has already been proposed and submitted to staff. Both of them are stealth type applications.
Bird: Are they flagpole applications?
Longstaff: We’re currently contemplating one flagpole application and one clock tower type application.
Bird: I could buy the clock tower. I like that.
Corrie: Where are you planning on putting these?
Longstaff: Well, we have some options as you heard from the gentleman from Parks. We’re contemplating one at Tully Park. We also have another proposed facility at Meridian High School,
which would be replacing that light pole, and our primary site right now is at the Assembly of God Church on Linder. That would be the location for the clock, (inaudible) is actually
on the front page of your book now, similar to that. But again, we’re kind of trying to work with the city to find the
best locations and the best solutions. We’ve only submitted one site for the certificate of zoning compliance and that is actually a site nearer to where we are now at the Stor-It facility.
That’s the site where we’re contemplating a flagpole application, which I believe is 80 or 85 feet. I can’t recall.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: A couple questions for you. You kind of answered the first one. I was trying to figure out how many of these ultimately would be needed in an area. You indicated possibly
two for your company. So, each cell company that’s out there is going to have multiple sites, is that correct?
Longstaff: Yeah. It takes obviously a collection of sites to cover a city the size of Boise. Every company is different. Every company has different design objectives. It doesn’t mean
that every company has to put up it’s own towers. I mean when we come into a market, the first thing we do is look for some sort of existing structure that we can use. You know, not
just to benefit the city frankly, but also to benefit us. It’s much quicker and much less expensive. So, co-location like I mentioned before is a real hot topic in our business. We can
co-locate on more than just existing towers. We can co-locate on rooftops, or water tanks, or al kinds of things that can provide us with the height and the mounting platform.
Anderson: So, have you looked into co-locating with somebody else who already has a tower in here?
Longstaff: We have and the few alternatives that exist in Boise, or excuse me, in the City of Meridian don’t work within our network design. They’re essentially too close to other existing
sites that we have proposed. The stealth application though, kind of fulfills that role because you’re either creating a second use or you’re utilizing an existing first use. Like in
the case of Meridian High School where you have an existing light standing around the ball field. This is something that’s done at other schools in the area. You simply attach your antennas
to that pole or replace that pole with a stronger pole and attach your antennae, leaving the lights on there which visually is extremely unobtrusive. The idea is to try and combine it
with two uses and provide for additional carriers to attach as well and provide such that its aesthetically less obtrusive than with a typical pole which is typically how these networks
are built. And again, our proposal to the City of Meridian would have been for just a typical pole except that we were able in working with staff to create this kind of win-win scenario
for us. Again time is extremely important for us. With their guidance they thought that we could save some time and obtain an administrative process by using a stealth type of application.
Anderson: A couple other questions to get back on track. You indicated that they were line of sight, so what would keep you from going up and putting them on the foothills? There must
be a range problem with them?
Longstaff: Yeah. These things actually don’t cover. They’re very low power and they don’t cover as much area as you would think they would. I’ll just give you an example. For the network
that we’re now contemplating for the Boise area, we’re looking at roughly 30 sites. They may be as close as a mile apart in some cases. They don’t cover a large area. Originally in the
early days of the business, they would build these really big towers, pump up the power and cover a very large area. Well, these towers can only serve not only a limited geographic area
but also just a limited number of customers. They have a capacity constraint. So, we have to build. The industry’s moving towards more towers at a lower height to handle the capacity.
Obviously cell phones are technology that people seem to enjoy and like.
Anderson: Do they cause interference with anything, radio communications, or cordless phones, or anything in the homes?
Longstaff: No. The only interference issues that we have to mitigate are with other cell phone providers when we’re co-locating on the same towers. We do that via just spacing out the
antennae appropriately. They don’t cause television interference or garage door opener interference or anything like that. The frequencies assigned to each of these carriers are very
precise and distinct and highly engineered systems insure that there isn’t interference.
Anderson: Is there any applications where you incorporate these kind of with signage? I mean we’ve got some pretty tall signs out along the freeway. Are they strong enough to become
one of the support columns or poles for signs (inaudible) other applications?
Longstaff: I’ve seen that done. Unfortunately, again we’re faced with having to deal with a pretty distinct area that we’re trying to cover. Basically our client issues us search rings
which is a circle on a map and says go out and find a facility that works in there. This is the area that we need to cover with this particular sight. These search rings are sometimes
a third of a mile in diameter. Very close. We have to go out and find something that works in that are. We have a little bit of flexibility with that but we can’t move as much as some
people imagine. It just doesn’t work because again if you move because each piece interacts with the others you end up having to move all that others and there’s a domino effect throughout
the entire network. Our site development activities are pretty tightly focused geographically.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: How many do you envision for, say Meridian?
Longstaff: Two.
McCandless: Just two?
Longstaff: Yep.
McCandless: And that’s all there will be?
Longstaff: That’s all we envision right now. Again the industry is moving towards more towers at a lower height. I can’t say that in 10 or 15 or 20 years, there might be a need for another
facility to handle the extra capacity. I mean you’ve probably seen carriers before you now that already have built networks in the area that need to now augment those built networks
with an additional site. That’s really a capacity issue. I can’t say that, I mean we want that to happen ideally. That means we’ve got lots of customers. Will it happen? I don’t know.
When will it happen? We don’t know. Right now all we have contemplated is two facilities in the City of Meridian.
McCandless: Okay. Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Questions? Is there anybody that you wanted to –
Longstaff: Well, if I can’t answer a question I have some people to rely on.
Corrie: You seem to have answered all those we asked.
Longstaff: Okay.
Corrie: Thank you.
Longstaff: Thank you.
Corrie: Okay, Shari what is your request again that you wanted the Council to consider?
Stiles: Whether the Council would consider these stealth towers being done with administrative approval of the Planning and Zoning staff or whether you still would like to see all
of them come in with a Conditional Use Permit.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: I think that at staff level is appropriate and appeals can come to City Council if they don’t like what the staff has to say. I feel very comfortable with staff dealing
with this and don’t think it really warrants a CUP.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would agree with that. I just don’t see any reason why we have to have a CUP on every one of these towers. I know the staff will be considerate of things, the surroundings on
one of these. I see no reason to bring it before us unless, like Councilwoman De Weerd said, if they want something different or want to come before us they can. I think we ought to
leave it at the staff level.
Corrie: Any other comments?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I tend to agree with Keith and Tammy. My only concern would be how will we determine without a Public Hearing if there’s much opposition from the neighborhood to this pole
going in or anything? Is that something that staff has some method or some ideas that they’re thinking about how they can get some input from the community. I mean, I’d hate to have
them approve something and then next thing we know, we’ve got the neighborhood in here all upset because something went in next to them without them having notice.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would hope our staff would check around on stuff like that. I agree with you Ron. I don’t want a subdivision in here upset with us but I would hope staff would check in and do
some stuff like that. I believe the Parks department did that on skate board parks and stuff like that to get our --. I would hope on something like this, not that there’s going to be
an application every week so I think we could. I think it would be very advisable for them to check around with the neighbors and see the pros and cons on it.
Anderson: Shari, do you have any ideas on how you might be able to deal with that logistically?
Stiles: Well, in the case of the Stor-It facility, there is Mirage Meadows. It’s immediately behind it. I’m not sure that they would be in favor of anything that’s going to be done
on that site, even in the Stor-It facility. Like I said I was
concerned about the sound of the, in a high wind the flapping of those flags could be pretty annoying and also the illumination of it at 85 feet high depending on how that light is directed.
It could cause some problems but I think that design wise they can work through those things. We wouldn’t consider them in residential areas or residential zones.
Corrie: I would think you’d probably have a pretty good idea where the Council’s coming from anyway?
Stiles: Yeah.
Corrie: If you had a question it wouldn’t hurt to ask us. Okay.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I have one more question. If you do put a flag one, that’s a pretty sizable flag and those aren’t real cheap and they‘re probably not real easy to change unless you have
some type of a bucket truck or something else. Who’s responsibility is it? Is it the cellular company that owns the pole to replace those? I know they wear out every few months just
from flapping in the wind or is that going to be the property owners? Are we going to have a bunch of people calling and complaining about frayed and worn out flags?
Stiles: I might have to defer it to the representatives here and what their experience has been in other jurisdictions.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: why don’t you come up here to the mike?
Corrie: We can’t hear you on the tape.
Longstaff: Right. I’m sorry.
Corrie: Okay.
Longstaff: It would definitely be our responsibility to maintain and replace that flag. It is our facility. We would own the facility. It wouldn’t be the property owner’s facility. We
simply lease space from the landowner. Any wear and tear on that flag would addressed by Crickett.
Corrie: And you just lease the space that it’s on?
Longstaff: Right. We just lease a square on the ground.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: What happens if that tower is no longer needed?
Longstaff: (inaudible)
De Weerd: Do you remove it?
Longstaff: If it’s no longer needed?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Longstaff: Absolutely because it costs a certain amount of money to keep that tower up. Now, there’s also the possibility of course that after we’ve pulled the tower another carrier,
another cell phone provider comes along and wants to make use of that tower. With these stealth applications you wouldn’t visually be able to notice that on the tower. They could potentially
locate their antennae within the stealth pole as well. In that case we may sell the tower to them and remove just our equipment. That’s a possibility but if we were the only carrier
on that tower and we for some reason no longer needed it we would bring the tower down. In fact I think that’s an element of our lease agreement with the property owner.
De Weerd: Thanks.
Anderson: I guess along that lines, I mean I’ve never heard of Crickett before tonight. So, if Crickett went out of business next year you guys would take the towers down? Is that
part of your contract, or your agreement with those property owners? Or is there going to be a bunch of towers around town?
Longstaff: The idea would be to take the tower down. I will tell you though that the value of the license that we’ve purchased from the FCC and the value of the infrastructure that we’ve
built is quite significant. If Crickett were to Quote, unquote go out of business, somebody else would be there to buy the assets and operate the network under their name. I’m almost
certain of that. That’s typically the way it works.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Okay. All right, Shari?
Stiles: I just wanted to clarify that Tully Park is a residential zone and that wouldn’t be something that we would consider out right to approve at administrative level because that
would tend to say it’s okay to do it in any residential zone. If they were to approach us with a Conditional Use Permit in an area that happened to be zoned residential then Council
could consider it. We wouldn’t want to try to approve those in residential zones.
Corrie: Okay. Well, Council, you can either give her your blessings or you can make it into to be carried to the Council.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve these stealth cellular towers at the administrative level except in residential zones which they would then have to apply for a CUP and go through
the proper channels.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s been made and second to have an administration level to approve the towers except in residential areas which require a CUP. Any further discussion? Hearing none,
all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Thank you.
2. Mapping for Comprehensive Plan:
Corrie: Item No. 2 of A 4-A is mapping of the Comprehensive Plan. Shari.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. We’ve come to a little bit of a glitch in getting our mapping done for the new Comprehensive Plan. The future land use map we were having Compass do
the mapping for us. We thought it would only take a week to ten days to get it done. Now we’re being told that it will take at least a month for Ross to be able to get the mapping done
which will probably put us into mid or end of July before we can go to a Public Hearing. We’ve discussed a couple of options. One of those would be that Steve Siddoway would dedicate
exclusively his time for 3 or 4 days to attempt to get that map done. We had also
talked to Sunrise Engineering and discussed the possibility of them being able to do the mapping for us. They gave us a ballpark. They thought it might be around 1500 to 2,000 dollars
but without having seen the map they don’t know. With the workload I really hate to dedicate a staff member full time to one project but if we need to do that we would. I just wanted
to see what your ideas were and that if we did need to go the consultant route if you could authorize up to $2,000 to be used for that mapping. I do have it in the budget under professional
services. We do have money available to do that. I’m not sure that the quality would be any better than what Steve could do. It’s just a matter of timing I guess. Claire Bowman at Compass
had offered to pay for a portion of a consultant to work on the map. I had called him on Friday and I haven’t had a return call yet to see what his offer might be. We do pay a significant
amount of money to Compass and although they do, do some work for us they, I would like them to be able to do the work for us because I believe that’s their job. If it’s going to take
a month that’s just unacceptable. We can’t wait that long. We’ve got to get moving on that comp plan. So, either way you want to go. If you want to authorize the additional money. I
talked to Shari Freemond today and she also said that they would do it in house but for additional money, even though their contract did state that mapping was included. They put a clause
in the contract that said using the resources of Compass. If they do it, they’re asking for more money as well. I can put Steve on it. I know he would do a good job. He’s very conscientious
and since he’s done most of the work on that generalized future land use map he wouldn’t have the questions maybe that a consultant would have. People would just need to be patient and
know that we didn’t have the staff available to stop everything to maybe be as available as we are now. Hopefully it would be a short-term thing. We can get this comp plan out of here
and get it on for Public Hearing. So, those are the options, either have SRC for additional money, have Steve dedicate 2 or 3 days or maybe 4 days exclusively to do only that, or have
an outside consultant do it, or request I guess is another option is to have Compass pay at least half of what we would have to pay an outside consultant.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: With the workload we’ve got at that staff, I’m not for pulling the staff off one day to do something like that. Now, what did you say 1500 to 2,000 for an engineering firm to do
it, is that what you said?
Stiles: That’s a ballpark that they gave us. It would probably have to be a time and materials type. They thought that they could do it within 30 hours 30, 40 hours. Steve would still
have to coordinate quite a bit with them to make sure that it was done the way we wanted it to be done.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Yes. That would be my comment is it’s going to take Steve probably just as much time to explain to a consultant how we want it done as it would to do it. I mean, it would
appear, he’s going to have a little more time in doing the map work. I’m like Keith. I hate to pull him away from staff time but it’s not necessarily the money. It just makes more since
to do it that way because you’re going to be using up his time anyway.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: Shari, does it make since to have a combination of the 2 that Steve works with the consultant. It is like Councilman Anderson probably going to duplicate it anyway with Steve
needing to work with them to explain what we have done up to this point to map it. So, if there can be a coordination between the two then Steve won’t have to give so much time but it
will get done right.
Stiles: We can work it either way. I know Steve’s very meticulous when it comes to that type of thing and I know he’d do a good job. It’s just, we’re pretty thin right now anyway.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: I think this is an extremely important process and we’ve been siting on this for a long time. It seems like Ross got this almost a month ago to begin with. At that time
it was going to be a month. Now it’s a month longer. We just need to get this going and if Steve is the one that is meticulous and can do the job right then just pull him and get it
done.
Anderson: Second it.
De Weerd: Okay that was a motion.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s been made and second to get it done. Pull Steve out and get it done as soon as you can. Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Stiles: Thank you.
B. Parks and Recreation Department – Director Tom Kuntz:
ACHD Irrigation Pipeline Easement Agreement:
Corrie: Thank you Shari. Parks and Rec department, Tom Kuntz. Item 1 ACHD irrigation pipeline easement agreement.
Kuntz: Mayor and Council. You should have in your packets a request for irrigation pipeline easement that runs along the southern boundary of our 58 acre park site that’s adjacent
to Ustick Road. The pipe will run in the future easement and actually it will run underneath the sidewalk. If it’s laid adjacent to the road so the easement will be nullified once ACHD
acquires the right-of-way adjacent to the park. Public works director and City Attorney reviewed it and it meets with their approval I believe.
Corrie: Okay. Questions from the Council?
De Weerd: No.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. I’ll entertain a motion on the recommendation.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the easement agreement with ACHD for the irrigation pipe along the southern boundary of our 56 acre park and to authorize the Mayor to sign and
the clerk attest.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s made and seconded to approve the recommendation of the parks Superintendent to have the irrigation pipe along the southern boundary of our 56-acre park adjacent
to Ustick Road. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Kuntz: Thank you.
2. Five-Mile Creek Pathway Change Order:
Kuntz: Second item is the soft areas in the Five Mile Creek Pathway don’t seem to be going away with the warmer temperatures. At ITD’s recommendation we
would like to go in and put the fabric down and then 12 inches of pit run and then build over the top of that. We did meet last week with Central Paving and the engineer from ITD. Some
drying has occurred. Central Paving has agreed to work with ITD to minimize the number of those wet spots that will have to be addressed. What I’m asking for tonight is approval for
a change order for the Five Mile Creek Pathway not to exceed 13,361 which includes a change in the type of fencing along Mr. Simwich’s property. We’ll do all that we can to make sure
that we stay, hopefully well under that.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you Tom. Any questions of Mr. Kuntz?
McCandless: I have none.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. I’ll entertain a motion on his request.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the recommendation for a change order not to exceed 13,361 with the ITD for the Mayor to sign and clerk attest.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s made to approve the Five Mile Creek Pathway change as requested by the director not to exceed $13,361. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5. (Items moved from Consent Agenda
Corrie: Okay. Item No. 5 is any consent items moved from the agenda tonight –
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: I’m sorry.
Bird: we’ve got the parks.
De Weerd: They have one more.
Corrie: Oh, you do have one more. I’m sorry. I just turned the page. Go ahead Tom.
Surplusing old fence at the 58-acre park:
Kuntz: The last item. There’s some dilapidated 3 rail wood fencing that we were planning to demolish and dispose of as well as a turn of the century chicken house. We actually had
a gentleman who contacted us interested in salvaging the wood fence. I believe to make some kind of benches or something. He offered us some financial reimbursement as well as contributing
a couple of the benches. What I would like to do is put an ad in the paper inviting other individuals who are interested in submitting proposals for salvage right speaking of the fence
and the chicken house. We actually went out and took some pictures this week on the screen there if you’d like to take a look at it.
(inaudible discussion)
Kuntz: I think the chicken house is on there too. There’s the chicken house.
(inaudible discussion)
Kuntz: It was a beauty in its day and age. In order to do that, I need the City Council’s authorization to surplus those items.
(inaudible discussion)
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Well, Tom I appreciate your frugalness trying to get a dollar out of this old wood but I don’t know. I mean it seems like this is something that probably doesn’t need to
come here. You can just take care of that. I guess unless technically we’re looking at for you to get a donation for benches or whatever that has to be surplus. I don’t know.
De Weerd: I believe so.
Kuntz: I was instructed by the finance department that this was the procedure. I agree with you Council member Anderson. I would prefer to take care of it in house but I’m just trying
to follow the rules.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Okay. Council.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion then that we declare this old fence and chicken coop as surplus property and authorize the parks director to surplus it out.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s been made and second to approve the request of the parks and rec director to approve the items as surplus and to advertise a proposal of salvage rights.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: Tom are you sure none of our other departments could use it?
Kuntz: We’ll make it available to the police department first Council member De Weerd. Thank you.
Corrie: I assume somebody called for the question so all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 6. Ordinance No. 01-917: AZ 99-021 Request for annexation and zoning for a continuing care retirement community, single- and multi-tenant residential, office and retail use by
Touchmark Living Centers – Joseph A. Billig – east of St. Luke’s between Franklin Road and Interstate 84:
Corrie: Okay. Item No. 6 ordinance 99-021 request for annexation and zoning for a continuing care retirement community, single and multi-tenant residential, office and retail use by
Touchmark Living Centers Joseph A. Billig east of St Luke’s between Franklin Road and Interstate 84.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Ordinance number 01-917. Okay. Clerk if you will read the ordinance 01-917 by title only at this point.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Ordinance No. 01-917 an ordinance finding that certain land lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits, 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 in zoning designated limited office district, LO and declaring said land by proper legal description that is described below be a part of the City of
Meridian, county of Ada, state of Idaho repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts there of in conflict herewith by 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 Reporter,
auditor, treasurer and assessor and the state tax commission of the state of Idaho pursuant to Idaho code section 50-223 and section 63-2215.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: The members of the audience heard the reading of the ordinance No. 01-917 by title only. Is there anyone who would care to have it read in its entirety? Okay. Council, I’ll
entertain a motion on the ordinance.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve ordinance No. 01-917 a request for annexation and zoning for a continuing care retirement community, single and multi tenant resident,
residential, office and retail use by Touchmark Living Centers with suspension of rules.
De Weerd: Second.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve ordinance No. 01-917 with suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council, roll call vote.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7. Tabled from May 1, 2001: CUP 01-005 Request for Conditional Use Permit for gasoline facility consisting of a 3,612 square-foot canopy over 5 multi-product dispensers, cashier’s
kiosk and parking lot improvements in a C-G zone for Fred Meyer Gasoline Facility by Dakota Company, Inc. – 1850 East Fairview Avenue:
Corrie: Item No. 7 is a table from May 1st. A request for a cup 01-005 request for a Conditional Use Permit for gasoline facility consisting of 3,612 square foot canopy over 5 multi
product dispensers for Fred Meyer’s Gasoline Facility by the Dakota Company.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: This was tabled so that Mr. Anderson could be informed about the request. The Counsel, Larry, Mr. Durkin if you would like to come up and kind of give us a quick synopsis for
Mr. Anderson. Thank you.
(inaudible discussion)
Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin. My address is 380 east Parkcenter Boulevard. I’m with Dakota Company and I’m here tonight on behalf of Fred Meyer Stores. A few weeks ago we talked about
this for a great length of time. I’m just going to try to shorten that for your benefit Councilman Anderson and just hit a couple of key points. We originally made an application for,
Fred Meyer originally made an application for a fuel station at a different location than this. It passed through Planning and Zoning with no negative testimony.
***End Of Side One***
Durkin: It came here and there was a recommendation by Council to relocate the facility to the east of their building. That location just isn’t going to work for Fred Meyer so we filed
a new application showing this location. We went through kind of a long history of that and talked to some of the pros and cons and I’m just going to hit a couple of those quickly for
you tonight. At the last hearing, the council denied the location, we believe because of misinformation that was provided to the Council by Fred Meyer’s prior consultant on this matter.
In reviewing the minutes and I brought them with me tonight. The Council was, seemed to me to be confused on the location. The engineering firm representing the Fred Meyer store is a
Seattle based engineering firm. They seem to be confused on the location and I happened to be in the audience that night watching. I was positive where the location was and when I left
that night I was confused. What we’ve done is prepared a full size site plan to show the Council specifically what we are applying for. The denial was based on three points. The denial
was based on concerns for traffic congestion. The denial was based on statements of inadequate parking for the center. The denial was based on hazards to pedestrians. The traffic congestion,
we’ve done a traffic study. We’ve provided it. It’s in all of your packets. The traffic generated by this facility is about 230 trips per day and it will be dispersed evenly throughout
the shopping center. By moving that to one end of the shopping center or another you’ll put the traffic congestion on one driveway or another and cause criss-cross traffic throughout
the center. At the last Council Meeting, the chief of police was here and he was asked how he felt about congestion, are there a lot of accidents. I believe that the
chief sent some accident data for the area but his testimony was that he didn’t see that this was going to be a problem for traffic congestion. That the people that would use the facility
are already driving by or using the shopping center now. I fouled up. After that meeting I again met with ACHD, again today and that was Kent Brown and others at ACHD. They issued a
letter of no opinion. They don’t consider it to be a traffic congestion issue. They mentioned to me today to remind you that within the next few weeks they’ll be starting construction
on Locust Grove, widening that to, I believe five lanes just to the west of the location. With 6 lanes out in front of the store and additional lanes going to the west of the shopping
center, ACHD reiterated today they just had no concerns over any traffic or congestion for this addition. There are no curb cuts added to the center. We feel that the flow works very
well. The developer is very happy with the location and the other tenants in the center are happy with this location. At the last hearing, there was some discussion about the specific
location. I’m going to walk over to the board in a moment. About moving it 40 feet to the west. Fred Meyer is agreeable to that and we’ve talked to the developer. The developer and their
tenants are agreeable to that as well. Another area of concern to the Council the first time you heard this was inadequate parking throughout the shopping center. As you can see from
the staff report, the parking ratio for the overall center far exceeds the Meridian City code. The center is broken up into separate parcels. The parking ratio on this parcel exceeds
the code. This is the overall Fred Meyer parcel. That exceeds the code. The parking on each of the separate pads exceeds the code. So, by putting a canopy here, moving it over there’s
a line on this plan, this is left in Will’s office. We would be moving it over here to get it away from that driveway.
Anderson: Larry, can I ask you a question? Isn’t there, there’s a garden center that’s extended out to the east of the building’s foot print now that’s taking up some of those parking
spaces that they use as like a summer garden shop and they expand out into there. I was in there a couple weeks ago buying flowers. It’s kind of more north from where you’re pointing
there.
Durkin: It’s some where right in this area?
Anderson: Yeah. It takes up that area there.
Durkin: There is. Even with the garden shop, they far exceed the city code for, in the staff report you might notice that they talk about the ordinance for parking. That’s specifically
just for the Fred Meyer parcel. If you add all the other parcels there’s a recorded cross easement agreement that runs with the land forever. That was a requirement for our original,
when we originally developed the shopping center. All of the parking’s available for all of the people in the center all of the time. There’s just no, there’s no shortage of parking.
There’s a greater parking ratio here than in any of the other large centers in Meridian. Having done a fair number of these, parking ratios are greater than industry standards and greater
than the city standards. Now that we know what the numbers are which I
don’t think you knew the last time. We feel real confident that parking isn’t an issue. The next area of concern was, would this be a hazard, the Council felt that it would be a hazard
to pedestrians. In your previous denial you stated the reason for denial as an unacceptable hazard for pedestrians. But, as you can see now that you have the correct data, the fuel island
is more than 100 feet set back from the sidewalk. The drive lane is 40 feet away from the sidewalk with a landscape berm separating the fueling traffic from the sidewalk. Now, in downtown
Meridian and really throughout the city there are a number of stations with no separation at all from any of the pedestrian traffic. There are no fuel operations anywhere in the City
of Meridian with such a large set back. Fred Meyer, Dakota company and other consultants really see no hazard with this. Safety and patrol didn’t see a hazard with this matter either.
I’m just going to go to some of my exact previous testimony because I think it’s important. In the past you recommended relocation to another point in the center. That relocation won’t
work for Fred Meyer. It won’t work for the developer and it won’t work for the other tenants in the center. In addition we have a concern from a safety standpoint of putting a fueling
operation down and kind of behind the building down a private street. We feel that from a safety and patrol standpoint it would be far better to have it directly in front of the store.
If you were to drive over to the Garden City store on Chinden, there’s a new fueling island in front of that Fred Meyer that's directly centered right up by the street. In that case,
you have to come in on a far away signaled access, drive all the way through the drive lane system to get to it. The safety is a primary concern of Fred Meyer’s to have it front and
center from a safety and patrol standpoint and for the users that would be using it. In preparing for the Council Meeting, the last time I carefully read the staff report. I just want
to call your attention to page 6 of the staff report. This is the Comprehensive Plan, just the text from the plan. From an economic development chapter the Comprehensive Plan encourages
the city to set aside areas where commercial interests and activities are to dominate. That’s already been done here. Commercial activity dominates in this area. The plan that we’re
submitting, the center itself is completely surrounded by commercial property. Another point says positive programs should be undertaken to support existing commercial areas to ensure
their continued vitality. I’m going to talk about that a little bit in a moment. But I want to stress now is that this service for Fred Meyer is very important to Fred Meyer. It will
enable them to remain competitive with other people in the industry that are adding this service to their center. Without this, it’s a significant blow to their continued operations.
In the land use chapter it says you encourage new commercial development within under utilized existing commercial areas. With the parking ratios still far exceeding the city ordinance
and the industry standards and having this in a commercial area, you’re encouraging additional development within an existing commercial area. We just feel that this meets the comp plan
in that area as well. There’s another in the community design chapter that says encourage community beautification through uniform sign design that enhances the community. There’s another
point that says encourage landscape set backs for new development. There’s a 40-foot – I’m going to walk back over there. – There’s a 40 foot landscaped berm in this
area and at the last Council meeting, Councilman Anderson, you asked a question about signage. The only signage on the entire canopy is located in the back of the canopy so that it’s
visible to the people leaving the store. There’s no signage on the east on the south or on the west side of the canopy. This little detail here is a detail that shows up on the plan
but this is below grade. This is the concrete pad area where the tanks are underneath. This point right here. From a signage standpoint it’s a real minimal addition and it’s well within
all the guidelines of the city. I tried at the last Council meeting to address each of the concerns that were mentioned at previous hearings. Since we’ve had no negative testimony on
this at all. It’s passed unanimously twice through Planning and Zoning. In fairness in reading the minutes, at the council meeting you asked a real fair question of the consultant.
You asked how far away this building was from Locust Grove because he didn’t know. You didn’t, the plans that were shown to you weren’t clear. His answer to was it was 150, maybe 125
feet away from Locust Grove. You can see from the plan, it’s about 880 feet away from Locust Grove so there’s a great distance back. In just reading the minutes there was just continued
confusion throughout the meeting on where they were located. A couple weeks ago I handed out these articles to the Council and to everyone that was here. I want to just talk about briefly
with you the industry and how it’s changing. There are, one of the articles is from the latest edition of discount store news. It talks about the competitors in the general merchandise
discount department store business and the grocery business and how they’re adding fuel. Fred Meyer would fall under the Kroger category. If you look through the second page of that
article you can see that Albertson’s is adding them. Wal-Mart is adding them. Costco, all of Fred Meyer’s competitors are adding them throughout the United States. It’s a solid industry
trend. This isn’t an experiment. This is a solid trend nationwide. The second article is from a Wall Street Journal article that just talks about how it’s an important trend for the
industry. I guess I’m just trying to show you how important this is to Fred Meyer stores. I’ve tried to answer your questions and concerns about traffic congestion. We’ve agreed to move
the canopy again over tot the west to get it further away from that driveway. We’ve gone back to the developer after our last Council meeting and they have enthusiastically approved
the revised location. I’ve gone back and talked to ACHD about their traffic concerns. I also made a number of phone calls to existing tenants in the center. I made a fairly long presentation
for a fairly small application a few weeks ago. I talked about how important it was to the tenants in the center that this service be available for Fred Meyer. It really isn’t the money
in the pocket for Fred Meyer for the fuel. It’s more to, it’s for their overall service to be competitive with Wal-Mart and others. I talked with Blain Jacobson. Blain is a franchisee
and he’s the owner of Subway stores. His competitors in the Chevron and everywhere else are adding fuel, or excuse me, are adding sandwiches competing with him. This a real critical
component to Subway. They’re thrilled to have this near their store. I talked to Brueger’s. They’re thrilled to have this. They’re concerned about the other fuel operations in town adding
fuel and they’re thrilled to see it in the center. I talked with TCBY. They’re a great distance away. They stressed to me how they rely on Fred Meyer traffic for their overall success
and their viability. These are national names of restaurants but all of them are just local Mom and Pop franchisees that run these that own the business themselves. It’s very, very important
to them to have the developer have the major tenant in the center Fred Meyer and have the city take steps wherever possible to have Fred Meyer remain viable. As long as the traffic is
coming in for Fred Meyer, they’re doing well. If the traffic goes away from Fred Meyer and goes to other places and Fred Meyer has plenty of money and they’re not going to close their
store. It’s the small tenants that rely on that traffic. It’s really important. In addition, Fred Meyer has tenants in their building. You know they have a Baskin Robbin franchisee.
It isn’t Mr. Baskin or Mr. Robbins, it’s a Mom and Pop operation that have that as their business and they rely on the traffic coming into the center. Since we meet or exceed every single
city ordinance on it, every code, we completely comply with all the Comprehensive Plan criteria. We think it’s a great location. The chief of police has testified that he thinks it’s
safe. I was thrilled with his presentation. Everyone that I’m talking to except for the Council is very enthused about it and comfortable with it. We’d really ask for your support tonight.
There was some discussion, and it’s fair discussion, at the last council meeting. This is my last point. About precedence. Gee, you approve this and everyone in town’s going to be running
in with an application to put a fuel island in front of their building. That’s a fair concern for any city that could set a precedent. I would suggest that there aren’t very many places
in the City of Meridian where there’s a large commercial corner, that’s been designated on the comp plan as a major commercial area. It’s fully developed as a major commercial area and
it still exceeds all the parking requirements, all the traffic safety issues, all the pedestrian safety issues. It’s not adjacent to or adjoining any residential area. You know I like
Albertson’s. I assume that they’ve either been in here or will be in here for a fuel operation at their Ten Mile and Fairview store. The significant difference is they operate a convenience
store. A four thousand square foot building or so. They operate car washes. They operate a lot different. They have a different signage program. At that facility from what I understand
and what I can see they’re adjacent to and across the street and next to single family zoned property. With this application, it’s unique. I guess if someone else came in with an application
that was this unique, I think that you should give it fair consideration. From a precedent standpoint I think you’re going to be safe with the other people in the business that they
wouldn’t be able to meet the hurdle that we’ve met at this location. I’m stressing to you again the importance of it to Fred Meyer. I’m asking for your support. I was up here for about
an hour and a half a couple weeks ago and I answered a lot of other questions. But I would happily answer any questions that any of you may have.
Anderson: I just had one quick one, Larry. Remind me, did this have like a mini mart where you could buy convenience groceries in it too?
Durkin: It does not. It has a canopy in this area. These are fuel pumps. The traffic flows through this way or this way. This little tiny box right here, there’s a kiosk where an employee
sits. There’s no other, it’s in the staff report the size of it. It’s
very, very tiny but there’s no. I wouldn’t anticipate any pedestrian traffic what so ever walking up to use this facility. No car wash or anything.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Larry is it going to be a kiosk like you’ve got at Garden City.
Durkin: Yes. I submitted photos to you and plans and it’s the same type of thing.
Bird: I’d say that’s about a 10 by 12 building. Something like that.
Durkin: One of the differences with this one versus Garden City is Garden City has signage in a number of locations. This one has one sign to the back. I did submit photos to
(inaudible discussion)
Durkin: The staff report doesn’t mention how big it is but it’s a 3600 square foot canopy with a tiny building underneath it. I can tell there’s someone that’s diligently measuring back
here and would be able to give you –
(inaudible discussion)
Durkin: I think the last time, in reading these minutes, there were a couple of plans submitted and I think part of the meeting there was some discussion about whether it was located
over here. Some of the meeting there was some discussion about whether it was located over here. They talked about moving it over here. This is Locust Grove and it’s a major street that
we all know and are familiar with but the representative that was here on Fred Meyer’s behalf at that time wasn’t sure. He was giving you the message that this was close to a fairly
congested intersection. It’s a fairly great distance away.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you Larry. Council your decision will be either to accept the Fred Meyer gasoline facility or to deny in your motion. So, hearing no other discussion, I’ll entertain
a motion.
Bird: I’ll throw this out. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the CUP for the gasoline facility consisting of 3,612 square foot canopy over a five multi product dispensers, cashiers cash and parking lot improvements
in a CG zone for Fred Meyer gasoline facility 1850 east Fairview Avenue with the condition that the whole project moves 40 feet to the west of the planned site.
Corrie: Is there a second to the reading?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I’ll second it.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s been made and second to approve the Fred Meyer gasoline facility as requested with the condition that it’s moved 40 feet to the west in the parking lot of the
original set up. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess I’d like to have a chance to comment a little bit on it. I appreciate Mr. Durkin clarifying the location. I know there was some confusion at the initial hearing on
this project exactly where it was located. I think by the time the night was over we finally got it pinned down to where we knew it was going in the parking lot. I think the Council’s
concerns were because of the amount of traffic there on Fairview avenue and without having any real scientific data one way or another to either support or not support whether there’s
too much traffic there at this time or not it’s difficult to say and makes that a judgement call on our part. I do disagree with one statement that Mr. Durkin said about under utilized
commercial area. I definitely don’t think this Fred Meyer complex and the associated businesses that area around that are under utilizing this property. I’ve shopped there occasionally
and it definitely has a lot of customers. I would also agree that this seems to be the trend with the large chain grocery stores. The Albertson’s the Wal-Marts, the Fred Meyers. That
everybody wants to get in the gasoline business. I guess that $3 a gallon price is coming soon I could understand why you’d want a piece of that gold. Based off of what we’re hearing
tonight and what we see as far as the size of the project and how its designed I like the fact that they’re not making it large and obtrusive. It’s not a lot of signage and isn’t over
bearing. I guess I would not overwhelmingly support this project but I probably would give it my blessings because there seems to be a shortage of gas stations around it in the immediate
area there on Fairview.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I went down to Garden City after Mr. Durkin had (inaudible). I wish the one entrance was out of there and they would be the ideal situation there. I mean it’s a beautiful, it’s
a nice little gas station. I think by moving it 40 feet over we eliminated a lot of the traffic concerns I had that in and out area there between Subway and where it’s going to be located,
I hope.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I guess I’m going to go down kicking and screaming because I’ve been against it all along but due to the remarks that the chief of police made last meeting and the fact that
it is being moved over 40 feet which gets it out of the way of the driveway there. And the fact that I realize that it’s a marketing tool, that there’s so many of them that are doing
this now, I withdraw my objection.
Corrie: Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. Motion is to approve the request with the conditions placed on the motion. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion say aye.
Corrie: Opposed, no. Three ayes, one abstention.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes.
Nichols: Point of order I think we need to have a roll call vote on this because it requires findings.
Corrie: Oh that’s correct it does. Roll call vote.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council, roll call vote.
Anderson: aye
Bird: aye
McCandless: aye
De Weerd: I abstain.
Corrie: Okay. Vote stays the same and we’re ready to go. Thank you.
Item 8. Continued Public Hearing from May 1, 2001: PP 01-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 23 building lots and 3 other lots on 9.24 acres in an R-4 zone by Hubble Engineering
for proposed Ashford Greens No. 6 – Black Cat Road, north of Cherry Lane:
Corrie: Item No. 8 is a continued Public Hearing from May the 1st. Preliminary plat No. 003, request for 23 building lots and 3 other lots on 9.24 acres in an R-4 zone by Hubble engineering
for proposed Ashford Greens No. 6 Black Cat Road North of Cherry Lane. At this time we will continue the Public Hearing with staff comments.
Bird: She’s got to warm up here.
(inaudible discussion)
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. This is for the final phase of Ashford Greens subdivision. The remainder of the property that is adjacent to the clubhouse area, Brenda Estates is currently
on this portion of the, adjacent to the property. The golf course here. The 2 main items I think that need to be discussed tonight are probably the extension to Gulf View Estates to
the south, or is that a part of the old one? Okay, never mind. That was another problem. The other portion of this would be the Eight Mile Lateral that’s adjacent to the roadway in this
location. I’m not sure how far Steiner had agreed to pipe and whether that was included as part of it or not. I believe the applicant can address that tonight. It would be for 23 building
lots and 3 other lots. They have provided another map that shows it will have .42 acres in landscaped common area. Those are shown as this landscape island here and also as a portion
of the Eight Mile, to I guess that’s south of the Eight Mile Lateral here that would be landscaped. Staff would like the Council to address the Eight Mile Lateral and what needs to be
done in that area. I can’t recall how much Steiner had finally agreed to pipe as part of that land swap. The city does own the property. When it was deeded over to the city, I’m not
sure. Staff would recommend approval with all staff and agency conditions.
Corrie: Okay. Is the landowner or the representative here for Ashford Greens?
Wardle: Good evening my name is John Wardle with Brighton Corporation. My address is 12426 west(inaudible) drive. Thanks to Shari and her brief remarks on this plat. If I could just
kind of give you a little bit of history. There’s a colored drawing that we provided at P&Z. You got the black and white but I have 3 copies that I can pass out. The part that’s shown
in red in that drawing was part of the original plan. The original Preliminary Plat for Ashford Greens. The part that’s in blue is what’s in addition to that. This Is the old drawing
I dug up from our old files that was presented back, I think probably 93 – 94 time. Everything you see in yellow is part of the original Preliminary Plat and this part is what’s in addition
which basically caused us to do a Preliminary Plat for all of Ashford Greens No.6. When we were at the Planning and Zoning Commission we addressed a couple of issues. Specifically condition
No.3, which was related to the open space. There is .42 acres of open space provided. The staff report indicated .46 and when we met with Mr. Siddoway and also discussed with Planning
and Zoning Commission, they concurred that that was sufficient given that the actual new part to this development is 3.26 acres versus the 9.24. What would be required if we were just
bringing a Preliminary Plat for that small section would be .19 acres whereas we’re providing .42 acres. Staff was agreeable to that as was the Planning and Zoning Commission. The other
issues, at site specific No. 2 which is talking about fencing. When we were here for Ashford Greens No. 5 the requirement to fence adjacent to the golf course was waived. We just ask
that this be consistent with that also. That the area adjacent to golf course, that we not be required to fence with a solid fence. Other parts of the project that would be outside of
the golf course area we don’t have an issue complying with the fencing issues. We ask that we not be required to provide a solid fence adjacent to the golf course as was provided by
this Council for Ashford Greens No. 5. The last issue is the issue with the Eight Mile Lateral. The staff did indicate that the Steiner Development did agree to pipe the lateral as part
of the land swap. I guess our issue, and Mr. Turnbull may speak to this in just a moment. This is not on our property. It’s not part of our development and it’s just shy of it. We don’t
feel that we have any obligation, or there shouldn’t be a requirement on this development to pipe the Eight Mile Lateral. I’m going to have to defer to Mr. Turnbull more specifically
for that a little bit before my time but I’m more than willing to address any questions you may have related to the issues that I’ve brought up so far this evening.
Corrie: Okay. Ready for questions? All right, very good.
Wardle: Thank you.
Corrie: David, Do you want to address that issue?
Turnbull: Good evening Mayor and members of the Council. My name’s David Turnbull. My address is 12426 west explorer drive. I think John stated it fairly well. I guess I don’t understand
exactly where this requirement, I don’t think it’s a requirement. I think it’s just asking for the Council to address it. The point is made here that Steiner agreed to pipe part of that
lateral in some sort of a land swap. I don’t know that that’s terribly relevant to our situation. We’re not asking the city for anything. Steiner apparently got some consideration in
exchange for piping part of that lateral. We’re not asking for anything from the city here. In fact I think we’ve probably been a pretty good for the golf course. We’ve in the past provided
them electrical services to their pond areas for re-circulation pumps. We’ve provided them sewer and water services for restroom facilities all at our cost. To ask us to come in and
pipe the lateral that’s on the city’s property seems to me to be a little bit over the top. I guess that’s my position on that issue.
Corrie: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thanks David. There’s no one signed up to testify. Is there anyone in the public that would like to issue testimony on this issue tonight? There’s no need for rebuttals.
Shari, any question? Gary?
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Do you have any questions?
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council. On the piping of the Eight Mile Lateral, it’s my recollection from my fading memory that Steiner was going to provide all the pipe from what’s been installed
in the ditch at this point to the south to the point where it turns and goes southeast. Nampa Meridian Irrigation District had agreed to install the piping at some future time when the
water wasn’t in the ditch. This last irrigation season it didn’t happen in time for that to – pipe wasn’t provided in time for that ditch to be piped. Where Shari’s showing you on the
screen, they were going to pipe all of that up to under the access and that little piece just north of the access.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Yeah. That stands out in mind that that’s what the agreement, that they would supply the pipes, Steiner development would supply the pipe (inaudible). That condition Shari then
that eliminates the condition off of this plat that you are talking about?
Stiles: Yes. I just couldn’t recall what that agreement was or how far it went. I mean obviously it’s going to need to be piped or some kind of pretty decent barricade would have to
be put on there to prevent people form driving into it. If that’s taken care of then that’s fine and that can be stricken from any comments.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Okay. Council, any other questions?
Bird: I have none Mayor.
Corrie: Okay. Hearing none I’ll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on item No. 8.
Bird: Mr. Mayor
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we can close the Public Hearing on request EP 01-003 by Ashford Greens No. 6.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s made and second to close the Public Hearing. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Any further discussion on the request for the Preliminary Plat?
De Weerd: I have none.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. I’ll entertain a motion then for the request for Preliminary Plat item 8.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the request for the Preliminary Plat approval of 23 building lots and 3 other lots on 9.24 acres in an R-4 zone by Hubble Engineering for the proposed Ashford
Greens No. 6 Black Cat Road north of Cherry Lane and that the staff request of tiling Eight Mile Lateral be deleted.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s been made and seconded to approve the request for the Preliminary Plat by Ashford Greens No. 6. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote Mr. Berg.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 9. Continued Public Hearing from May 1, 2001: CUP 01-008 Request for Conditional Use Permit of 3 residential lots to be developed as subdivision, pool, clubhouse and recreation
area in an R-4 zone for Packard Subdivision by Packard Estates
Development, LLC – north of East Fairview Avenue, west of North Eagle Road on North Hickory Way:
Corrie: Item No. 9. Well, they’re not here. This is a continued Public Hearing from May the 1st. This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for 3 residential lots to be developed
as a subdivision pool, clubhouse and rec area in an R-4 zone for Packard Subdivision. At this time I will convene the continued Public Hearing with staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council this is for the proposed clubhouse and pool proposed in Packard Estates Subdivision. I believe the Public Hearing was continued so the applicant could
be available to answer some questions that were raised at the last meeting. One of those was a question regarding the safety and fencing around the pool. Another question came up about
the hours of operation. I believe there was another question raised about which subdivisions would have access to this pool and clubhouse area. Whether it would be restricted to Packard
Estates or whether Packard Acres subdivisions would be allowed also to become members and participate in use of that facility. I believe the applicant is here tonight and that’s all
that I had.
Corrie: Would the applicant, please –
Groves: My name is Greg Groves 6223 north Discovery way Boise. On the site plan there you’ve got in front of you, it indicates that there is a wrought iron fence around the clubhouse
and pool facility. It would have controlled access. There was a question regarding the hours of operation. Those hours of operation would be determined by the owner’s association but
I would anticipate that they would be no earlier than 9:00 in the morning and probably no later than 10:00 at night. We have reviewed all the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning
and engineering staff. There is an indication that the Planning and Zoning and engineering staff is asking the Council to make a determination on the proposed amount of parking. It’s
there on the site plan. That site plan, I’m not sure that that’s the updated site plan that was submitted with the package. But it’s very close to what we’re looking at. I don’t remember
what the other questions and concerns were. Oh, whether the other Packard subdivisions would be members of the association. It’s been the intent all along that Packard Acres No. 1 and
Packard Acres No. 2 as well as Packard Estates, or Packard Subdivisions 1 through 4 would all be a part of the owner’s association and would have full access to the facility.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions, Council at this point?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Stick around. There may be some – Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: Greg, I think also lighting was a –
Groves: Right. In the recommendations that were adopted, it indicates that –
***End Of Side Two***
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions?
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Stick around. You may have some more to answer, okay? I believe we had two signed up for the Public Hearing, Helen Sharp.
H. Sharp: I’m Helen Sharp 2445 Windgate Lane. Mayor and Council Members. He did mention to us too now that all of the Packard Estates and subdivisions would be allowed to use the facilities.
We’re right back to where we were on how they’re going to access this. We have the fence now along Windgate Lane on the east and we will on the west when they develop that. There are
2 gates there now at that fence. I’ve asked that they look, if someone would be aware of the fact that those gates are, they’re not right in front of the sidewalk – one of them’s in
front of a drain and we’ve got a little problem as how we’re going to take care of that once we have to grade and gravel that lane because there’s a nice big dip there. Of course we
have the 15 foot easement but right now we have a problem there. The question is, and here again I’d like to have everything in black and white and enforced when they make the final
decision as to what’s been done. Because those of you who’ve been on the Council. Those of you who’ve listened to us on Packard subdivision and I’m sort of getting tired of it. We have
to keep coming back and reiterating and redoing what’s been done and I think the real issue here is going to be access from the people into that facility. I mean I can’t – Maybe they’ll
offer me an invitation and then I won’t have to worry about it, to use the facilities. I think it is a subject that definitely has to be addressed because the way the gates are now that
would go access into the property I can’t believe that it would be acceptable. As far as safety, I just cannot see, the way they’ve got it set up that it would complete especially when
they’re talking about the foot traffic. That would be foot traffic in and out of there because actually they don’t have the vehicle facility unless they go all the way around it and
enter into Fairview. It could not be entered from Windgate Lane. I really don’t think that it’s a safety solution right now as it now stands and it’s very, very hard to tell by looking
at your pictures there. I think it’s something that definitely needs to be addressed and finalized. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Dale.
D. Sharp: I’m Dale Sharp, 2445 Windgate Lane. I also would like to reiterate on the access of using Windgate Lane. As the representatives have stated time and time again in meetings
here that Windgate Lane would not be used. It is a private
road by the way. It’s designated as private road since 1913. It is a safety factor coming down that lane. It’s fairly narrow and I on occasions already have closed those gates because
they’ve been swung out into the lane. People walking out from that subdivision into the lane could be subject to being hit by – we have garbage trucks coming down there. We have delivery
trucks. We have mail service. We have paper service. We have friends and relatives and some of those people, garbage trucks with no exception come down there pretty fast. Somebody step
out in there onto that lane from those gates is subject to being hit. I just want to remind everyone here that they said they would not use Windgate Lane. It’s been reported in these
minutes here and I can bring those minutes to you and show you.
Corrie: We’ll ask them here too. Thank you Dale. Anyone else? Would you like to come up and answer these questions that have been raised please? Thank you.
Groves: Members of the Council. It’s been a long process this Packard subdivision. There’s been a development agreement signed by us, by the city. It addresses all the issues that Mr.
Sharp brings up. We intend on abiding by that development agreement. As far as people getting hit on the lane, you know the posted speed mile, the posted speed limit on that lane is
15 miles an hour. I can assure you that anybody who drives down that lane does not drive faster than 15 miles an hour. You know, I don’t think we’re going to have too many issues in
regards to that. I don’t know what else you want me to say about it.
Anderson: Greg, could you explain for me where these gates went again?
Groves: There are two stub streets that come out of Packard Acres No. 1 that stub into Windgate Lane.
(inaudible discussion)
Groves: This is Windgate Lane right here. There’s a stub street right here and there’s a stub street right here. There’s a gate here and there’s a gate here. There’s a fence across the
(inaudible)
Anderson: Over here on this meadow?
Groves: Yeah.
(inaudible discussion)
Groves: There’s a little 3 foot gate there and a little 3 foot gate there.
(inaudible discussion)
Anderson: And so where’s all this traffic coming from that’s going down this road? How’s it getting onto their road if those are fenced?
Bird: Coming off of Ustick.
(inaudible discussion)
Groves: You know they could come right down Meadow Grass and go that way but they come all the way down Ustick, down this lane.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Groves: The only other comments I’ve got, if you refer back to the development agreement that was approved for Packard Acres No.2 the recommendations from the city Planning and Zoning
and engineering staff, the recommendations from the highway district were all adopted. In the recommendations from the highway district, I want to remind the Council that the highway
district did indicate that when the 2 five acre parcels south of Chateau I think it is, or Chabliss or whatever street is there are developed that there will be some discussion about
crossing that Windgate Lane and I thin k that that needs to be pointed out. It is in the development agreement and was adopted by this body.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Greg, in the development agreement and this is before you were involved in this development, it was agreed upon that Windgate would not be used by the contractors coming in and
out and stuff. I have personally seen it being used by construction workers, construction trucks. That is part that I think that has a lot to do to upset the residents out on Windgate
Lane is that what was agreed upon hasn’t been lived to 100 percent of the time. I hope that now with your involvement that that will be taken care.
Groves: We’ve tried to do everything that we have promised to do. There are occasions when we’ve had to have utility contractors use the lane for crossing pipe or whatever. We’ve tried
to repair the lane diligently. We’ve worked with Mr. and Mrs. Sharp on an adequate fencing design. You know the development agreement also says that there should be pedestrian access
across that lane. Frankly if you go out there and look at it, it’s really difficult. I mean it’s not very friendly to pedestrians by any means.
Bird: Greg, I don’t think they’re complaint is utilities being ran across or anything like that. This was before your time of big trucks coming down that thing to get into the access.
It wasn’t for utilities and stuff. I hope that you will see that don’t happen. If that’s the agreement.
Corrie: Any other questions?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess, what do you have along that area to discourage traffic from the construction workers or anything like that to use it? Do you have it fenced on both sides of that
lane and pillars or something so that it’s only accessible at those two points to pedestrian traffic? How is that, how are the boundaries identified? Do you have a fence up?
Groves: There’s a 6 foot fence that runs all the way down the east side of the lane with two gates for almost the entire property on the east side. There will be another 6 foot fence
on the west side eventually.
De Weerd: And that’s probably where the traffic’s coming from?
Groves: No. There’s no development on the west side yet.
De Weerd: So, how is the traffic getting from Windgate Lane into your development?
Groves: There’s no houses there yet. The only traffic that’s been there has been our underground utility contractors that have installed the sewer and water. Maybe the US West and DASCO
folks and of course myself.
De Weerd: And, you’re using it?
Groves: Sure.
De Weerd: Why?
Groves: We have a property that we own on that lane. There’s a house down it.
De Weerd: Okay.
Groves: Okay.
De Weerd: Thanks for clarifying that.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none Mayor.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: No, Ma’am.
Bird: No.
Corrie: Is that yours? Okay. Council, is there any other discussion, questions?
Bird: I have none Mayor.
Corrie: Okay. At this point I will entertain a motion to close the continued Public Hearing.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing for the Conditional Use Permit for Packard Subdivisions by Packard Estates Development LLC.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second to close the Public Hearing on item No. 9 request for Conditional Use Permit No. 01-008. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Discussion on the request?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess I don’t see any problem with the request for the CUP here. I mean this is just a re-curing theme with the use of Windgate Lane and the Sharp’s property. That’s on
the record and the development has agreed that as best he can, I’m not sure what we can do other than put a police officer out there to guard the private lane 24 hours a day. Maybe a
sign posted up at the start of Windgate Lane near Ustick might be appropriate that says this is a private lane not to be used by construction vehicles.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: They’ve tried that I think.
Anderson: I don’t know if they have or not.
Bird: Yeah. That’s county anyway. We can’t get a police officer out there.
Anderson: I wasn’t suggesting that we do.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr.Bird. Bird: I move that we approve the request for Conditional Use Permit of 3 residential lots to be developed as subdivision pool, clubhouse and recreation area in an R-4
zone for Packard Subdivision by Packard Estates Development LLC. north of east Fairview Avenue and west of north Eagle Road on north Hickory way with staff comments and Attorney to draw
up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s been made and second to have the Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for the request of the Conditional Use Permit with an affirmative
approval, staff comments. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote Mr. Berg.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 10. Continued Public Hearing from May 1, 2001: RZ 01-003 Request for rezone from R-4 to C-C for Partition Specialties, Inc by Ronald and Coleen Schaub – 1315 North Meridian Road:
Corrie: Item No. 10 is a continued Public Hearing from May the 1st. This is a request for rezone from R-4 to C-C for Partition Specialist Inc. 1315 north Meridian Road. At this point
I will continue to open the Public Hearing and invite staff comments first.
(inaudible discussion)
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. It looks like once again they have decided not to show up. Since they’re already operating illegally I would suggest that we get code enforcement out
there and shut them down.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: Is this the one that’s on the alley there? There right by, just south of the Church parking lot there?
Stiles: They’re next to Eugene Peters’ place. He came and testified last time.
Bird: Oh, yeah.
Corrie: Were they notified Mr. Clerk to be here?
Berg: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council. According to my staff they contacted them both times as far as there is any Public Hearing their attendance would be highly recommended.
Corrie: Okay. I guess, Mr. Counselor, I guess we have a choice here to close the Public Hearing, either refuse or prevent the rezone or if we choose not to approve the rezone we can
have the code enforcement people go out and take care of that part.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: You know the Public Hearing isn’t closed. Just to reiterate, the application for the rezone indicated that there was no manufacturing, assembling, or anything associated with
putting things together in this proposed use. The testimony from the neighbor would lead one to believe that raw materials are being dropped off and things are being manufactured inside
the residence. So, it appears, if that testimony was correct, that even with the rezone that they’ve sought, they still wouldn’t be able to do what they’re doing there. Just in terms
of this particular application, it would seem to me you could deny the application if you choose on the basis that the applicant did not prosecute the application explain it to the
Council. What they have to do to get a permit approved would be to do that. If that were your choice. If they’re manufacturing things in there, they’re still in violation of the zoning
code and still subject to code enforcement action.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Okay. Mr. Bird.
Bird: The recommendation from the Planning and Zoning was for LO zone. We can change the zoning from that. Would that take care of that?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council Councilman Bird, I’m not sure what the question is.
Bird: LO, that would take care of, they wouldn’t be able to manufacture in that either would they?
Nichols: You’d have to ask Shari, but I don’t think that assembling or manufacturing is allowed in an LO zone.
Corrie: Manufacturing isn’t allowed in the LO zone either is it?
Stiles: No.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: What is allowed in CG?
Stiles: CG?
Bird: Yeah.
Stiles: Well, they had requested CC.
Bird: Oh, CC okay, I’m sorry.
Stiles: Which does allow convenience stores, car washes, a lot of other things.
Bird: (inaudible)
Corrie: Is there anyone from the public that would like to issue testimony on this statement?
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: The application is for CC.
Corrie: Council, any other comments for the Public Hearing?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: Shari, did you say that the applicant wasn’t at the Planning and Zoning meeting either? Were they?
Berg: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council. There was an applicant representative there at the Planning and Zoning meeting, Commission meeting.
De Weerd: And, he didn’t have a problem with the LO designation?
Berg: I don’t believe he had a problem with the LO recommendation from the Planning and Zoning staff.
De Weerd: Were the issues by, were the neighbors at that meeting and brought up some of the same concerns they brought up last meeting?
Berg: I don’t honestly remember who testified at the meeting but there were some other neighbors that did testify. I don’t recall if they brought up any manufacturing being already
done in the building.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Anderson: I have a question then.
Corrie: Okay.
Anderson: Do we want to go ahead and close the Public Hearing or continue it again. I mean it appears like, we lack information to make a decision as a Council. Somebody either needs
to contact the applicant and found out what’s going, are they wanting to change to a different designation? Are they withdrawing their application or what? So that we can make an informed
decision on this. I think we need to probably continue the Public Hearing, I would think so that we can find out where this is going.
Bird: At least give them an opportunity. Aye or Naye.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: I would agree with that, however I think it needs to be said that if the applicant is not here at the next meeting to answer some of the issues that were raised by his neighbors
as far as activity at his place of business currently that this application will be denied.
Corrie: (inaudible) the 3 strikes, you’re out?
Anderson: I just want to be sure he’s been contacted and he understands the process and all that. Someone needs to explain it to him, walk him through it.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I don’t think we can come up with a threat of either you show up or you’ll be denied because I don’t think that’s the proper language.
Corrie: No.
De Weerd: If we can’t get any answers and he is manufacturing, LO isn’t going to do anything. Why rezone something if it’s going to be shut down anyway Keith?
Bird: Yeah. But you don’t go out and tell somebody that free vote on the thing. I agree with Mr. Anderson that let’s continue it and get a hold of the people. Have them give us a letter
whether they want to continue on it or show up.
De Weerd: I think that’s what I said.
Bird: You said tell them to deny. I’m telling them we’re denying it. I might be for it.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor. I would make a motion to continue the Public Hearing –
De Weerd: Second.
Anderson: -- before these two get in a fist fight.
Corrie: You have more patience than I at this point. Okay. Motion’s been made and seconded to continue the Public Hearing until –
De Weerd: June 5th.
Corrie: -- June the 5th.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes, Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Just a question then. Are we going to specifically assign somebody to contact them?
Corrie: Yep. I’m going to see that the City Clerk’s office does that tomorrow morning and just before the day again, we’ll contact them again Mr. Clerk. So,
we’ll put that on the calendar. Both yours and mine and we’ll make sure that they understand the significance of that. Thank you.
Item 11. Public Hearing: ZA 01-001 Request for consideration of amendments to Title 12, Chapter 6, “Planned Development”, and Title 11, Chapter 17 “Conditional Uses” of Meridian City
Ordinance, along with related changes by Primeland Development:
Corrie: Item No. 11 is a Public Hearing. It’s a request for consideration of amendments to title 12 chapter 6 planned development and title 11 chapter 17 conditional use of Meridian
City ordinance along with related changes by Primeland Development. At this point I will open the Public Hearing on the request and invite staff’s comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. To give you a little bit of history on this zoning ordinance amendment. We did request Carla Olsen at one time to look at revising our planned development
ordinance. Our existing ordinance is antiquated and has never been very useful and it’s very confusing to staff and the public. It’s almost impossible to figure out what it means. It
doesn’t lend to any imagination for developments when they come in. When Miss Bowcutt was going to propose the Bridgetower Crossings and the Bridgetower project, she knew that she needed
to have something other than our existing planned development ordinance in place in order for that development plan to be approved. So, at our request, Miss Bowcutt did submit a revision
to the planned development ordinance as well as the associated conditional use provisions in the ordinance and she has taken what Carla Olsen had prepared and added some things, maybe
from some of the other jurisdictions that she has learned through her experience that either worked or didn’t work or re-worded them in order to make it a friendly ordinance I guess
you would say. After her initial submittal, I did prepare a memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission. It was dated March 15, 2001. Hopefully you have it in your files. Basically went
through it and made some additions and had to italicize areas that I wanted the Planning and Zoning Commission to specifically focus on and to consider as part of their review of the
zoning ordinance amendment. Becky then took those changes and the narrative contained in my memo and summarized them for the Planning and Zoning Commission. That is what she included
in her letter dated April 19, 2001. Hopefully you have that in your packet as well. I think that she very clearly summarized what the issues were. There were two or three areas that
she specifically came up with more information to provide the Planning and Zoning Commission with – I can’t find any pages on these. On the second page of her memo, where it discusses
planned developments under chapter 6, we had – part of our discussion was, what happens if there’s no maximum density? If in fact it were commercial or an industrial or some kind of
an office district. That’s why it was added that if there’s no maximum density guidelines, the maximum allowable density shall be 15 units per acre. This would allow commercial or
industrial development to also have maybe a multi family housing component of their development as long as they do not exceed their 15 units per acre. That would be part of their 20
percent exclusion. There was a discussion about the 10 percent open space. It was my suggestion that the 10 percent open space be required regardless of any other amenities they might
provide as it was a planned development. It was decided the 5 percent would be mandatory as part of the landscape ordinance and would not qualify as an amenity. That if they wanted to
count it as an amenity they would have a minimum of ten percent. Plus they would be required to provide one more amenity in addition to the 10 percent. Under the energy conservation
amenity, that was stricken by the Planning and Zoning commission because of the lack of standards to go along with that and to be able to quantify that energy conservation measure. Becky
also added under item 7 on the second page, the last sentence because our ordinance currently contains some also antiquated roadway standards and refers to agencies that no longer exist,
if they ever did, some standards for the private roads. She has taken that from what Boise City requires and it says that is quite stringent for what they require in Boise City as an
addition. We did have a discussion about the 20 percent discretionary use exception. Under the planned development it was thought that in some cases 20 percent could be excessive and
could lead to the possibility of perhaps a Wal-Mart size facility coming in or something that really wasn’t geared toward being a neighborhood convenience shopping facility. It was decided
that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Council would have the discretion. They could be allowed up to 20 percent but that’s not a guarantee that any development would be guaranteed
20 percent, so that would just be up to 20 percent. We also talked about the bonus density. I’d run through different scenarios about this 10 percent bonus density and what that might
entail. In certain instances it wouldn’t be a problem but we did come up with some scenarios that if they dedicated more than 50 percent of their overall property it could be a very
dense development. So, what Becky had suggested was striking the last portion of line 3 of section 12-6-6-A-7 to delete the allowance for the number of units that could have been placed
on the dedicated land. Currently if they do dedicate land for parks or for a school facility for example, they would be allowed a 10 percent bonus density on the remainder of the land.
How that previously read was that plus they could have had the number of units that could have been placed on a dedicated land. In addition to the 10 percent bonus – Say they dedicated
40 acres for a middle school site, they also would have been allowed another 160 units on the remainder of their property which could have lead to some fairly dense developments. So,
that was suggested to make it a little more clear. I believe that she has talked to the building contractors association and has let them review this planned development ordinance and
has received no response from them about that change that she has suggested. Those are the primary issues that were discussed. I believe, we at least hope that we’ve covered everything
and at the very least, it’s a great improvement over what’s existing now. This will encourage neighborhood centers which we are proposing in our new Comprehensive Plan so that we have
services available to those neighborhoods and can also capture some of the traffic that might
otherwise be traveling quite a distance in order to get just a gallon of milk or something like that. Hopefully there’d be some walking opportunities to access services more close to
their homes. That’s all I have. If you have any questions.
Corrie: Council, questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: So, Shari, in your opinion and looking ahead to what we’re trying to accomplish with our comp plan update, does this satisfactorily encourage some creativity and some incentive
for density bonuses and that sort of thing?
Stiles: I believe it does. I don’t know that Becky actually used any of the density bonuses as part of the Bridgetower Crossing development. I think it certainly does lead to some
creativity and hopefully give them an incentive to provide some additional services. Say offices or neighborhood convenience type services as part of their development without worrying
about the exclusionary zoning of an R-4. I believe it’ll be a lot easier for us to administer and to quantify some of the planned developments instead of – to this point it’s pretty
much been anything goes and if Council likes it it’s approved. If they don’t like it it’s not approved. I think it gives them a little bit more to shoot for. I guess Becky can testify
as to whether she thinks it’s going to be good or not.
De Weerd: Well, I do appreciate the fact that there is a sunset clause on some of the timing of these developments. I guess how do you enforce that? You know we see know time extensions,
requested 2 months after their order was over. How will that be enforced? You know are we putting in consequences into this or we’re going to leave it open-ended like we do everything
else?
Stiles: Well, currently time extensions are not open-ended. I mean they, either they’re approved by Council or they’re not. They have to request a time extension prior to expiration,
the one-year expiration of their plat. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s on the agenda within that one year. They are required to request it prior to the one year. What you’ve seen
a lot lately is, even though they’re only allowed a one year extension, they have been requesting variances to that. So come back again. We’ve had subdivisions that were approved in
94 that still are not – the first house hasn’t even been built on it yet. That’s because tie extensions and variances have been granted. I mean the same could happen here. If they don’t
meet this, they could apply for a variance. If the Council approves it, we’ll have the same thing happening. It’s enforced because we look at the dates and we, staff is usually on top
of when the last submittal was and where they are at in their phasing. I’m not saying that we’ve never missed
anything. I think we’re pretty diligent in trying to make sure that that timeline is met.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Shari, in your memo you indicated some fees, a suggested fee schedule. Are those new fees or do those fees exceed more than 5 percent above what the current application fee
is?
Stiles: They would be. Well, they would be a little of both. We do have a planned development fee in existence today but it’s enough of a difference that yes it would be more than
5 percent. Either way, it would require Public Hearing for it.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Shari, just one other question I guess. In the private road issue, with regard to ACHD standards, does that include the stormwater standards? It has a recitation of in parentheses
some of the things to be followed.
Stiles: Are you referring to the last, F, item F on page 3?
Nichols: I was looking in the marked up code section, I think is where I saw it.
Stiles: What that’s referring to is only the construction standards, that even though the maybe widths may be less, we may approve less as part of the private road approval. They would
still need to meet the construction standards as far as road base and pavement of any other local road.
Nichols: So would that include stormwater?
Stiles: I would say yes. I guess Becky can – If a private road is approved the city is going to have to review those roadways themselves and the city does use Ada County Highway District’s
standards in their review.
(inaudible)
Stiles: And Brad Watson indicates that’s true.
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: Those standards include, there’s no more gravel roads allowed, correct?
Stiles: Right.
De Weerd: Okay. I do appreciate one of these in here. I guess the first question I have is do you agree with Becky’s summary?
Stiles: Yes.
De Weerd: And her suggestions?
Stiles: Yes, I do.
De Weerd: Okay. I was pleased to see that before recommending an extension that the Commission can determine if there’s significant amendments that they have to come up to code, if there’s
been anything different added. I appreciated that. On transfers and modifications. I guess I read something in 11-17-10 was more in dealing with home occupation and child care facilities.
I would like to see if there’s an application or transfer of ownership that the residents within the 300 feet are noticed of the change of ownership. That’s only because if there’s questions
– I know there are many subdivisions out there that change hands a number of times and so when they finally do go in there to build, the original applicant is still the only one that
the neighbors know of to try and call. Then Gary’s department gets the brunt, or your department gets the brunt of that. Trying to track down who now is the current owner and all of
that. I don’t know if that can be built into it but that is something that I know has come up. It might be, if it’s something that can be built into this it might be something that is
worth adding.
Stiles: Give me a name and example of when that’s come up.
De Weerd: Turtle Creek would be one of them.
Stiles: It wasn’t a planned development.
De Weerd: Well, no. This is a similar situation that happens not in just this ordinance. It would be something that would have to be across the board. I thought of it when I read this
ordinance. So, you might as well bring it up when you think of it right?
Stiles: I’m not sure if a notification would be in order because, we typically know if there’s been a change in ownership, don’t we? We will be the first ones to relay that information
to anyone calling us. If that’s the appropriate person to contact.
De Weerd: Okay, just a comment.
Stiles: That’s good.
(inaudible discussion)
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Just listening to this conversation between Tammy and Shari. I mean it seems like this would be better served at a workshop –
Bird: Yes.
Anderson: -- than it would tying up a regular Council meeting time.
De Weerd: those are my issues. I think it’s very well done. I think that they even tried to answer almost every single detail. There is just a couple of minor things that I found.
Unless you don’t think they’re minor. I think this was very well done, especially for what they had to work with.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Any other questions at this point?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I agree with Councilman Anderson that I would like to have seen this come before a workshop. It is very well done but I’m not sure that the 3 and a half or 4 days I’ve had to read
and pull the old deal and go down here and stuff. I’m ready to vote on whether I want to accept it or not. So, I don’t I guess this question is for you the attorney. I don’t know whether
we continue the Public Hearing and throw it into a workshop or how we go about doing this. I know we have to have a Public Hearing and if there’s fees and stuff involved I believe we
will probably have to have other Public Hearings too, won’t we?
Nichols: Councilman Bird, Mayor, members of the Council. I’m trying to recall Shari. I’m not even sure that, well it’s because it’s a zoning ordinance that’s why we have the Public Hearing
on it isn’t it? Yeah. As far as the fees go, yes that’s more than a 5 percent increase. That would have to be approved after a Public Hearing. To cover your issue with regard to the
workshop, it seems to me, even though it’s almost essentially here in almost in ordinance form –
***End Of Side Three***
Nichols: -- it would be to produce a draft ordinance based on what’s been put together here. That draft ordinance is then presented to the Council at the workshop and you can review
it, pick through it, I would urge you to use what you have here in front of you ahead of time and go through that because there wouldn’t be any real substantial changes. I can only see
one thing that struck me off hand looking at it that would need to be changed. That’s in 11-17-4-B, the language that was added was had to do with the period of time for the Conditional
Use Permit. It says unless otherwise approved by the Commission and the Council and so the time period of the extension would have to be mutually agreed upon by the Commission and the
Council and actually the Council is the one that has the final say. So, we’d probably just drop the Commission out of that equation and just have it as, so essentially the Commission
could make a recommendation to the Council and then the Council adopt or modify that recommendation. Other than that, obviously it’s taken a lot thought –
Bird: You bet and a lot of work.
Nichols: I don’t think it would be too difficult and I presume that Becky has it electronically? Which would make it a lot easier to put together.
Bird: Good.
Corrie: Okay. Since this is a Public Hearing, Becky would you like to say a few words?
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: Brief.
Bowcutt: I know, I’m never brief. Becky Bowcutt 11283 west Hickorydale Boise. As Shari said we kind of worked in conjunction with this ordinance. Your staff has been extremely busy with
many different goals and activities and applications at this time. We tried to work with them as best we could to alleviate the amount of time they need to spend on this ordinance. We
took that draft that the city paid for back in July of 1999. It was in a rough from. I consulted that planner and informed her that we were going to be working this into some type of
a format
that would be submitted to the city for review. I agree with the Council. I did not come here this evening to ask you to approve this the first time you take a look at it. The Planning
and Zoning Commission did not approve it the first time. Everybody needs to digest it and kind of look through it. When you get a different minds together there are things that may be
noticed that may be problematic or things that may need clarification. Shari and I have worked diligently to try to answer all the questions that came up at the Planning and Zoning Commission.
They seem pleased with the ordinance. We feel this is a positive step. As Shari indicated, it’s an update. Your old ordinance was really antiquated. We had a lot of contradictory language
even though you did a planned development you were still subjected to all the requirements within the zoning ordinance. As Councilwoman De Weerd indicated, the planned development ordinance
is suppose to promote creative projects, creative designs coming in and creating more self-sufficient neighborhoods. It also gives the city a lot more power as far as how they, how these
projects are designed and what they want to see. With a straight subdivision you know there are certain limitations that the city’s bound by under your ordinance. With this it lays out
a lot of additional findings that need to be made. I think it just gives you more latitude and your staff more latitude to scrutinize the projects that come before you. Just briefly,
you’re looking at 3 ordinances. A replacement of your conditional use ordinance, a replacement of your planned development ordinance and in the third section which Shari outlined in
her memo is just a clean up of your definitions because you want your definitions to coincide with these documents so that there’s no misinterpretation of what these terms mean. We feel
that this is positive. Other cities, I reviewed many other city PUD ordinances to compare and look at what is common in all of them. The items that you see before you are pretty much
common. We’ve tailored it a little bit to incorporate some things we thought should be saved out of your existing ordinances that seem to be priorities. I also added some things because,
dealing with the city of Boise, there are always short falls or shortcomings in a particular ordinance. So, we tried to alleviate that with allowing the Council to determine like the
time frame in which a project may commence, certain things like that. It’s important, the city of Boise, if you watch the news or read the papers a few months ago had a lot of problems
with Summerset Ridge. That was a particular development that came through as a planned development years and years ago. I think probably 15 years ago or more. It was under their old
ordinance. They did not put any clause in there that specified at such time that project had to be completed and so it was just open ended. Now they’re having problems. Neighbor problems
and problems with the developers. The way this is designed, you guys could specify time frames. The applicant would have to commit to specific time frames. They could come in and get
time extensions as conditions of approval, the city of Boise on a conditional use, conditions of approval that they send out to the application, it specifies at what date that conditional
use will expire and what they need to do to qualify that they have indeed commenced construction and basically activated the Conditional Use Permit. There are things like that that we’ve
incorporated in here and that your
staff could incorporate in their staff reports in the future. Do you have any questions?
Bird: Very nice job, Becky.
Bowcutt: Thank you.
Bird: I appreciate your hard work for us.
Bowcutt: Shari and I will get together. I’ll turn this into one document with the changes made by the Planning and Zoning Commission and get that to your staff in electronic and hardcopy
form to the clerk. Then we can go from here to a workshop or whatever you believe is necessary. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you Becky. Is there anyone else in the public who’d like to issue testimony? Okay. Hearing none, any kind of questions on public record, Public Hearing?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Shari.
Stiles: I would like to add one more thing that has been added. In the zoning schedule of use control it does have public and private parks are permitted in every single zone instead
of either being prohibited or require conditional use. That was another important thing that we thought should be included in this ordinance.
Corrie: Okay. I think I saw that back there.
Bird: Yeah.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Thank you. Any other questions? Hearing none, I guess then you want to close the Public Hearing and have draft ordinance for publication for the workshop. Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we close the Public Hearing ZA 01-00 request for consideration of amendments to title 12 chapter 6 planned development and title 11 chapter 17 conditional use of Meridian
City ordinance along with the related changes in Primeland Development.
Corrie: Okay. Do I hear a second?
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to close the Public Hearing on item No. 11 as the motion states. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay. We’ll have a draft ordinance drawn up –
Bird: We don’t need that in the motion do we?
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Okay. Let’s take a five minute break so that those who want to smoke a cigar can.
Bird: I don’t know about cigars.
Corrie: I’ll open the meeting again at 9:15
Item 12. FP 01-007 Final Plat approval of 36 building lots and 2 other lots on 10.66 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek Subdivision No. by Briggs Engineering – east of Stoddard and
south of Overland Road:
Corrie: Item No. 12 is the final plat approval for 36 building lots and 2 other lots on 10.66 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek Subdivision by Briggs Engineering east of Stoddard
and south of Overland Road. Staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. This is for the second phase of Bear Creek Subdivision No.2. At this point Bear Creek Subdivision has not been recorded but there are some issues with
the well being put on line out there. They’ve run into some problems. Gary could speak to some of those problems. You’ll notice on Page 2 of the staff report under item 8, the public
works department can’t recommend approval of this development until such time as the new city well being constructed within phase of Bear Creek is operational. I don’t know what the
ramifications would be of approving this subdivision and then not signing the plat until the well was on line. I don’t think that Gary is particularly opposed to that but we probably
need some advice from legal counsel on what the ramifications are to approve a plat and then not be able to sign it. We have had requests already for at least one building permit to
be permitted out there. However, the property has been split within any recording of a plat so no building permits can be issued.
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council. The test well has been drilled for well 22 and we know where the aquifers are that we want to drill to. The specifications for the drilling of a well are
all prepared except for the technicals which we are expecting any day from the hydro-geologist so we can go out to bid on the drilling of the well. That’s where we are right now. We
don’t know what to anticipate in terms of quantity of water. The drilling of the production well will be able to show us that. And we’re expecting something similar to what we have in
well number 14 to the east. We’re anticipating that the well would be completed by the end of this year. That is, the pump, pumphouse all complete, pumping water into the system. I meant
to bring Bear Creek’s Preliminary Plat file with me tonight and I left it in the office. I wanted to check on the conditions of approval of the Preliminary Plat, which I cannot recall
as far as the water supply was concerned.
(inaudible discussion)
Smith: I guess our anticipation of this project was that phase one, as large as it was or is. We didn’t anticipate phase 2 to come in as fast, as quickly as phase 1, or as soon after
phase 1 had been approved. We’ve also received development plans for phase 3 and phase 4 on this subdivision. Four hasn’t been in. Three is in.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Gary, how many wells will these phases require?
Smith: We’re just anticipating the one well.
Bird: On well. Okay.
Smith: Right.
Bird: This 8 says that the new domestic well that is currently under construction but you’re telling me it’s not under construction within phase 1.
Smith: The production well is not under construction, no sir. The test well was drilled and the information has been received from that drilling. That gives the hydro-geologist the
information he needs to prepare the technical specifications. Like I say, we’re expecting those any day from him. We already had the invitation to bid has been to sent to the paper,
just waiting for the technicals to come in so we can compile a total bidding document.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Gary, then that gets to the sewer, how. I mean they’re asking for building permits as I understand?
Smith: Uh-huh.
Bird: And if we don’t have water and sewer lines to it?
Smith: Well, we have water out there, I mean that’s not an issue for the number 1 that’s under construction. Number 2 is the issue and that’s what we’re just discussing tonight. I just
want to get these things under way so. There’s a certain level of comfort I guess right now. I mean, our hydrolic model said that in order for Bear Creek Subdivision to be approved the
well has to be there. I don’t recall – if you want to split that out and say, without the well 167 lots of Bear Creek can develop. I don’t know that for sure. I know that there’s a number
of lots that can develop without the well. But in order for the total subdivision to develop the well has to be there. I don’t have that technical answer for you tonight to say Bear
Creek No.1 is okay. Bear Creek No.2 is okay without the well but we can’t go any farther than that. I don’t think it’s so much a domestic supply issue as it is a fire flow. If there
was a fire. That’s always the main design criteria for a water system is a fire deterrent. I guess I’m just kind of moving to the side of caution and not really having an exact answer
for you in terms of how many homes can be built with the water supply that’s available right now.
Bird: Okay.
De Weerd: Can you provide that answer though?
Smith: Yeah. Yes.
De Weerd: At what point?
Smith: Well, we could run back through the model and see what’s available based on the flows we know are out there at the intersections of Stoddard and Overland.
De Weerd: And, would it be better to limit the number then of building permits than the final plat? How best do you handle that?
Smith: Well, I don’t know if you approve a final plat if you can then limit the building permits on the final plat. I don’t know.
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: So, Gary what I’m hearing the recommendation from public works is not to pass this final plat on this second section until towards the end of the year when the well is up?
Smith: Well that’s what the recommendations are in your packet. If you want to delay this for a week or two and give us a chance to run through the hydrolics calculations and see if
we can determine without the well how many lots are serviceable. We can do that too.
Bird: Yeah, but then we get back to the thing of saying we’re approving the Final Plat and only allowing so many lots in there.
Smith: Well, it would be either, we’ve approved Bear Creek No.1 and that’s okay. We can’t approve any more than 10 more lots and Bear Creek No. 2 is more than 10 lots so we can’t approve
Bear Creek No.2.
Bird: I see. Okay. I misunderstood.
Smith: I think we can utilize the computer model with the flow that we have at the Hydrant at Overland and Stoddard as a basis to determine how many residential units can receive water
supply without well number 22 on line.
Bird: Okay.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Reading this packet, there’s also a letter in here from Idaho Power and they question their ability to provide power to it too. So, I mean that’s two utilities, water and
power that are in question for this particular project. I wouldn’t feel real good about approving this tonight.
Bird: I would have a real hard time approving this tonight.
De Weerd: We need to wait for the numbers.
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: So, Gary do you think you can have the numbers by June 5th?
Smith: Well, I will tentatively say yes. We’re going to need to farm this out to CH2M and have them run it through the model.
De Weerd: So, June 19th would be more feasible for you?
Smith: I’m sure that wouldn’t be a problem.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: I would move then that we continue this until June 15, 2001.
Bird: June 19th.
De Weerd: Or, sorry, June 19th.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s been made to table the Final Plat request until June 19, 2001. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 13. FP 01-006 Final Plat approval of 11 building lots and 2 other lots on 20.26 acres in an R-8 zone for Murdoch Subdivision No. 2 by Howell Murdoch Development Corporation – east
of Locust Grove Road and south of Medimont Subdivision No. 2:
Corrie: Item No. 13 is Final Plat approval of 11 building lots and 2 other lots on 20.26 acres in an R-8 zone for Murdoch Subdivision No. 2 by Howell Murdoch. Staff comments.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. This is for the property of which the new police station site is a part. You have our comments and a memorandum dated May 10, 2001. We would recommend
approval of the plat with all staff and agency conditions.
Corrie: Is the developer here?
(inaudible discussion)
Schultz: Good evening Mayor and Council. Matt Schultz, 250 south Beachwood representing the applicant. We got the same letter dated May 10th and we’ve reviewed. We would ask hat we modify
a couple of those Final Plat comments slightly in your motion, please. Specifically note No.2. We’ve reviewed that comment and think that the first sentence is fine adding that signature
to the Final Plat. The city does already hold a deed to that property and it’s a little redundant to add a note to the face of the plat that states the city owns the lot. You already
have a deed for that piece of property and you are a signator on the
Final Plat. The other part was No.4. If we could just re-word that to say a letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110 percent will be required for all landscaping, pressurized
irrigation, sanitary sewer and water prior to signature on the Final Plat. Deleting the et cetera just so we’ve got the fine terms. Other than that we agree with all staff comments and
ask for your approval.
Corrie: Shari, do you have any problem with the change or anything in No. 2?
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council Members. I guess the one thing that I , I don’t have a problem with striking the second sentence of that Matt. The third sentence, I think that where we have
had ownership of a subdivision such as a golf course, we’ve shown on the face of the plat that the city is the owner of those certain lots. It clarifies a little bit I believe in a lot
of people’s minds when the city signs off on the plat as well as approves the plat. That on the front of the plat they can see that the city owns that particular lot. That was the reason
I think for that. On the second question on item No.4 striking the et cetera is fine. I would like to add street lights in there as being a part of that bonding amount.
Schultz: Okay.
Smith: I think that covers all of the off site improvements then and clarifies that. Thank you.
Schultz: Thank you.
Corrie: You don’t have any problem with that do you Matt?
Schultz: I don’t. Thank you.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Okay. (inaudible) I’ll entertain a motion if there’s no other questions.
De Weerd: I have none.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I do have one clarification for Gary. Item 2 you said that Gary, we could delete this second sentence?
Smith: Yes sir. That corrected legal description. The legal description I believe on the certificate of owners is for the entire parcel as being shown as a subdivision.
Bird: Okay. Mr. Mayor with that, I’ll make a motion that we approve the Final Plat. Approval of 11 building lots and 2 other lots on 20.26 in an R-8 zone by Murdoch Subdivision No.2
by Al Murdoch Development Corporation east of Locust Grove Road and south of Medimont Subdivision No.2 with the staff comments on page 1 dated May 10, 2001, on No.2 delete sentence number
two and on page two
item No. 4 delete et cetera and add in street lights and for the attorney to draw up the proper papers.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s made and second to approve the Final Plat on item No. FP 01-006 according to the motion. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote Mr. Berg.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 14. ACDS 01-04-S/01-11-CU/01-13-OTD/01-03-ZC/01-09-PBA/01-07-MSP Lee Centers – Powder River Subdivision: Discussion of Response Comments to Ada County for an 80.04-acre county
subdivision to include 215 single-family residential lots, 8 common lots, 3 open-space lots and 1 well lot; a Conditional Use Permit and Master Site Plan for a public/quasi-public use
to establish a municipal wastewater collection and treatment facility; A Parcel Boundary Adjustment; A Zone Change from RUT (Rural-Urban Transition) to R4 (Medium Low Density Residential);a
Zone Boundary Adjustment; and a One-Time Division. The property contains 151.98 acres and is located on the east side of Linder Road approximately 0.5 mile south of West Victory Road,
Meridian, ID; Section 25, T3N, R1W:
Corrie: Item No. 14 is discussion of the response, comments of Ada County on the 80.04 acre county subdivision including 215 single family residential lots and common lots, (inaudible)
lots, and well lot. Conditional use permit master site for public/quasi-public use. Okay. Shari.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. We’ve received a request for comment on a several applications that are being presented to Ada County for an urban density development in our area of
impact. They are proposing to use a lagoon system and are also proposing to land apply the affluent to the individual lots and any irrigated lots as part of their system. We have discussed
this extensively in the past both with Ada County Commissioners, Ada County Highway District. We had received, at least I had received a request to meet with the applicant on a couple
of occasions which I did not honor because there was really nothing they could do with this development that would make it acceptable to the City of Meridian. What they are proposing
to do with the first phase is annex all of this area approximately 160 acres, around 151 acres actually. They’re only proposing their development on, approximately this portion of the
property. The lagoon system they’re proposing here. The well would be less than 500 feet from the lagoon system itself. They are not contiguous with any urbanized development at this
point. When they first came up with some concept they had met with the neighbors on Kentucky Ridge. We immediately got a lot of phone calls, people
wanting to know what we were doing and why we were allowing something like this. We let them know that no, we were not the ones that were permitting this type of development in our area
of impact and that it was an Ada County proposal. This brings many issues to the fore as far as these existing subdivisions. This is the Meridian Heights subdivision that was developed
some time ago. It utilizes an existing lagoon system. Then Kentucky Ridge Estates came in and they’re also utilizing that system. I believe that they use this and I’m not sure where
they do their land application. It is not within the subdivision. It’s not part of, the residential lots are not irrigated with affluent in these developments. The proposal the applicant
has made is for 215 single-family homes on I believe it’s on 80 acres or roughly 80 acres. The treatment plant that they’re proposing is a package treatment plant. It’s not proven in
any of the areas that we’ve been able to investigate. They have included in their application that it is the same system that is being used in the Moon Lake Ranch Subdivision, which
is over 100 acres development. However there are only 20 lots in that development. They are not anywhere near the size of this development. The subdivision the Moon Lake’s Ranch that’s
in Eagle, they’re all at least acre lots and they do have a deed restriction on 80 percent of the 100 acres that cannot be developed for 15 years. Also that development is not within
an area of impact. Our concern is being able to provide services at a future date. Also about the way the annexation is being discussed in the legislature of what our future possibility
might be to even annex the property being so remote from the existing treatments and any trunks or lines, it’s impossible to establish an elevation to construct those trunk sewer lines
at this time. So, when the City, if they were ever to have to inherit this system would quite possibly end up having to rip up roads to install lines. It may not be on the alignment
that we need to develop that would construct those lines. Also we’d have the very unpopular task of letting all those people know that they had to pay to hook up to a City sewer system.
We’re also concerned about the lack of urban services in the area. They will be over 4 miles away from any fire station, any police services. Although Ada County would be responsible
for responding to any calls in this vicinity, it’s more than likely that Meridian would be the first called upon to respond to any incidents in the area. The City of Meridian currently
does that for areas in our area of impact and has mutual aide agreements with the other jurisdictions to do that. However there is no compensation what so ever to the City of Meridian
for responding to those calls. Park impact fees would not be applicable. They would not pay any park impact fees. They have no park to speak of in the development. Although they do say
they have, I believe they stated they have 12 percent open space but a lagoon is not really a very desirable open space, except for fishing for brown trout. I know that Brad Watson has
prepared a letter for your – I don’t know, Did you get a copy? Brad will be making comments based on some of his notes he’s made on the project. Another thing that is disturbing to us
is we’re trying to get our Comprehensive Plan in place and encourage some smart growth. It’s not just this development; it’s all the other developments that are proposed within our area
of impact that could immediately bring a glut of subdivision and lots on line. As you know when we go through our budgeting process we forecast a number
of single family homes that might be built within the City of Meridian in order to do our budgeting. Typically we have established about 800 single-family homes. Those building permits
not only pay for our building department and for the Planning and Zoning Department they do have (inaudible) sewer and water capital enterprise funds through the provision of services
to those developments. We already have problems with people not knowing that they are not in the City of Meridian. Meridian Heights people call us on a daily basis, or at least a weekly
basis. They believe they are in Meridian. They can’t believe that they have an urban density development like that and they’re not part of the City. The first call these people will
make will be to the City of Meridian. With hopscotch development it becomes even more unclear where the jurisdictional boundaries are and if sewer districts are to be put in place for
all these different developments it will be such a hodge-podge of separate jurisdictions that pretty soon it will be hard for anyone to determine where they are or who they need to deal
with on any given day. We are wanting to prepare a letter for the Ada County Planning and Zoning Commission for the Mayor’s signature or if not just the Mayor, the Mayor and the entire
City Council opposing the project. When we entered into our area of impact agreement with the Ada County Commissioners, they indicated we had a 10-year time frame in which to provide
those services and that they would review our provision of services after 5 years to see how we were progressing. That 5 years will not be up until the end of 2002. We feel we’ve made
great strides in providing services within the area and we feel it is because it is within our area of impact, we have the not only the responsibility for planning the area and for the
ultimate build out of the area that we should have some say in the timing of that development. That’s exactly what an area of impact is for. Were this to be provided in some other area
outside of an area of impact, I mean it’s not a particularly bad development. It doesn’t incorporate any of the smart growth scenarios that we’re trying to incorporate in our Comprehensive
Plan and other things that the Treasure Valley Futures, Treasure Valley Partnership and Idaho Smart Growth have been working so diligently toward for several years now. There is no plan
what so ever that has been presented or submitted for this area. They are just simply asking for annexation without a plan. Our fear is that we will have to one day inherit this area
and we don’t really feel that it’s a question if the packaged treatment plant will fail, it’s when. Without some type of an establishment of a pretty hefty sinking fund for total replacement
of that facility as well as providing all the other services that are needed for an urban development such as parks and fire stations, police, trucks and equipment, we certainly can’t
support this development. If you would like us to prepare a letter, I know that Brad has been working on trying to get something together. He’s, it’s taken up a great deal of all of
our times. I couldn’t tell you how many hours have been spent on just the nightmare we feel will be created by having these developments approved. It’s very devastating to think that
we have gone to all this work and all this expense to plan facilities and to have the prospect of our, basically the entire area of impact eaten up through County developments and all
we would have left is the onclaves for in fill development to
plan and to provide services for. I’ll turn it over to the public works department and I might have a couple more things to say at the end.
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council. Brad Watson, our City Engineer has done an awful lot of research on particularly the wastewater treatment side of developments outside the city boundaries
that are not connecting to city system. There’s also a requirement from DEQ through the drinking water rules and regulations that any development exceeding 25 connections have 2 sources
of supply for drinking water. That's just a redundancy issue. In case one of them experiences problems there’s a back up system available. I think I’ll let Brad outline the high points
of his concerns in his research that he’s done concerning the wastewater treatment for these developments in our area of impact.
Watson: Mr. Mayor and Council. I think you received a copy of a letter I drafted and sent to DEQ several weeks ago, Gary and I drafted. It outlined quite a few of the concerns we had
as far as their requirements related to this project. We’re in the process of drafting another letter, either for your signature or for ours, to submit to the Ada County Commissioners.
It highlights a lot of those points that were in that letter to DEQ. So, I’m not going to go over all of those again tonight. The main point that we would like to emphasize is that public
works has spent at least a quarter of a million dollars throughout the impact area to plan both water and sewer facilities. The approval of one single subdivision such as this on the
boundary of the impact area doesn’t pose a huge financial cost to us. It’s the prospect of all the people that are upstream on the sewer. In this case it’s not a huge quantity of land.
I think it’s in the neighborhood of 100 or 148 acres. If this system goes in, they basically, for lack of a better term, land lock those people upstream from ever having city sewer.
Our concern is that those people come in and see our master planning document think that some day city sewer will be there and it’s not unless we take this over somehow it works elevation
wise. We don’t know. We don’t get a chance to review this, the actual engineering drawings. We don’t know if it’ll work. I’m not contradicting what Shari said, just clarifying our fear
is not of a technical failure of the treatment system. I am somewhat familiar with the technology that they’re proposing and it’s very good. If it’s properly operated, maintained and
funded, it will work in theory. I don’t know the particulars of this manufacture of this system. Large scale plans such as the one in Hailey uses the same technology and it works very
well. The fear is that financially the system won’t work. We don’t have an operation, maintenance plan. We don’t have a financial plan to know if there is a sinking fund established
like a city has. If there will be connection fees that establish this fund for normal repair or replacement. Our fear is that 10 to 15 years down the road when the developer is no longer
there, the residents will be on the hook. If it becomes financially unrealistic to continue that system, they’re going to come to us and somehow we’ll have to recover some cost from
them. So, they’ll be paying for their system twice. That’s my fear of the system. The only other thing that I might add that wasn’t in the DEQ letter is that the wastewater manufacturer
did send me their information booklet. Perhaps they just didn’t include it but I can’t find any installed systems, any references that are of the magnitude of this. I don’t know
how long these guys has been around, how long they’ve been doing it. They only list, I think 4 or 5 projects in Idaho and Montana combined. I just don’t have a lot to go on. The largest
project that they do use as a reference is 123 units I believe. I guess my final comment would just be that again this single project in and of itself is not immensely scary, it’s what
happens with all of these within our impact area. I know we’re not talking about the projects in the north area of our impact area but I don’t know where the line is drawn as far as
the impacts that these projects would make. Maybe this one only effects 100, 148 acres upstream. Another project effects 1300 acres upstream. I don’t know where the line is drawn as
far as Council is concerned. In our opinion it effects anything upstream. It'’ gone from our master planning effort and the comp plan would need to be modified. The impact area would
need to be modified. Our master plan would be modified.
***End Of Side Four***
Watson: Do you have any questions?
Corrie: Comments, Council, questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Corrie: Okay. Have they seen that draft yet, Counsel?
Watson: Mr. Mayor, mine?
Corrie: Yes.
Watson: No. I printed out a draft before I left the office tonight and gave it to Gary. It’s taken a while. It will be done within the next couple days.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: Are you going to ask the (inaudible) for the (inaudible)?
Corrie: (inaudible)
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Mr. Nichols, this was a discussion and response they made to the Ada County Commissioners. I guess my question would be to you and the Council if they wanted to hear anything
that the development has to say. I think we’re all pretty convinced the way we’re going to go on this. My question would be if Council wants to hear anymore. I mean it’s not a public
hearing. I certainly will not say we don’t need to hear anymore but that would be up to the Council’s pleasure.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I don’t mind hearing from the applicant but I don’t want no hour-long deal. I mean if they want to come up and give us a little resume for 5 minutes I don’t have no problem with
that. I’m not here to have no full-blown public hearing out of the thing.
Corrie: Well, Steve, can you do it in 5 minutes?
Bradberry: You bet.
Corrie: I knew you could do it.
Bradberry: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Steve Bradberry. I’ll try no to knock over your podium. Representing the applicant. Mr. Centers is also here and he may want
to talk to you as well because he knows a whole heck of a lot more about this stuff than I do, or about this project. I guess I’m struck by a couple of things. Number one, I think the
question that ought to be asked and answered tonight is whether this proposal meets existing law. That is does it meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and the applicable ordinances.
That’s the question that ought to be asked and I don’t think it ever was. I don’t think it was ever answered. The other thing that strikes me is that we’ve heard a lot of fears expressed
by the staff. Fears about how this system will work or won’t work and whether or not we can connect this and not connect this. You know the unfortunate thing is the applicant asked to
meet with staff so that they could make an attempt to address some of those fears and the staff refused. You know I think that’s really too bad. I think it’s a shame because now you
folks don’t get the benefit of the information that might otherwise have been made available to you. I don’t think that’s fair to you and I don’t think it’s fair to the applicant. Having
said that, first of all, it seems to me one of the big issues that concerned to the city is this connection to the sewer system. This is not a sewer lagoon system like what, like Shari’s
trying, the picture she’s trying to draw on your mind. This is the water that comes out of the back end of this thing meets drinking water standards. You can drink this water. It meets
the requirements of – I know it seems kind of weird to say it – but it meets those standards. It is within the jurisdiction of DEQ, Department of Environmental Quality, either it meets
those standards or it doesn’t. If it meets the standards it complies with applicable law. If it doesn’t meet the standard it doesn’t and it wouldn’t get built. I guess I’m a little bit
concerned with the characterizations that have been made tonight about how this system would work. Secondly, the applicant has said repeatedly, attempted to say and to express to you
repeatedly that he will do whatever he can to set this thing up to create it so that it can be ultimately connected into city sewer. If it means that we need to do some design work in
conjunction with the
city staff, the applicant’s willing to do that. The City staff hasn’t so far been indicating any willingness to try to work on that. Second same with the water. The applicant has indicated
that he’s perfectly happy to have this thing designed so that it can one day be connected to the city water system and do whatever legal requirements maybe necessary if and I think probably
when, annexed into the City of Meridian it can be connected into the city water system. Once again the applicant hasn’t been given an opportunity to try to address those issues. Instead
he’s just been turned away. What I don’t think also has been pointed out to you is that the applicant’s holdings include the land, which is immediately adjacent to an urban density subdivision
Kentucky Ridge. Ultimately that property will be developed to as a part of the overall master plan. It happens that they’re starting on the south end of the project. I suppose it could
just as easily been started on the north end and move south. But, as it turns out it’s going the other way. The long-term plan is to develop the entire area so that it is adjacent to
urban densities. Heck, you can see on the drawing right there in front of you, it’s not that far from other urban density subdivisions. I guess lastly, I’m also hearing concerns about
the city’s concern about being able to service this subdivision with I guess the full gamut of municipal services, police, fire, sewer, water, whatever all it is. I guess my reaction
to that is if the city is truly saying we can’t serve this project, which is what maybe half a mile from a project, the Bear Creek Project, I seriously question whether or not the city
can suggest that it can’t service this, it can service the Bear Creek project or any other project that may come in front of you. If your fire protection is inadequate for this project
it seems to me, in order for you to be consistent you have to take the position that your fire protection services are inadequate for any project in the City of Meridian. The same thing
with police. In other words, I guess I’m saying to you, it seems to me you’ve got to be consistent. If you in general can’t provide service to this then how is it you can provide it
to something else and not this? I’m not sure that that question has been adequately answered. I’ve probably gone five minutes or more. I’m happy to answer any of your questions you have.
Mr. Centers may want to say a word or two as well. I don’t know.
Corrie: Steve.
Bradberry: Yes sir?
Corrie: With all due respect, you’re an attorney –
Bradberry: You bet.
Corrie: -- representing your client –
Bradberry: That’s right.
Corrie: -- we’re here to listen to both sides. However when you say that we can’t service that, we can but not now. I think we have to depend upon our engineers
and their expertise in that part. We have other factors that’s involved. ACHD plus the fire police and what have you. I don’t think it was ever mentioned that we couldn’t do this but
there’s a time frame that we’re planning on doing these things. We’re running into the same problem in the north part of the city as we we’re running into on the south part. Now whether,
and I don’t think our own engineers has said that the system, sewer system is good and it’s capable of doing that. I haven’t seen anything to the contrary other than the size is different.
I don’t know. I’m not an engineer. So, I think what the Council has done is in the area of impact, we’ve stated to the County Commissioners we can do this area that we’ve mapped out
in a 10 year period. All we’re asking the County is let us prove it. I think that’s only fair to the developers to know what we can do in 10 years and we’ll get there in 10 years. But
the developers don’t want to wait. I think that’s okay. That’s a position of monetary questions there but I think what we’re up against is we’ve asked the county to do something, they
said okay we’ll do it. Now developers are asking us to do something else on a faster track. That’s the way I understand it. I think there are some questions of subdivisions and I think
they’re not answered here. Whether they can be answered in 2 years, I don’t know. But within the 10 year period I think we will have it down (inaudible).
Bradberry: I understand the position that you’re taking. Trust me on this, I understand the difficulties that you all face on a day to day basis. There are always difficult issues and
undoubtedly here’s one of them. I understand this property’s been in the impact area since 1993. So, we’re 8 years. I’ve also gotten the idea that sewer’s not likely to get out there
even in the next 10. I also understand that it’s planned, as you put it. There’s plans that show a trunk line going right to this property. I guess what I’m saying is that’s fine, I
understand that and the developer, the owner of the property understands that. I want to make it clear that it’s not a non-owner developer that we’re talking about. It’s a landowner
that we’re talking about who is prepared to put the infrastructure in place now to be connected in, to be designed to be compatible with the city system and to ultimately be connected
to the city system when the city is out there. So, I don’t think that these are incompatible ideas. I don’t think that the developer’s asking the city to do anything other than not to
say flat out no and there’s nothing you can do that’ll ever make this thing right. It just seems unreasonable not to at least attempt to find a solution to some of these problems. For
better or worse that’s the message that’s been delivered to the landowner here.
Corrie: This is a City Council matter so I’ll let the Council –
Bradberry: Right. I understand.
Corrie: I’ve done my part. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have no questions.
Corrie: Discussions?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess it’s an issue of economics for both parties. One you have a time frame that you try to appropriately service all the areas in your area of impact and the need for a
plan and start prioritizing that. We have been trying to do that. In attempting to be able to service that plan you prioritize your growth in certain areas so that as you’re planning
all your services, it makes it economically feasible for the city but also for the landowner. I agree that a time frame is necessary and our staff is working on trying to do that. We
now know after going through the white trunk, some of the hurdles and obstacles that are put there and building into that plan how to get through those obstacles as well has to become
a part of it. So that all of our landowners know how we’re planning, where we need to focus our priorities and our services. That’s all a huge part of it. We don’t know the life span
of these. We don’t get impact. We don’t get staff time dedicated to inspections. Looking at all those things, we’re not recouping any of that so we can ask our staff to spend 80 percent
of their time which they’re paid on a break even, they’re self-supporting basis. 80 percent of their time on County projects and who suffers? It’s our citizens that suffer because they’re
then not being able to spend their time on that and they’re not getting reimbursed for it. Then you have the next obstacle is once you grow out to that and you annex it in. Are those
people going to see any benefit of annexing into a city when they already have all of the services? You know, you’re creating little communities outside of a city and is that good planning?
I think good planning on our behalf is trying to prioritize growth areas, make sure it’s going to be appropriately serviced when it’s annexed in and that is what we owe not only to
the citizens we’d be adding to our city but it is also what we owe to the citizens that are currently living in our city. That’s my opinion. However you want to take that. You know that’s
my idea of what planning is all about. We’re committed to our area of impact and our staff has been trying to plan accordingly to that. That’s why we actually came up with growth priority
areas because there is absolutely no way that we can grow in all areas of our town without suffering the services to the citizens that currently live in the community. It is an economic
basis. It really is. It’s economic for both of us. You know it’s an economic hardship to a certain degree growing out of a logical way.
Bradberry: Everybody pays a little bit of the price of growth. I understand that. We all do, no matter where you are. Anybody living in this valley has paid a price of one form or another
for the growth. There are arguments that you made that growth is great and that growth is awful and a whole bunch of arguments in between. I understand all that. I’m curious about one
thing though if I may ask. The growth priority areas, is that something that you’re working on in the new
proposed Comprehensive Plan? Because I’m not familiar with that concept in the existing comp plan, as a part of the existing comp plan.
De Weerd: Our growth priority areas are following the development of our sewer and water.
Bradberry: Oh, through the sewer?
Bird: It’s through the sewer.
Bradberry: Okay. I see. Okay. I understand. The reason I’m questioning that is because, as the Mayor points out, I’m a lawyer I think in legal terms. I think about legal concepts and
I want to come back to the notion that the area of impact is set. It has been in place for a number of years. There are certain, I guess if not rights then at least expectancies that
arise out of the existence of an area of impact. That is that this is an area that will grow, where growth is expected to occur. The landowners in the area of impact and those who acquire
land in an area of impact acquire those expectancies. To the extent that you’re dissatisfied with the existing plan, the way it exists today, I understand that too. As a lawyer, I think
sorry, you can change your plan and then from that day forward it’s in effect but not from the time you don’t like your plan, back. The law that is in effect, the plans and the ordinances
that are in effect in today are the ones that this landowner is entitled to his application judged by. That’s where I started out talking about and I guess that’s where I want to come
back to in the end. I think we need to be focusing on does it comply with existing law? I think that’s the question that you can bet that if I appear before the County Commissioners,
that’s the question I’m going to be posing to them. The same rhetorical question I’m posing to you. With the argument, of course, that it does. It seems to me that it might be better
for the city to find a way to work with the applicant because you might find that, I’m fairly confident, you’ll find that he’s pretty easy to get along with. I think you might find that
there may be ways that you can make this thing work for you.
Anderson: I wanted to comment, Steve. I think that’s one of the problems I see with comp plans and we have this area of city impact but there’s nothing really defined in a comp plan
that spells out time frames. I mean it’s like you’ve done all this planning for this area of impact but when are all those things, you know what’s the sequencing of that?
Bradberry: Right.
Anderson: I don’t think that it’s a matter that we just absolutely don’t want to listen to Mr. Centers. I mean, we have looked at these packaged treatment plants and believe me, if
we thought there was anyway that we could make those fit into our growth cycle, we wouldn’t be opposed to it. We just don’t see how that fits in
with the planning that we’ve done so far and how it would tie in with our current systems. That’s the dilemma we’re in. We’re not trying to buck development; we’re just trying to make
it occur orderly.
Bradberry: Sure. Everybody wants to try to make it efficient and I certainly understand that. Well, if there’s more information that you need, if you feel like you don’t have the information
from which you guys can make a good recommendation, a thoughtful recommendation to the County Commissioners, by all means please ask for it. Because I know that the applicant would be
more than happy to provide it to you and if it means setting it aside for, you know this things suppose to go to a hearing at the Planning and Zoning Commission in the county May 24th.
If it means setting it aside for another couple of weeks so that you can come up with some questions, some information you’d like to receive or to further consider it, well let’s do
it. I’d just as soon have you guys feel like you’re making a wise decision as opposed to just one that, you know, no offense, a knee jerk reaction. I’m a full believer in having people
getting as much information as they feel like they need in order to make a good decision. I’m just not sure you got it. I’ve got the feeling that maybe you don’t have everything that
maybe you ought to have. Could I tell you exactly what it is? I don’t know but sitting in the back of the room there, I sure got that feeling as I was listening to the staff’s presentation.
Anderson: I do have a couple of questions of Mr. Centers.
Corrie: Sure.
Bradberry: I’ll get out of the way.
Anderson: about this [package treatment plant.
Bradberry: Anybody else want –
Bird: I have none.
Bradberry: Okay. All right.
Centers: Lee Centers. 325 Meridian Street. We got this on short notice that it was going to go to Council tonight. Joe Canning, the engineer and Shawn Nichols, the planner both have
other plans. So, we’re not as prepared as we’d like to be.
Anderson: I just have a few questions about these packaged treatment plants that maybe you could help educate me a little bit. On these plants, do they all, when you put it in for
a subdivision do you put all your sewer lines in to gravity to a low point or is some of that pumped or anything like that?
Centers: Let me get a plan all set there. It’ll be easier –
Anderson: Okay.
Bird: If we turn that light off.
(inaudible discussion)
Stiles: Can you turn it the other way too please?
(inaudible discussion)
Stiles: Yeah. Just shut off that power.
(inaudible discussion)
Stiles: Or move it.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: Yeah, there it did.
Centers: Can you hear me if I talk –
Bird: No. Grab this microphone.
Centers: It’s not a lagoon. This is a holding area for the water after the treatment that would be pressurized – can you hear? It’ll be pressurized to go back up and do all the lawns
and the open space. JUB’s master plan shows the Black Cat coming right down Linder and connections on the piece that I own right next door. So, we’re not just guessing where the trunk
line will be. It does meet that plan. All this will be designed just like a city subdivision. All the stub roads will have water and sewer connections at the end of them. We’re not blocking
anybody upstream. We are contiguous to a County R-4 sub, which is Kentucky Ridge. That’s exactly what we’re asking for with the county. We’re not asking to be annexed. We’re not asking
to go into the city limits, although we would if you’d annex Kentucky Ridge, we’d be contiguous to them. We’ll have two city wells. I talked to Gary about it. I believe he said that
you know when the time comes he’d like to loop these because he doesn’t have enough water pressure out there. It meets the ACHD’s layout. We haven’t had nay problems there. There’s a
linear path that goes all the way from Linder, that goes up through, will go to the end of the property line for open space, parks. What was your specific question?
Anderson: My question was, do you lay the lines to grade so they gravity feed to the low point?
Centers: They will all gravity feed down to the master sewer plan that JUB has provided.
Bird: Where is the master sewer plan (inaudible)? Where would be the incoming?
Centers: It comes right up Linder right here.
Bird: No, no, no. I mean in your stuff right there? Where would be the in flowing? (inaudible) You tell me those lagoons are there but –
Centers: Okay. This is the well lot. This right here would be where the treatment plant would be.
Anderson: So, that’s your low spot in your system? Everything’s going to drain to there?
Centers: Yes.
Anderson: Okay. How do you determine what size lines you’re going to lay in the subdivision?
Centers: That would be you know the engineers decision on that. Gary knows, we’re going to work them. If we get this approved whether Council approves us or not, if we get it approved,
I’ll be back to Gary to decide finally where the well lot will go, what the city specs are going to be, what the sewer lines, the size of them. I mean, we want this to work. We don’t
want to block anybody.
Anderson: My other question is, we run a waste treatment plant and every year we invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in upgrades and replacement of worn out parts and things like
that. Where does the money come for up keep on your system?
Centers: You know what, I don’t feel qualified to answer that but there’s places like Harris Ranch, or not Harris but Hidden Springs, there’s other places that are doing the same thing.
They have homeowner’s dues and so on. You know that’s something that would be established in the CC&Rs. Joe Canning is the one that would know all that. Unfortunately he’s not here tonight.
Anderson: Then, maybe you can’t answer this question, but eventually if the city does get their sewer line out there or when it gets it out there and you’re hooked up to this, what
happens with those common areas that are being used for ponds and lagoons right now? Do those, those are the homeowner’s? Who’s going to be responsible for cleaning those up? I doubt
DEQ is just going to let you let an empty pond sit there that holds sewage.
Centers: Yeah. But keep in mind, those are not sewage lagoons. However this system works, it’s electronic where it breaks all this stuff down before it ever --. That water that goes
in there does meet the 1993 drinking standards. It would be left as open space.
Anderson: How about these underground tanks and stuff like that you’re talking about?
Centers: Let me clarify this, this won’t ever go away because some of the package treatment water would go into these reservoirs but that is not enough. You know these parcels have
irrigation water and they need that irrigation water. These are holding ponds to pressurize it to go back up and to water their yards.
Bird: What you’re just saying is those are not, you’re going to have a digester system within this treatment plant so you’ll have no lagoons at all with any waste in it?
Centers: No.
Bird: It’ll be potable water when it comes, both those lagoons will have potable water?
Centers: That’s right. This system, there’s like a 20 by 30 building and it has power and whatever else it does and the rest of it is below ground. There is a guy, his name’s Ray Shackelford
that would be glad to explain that. That’s what we’re going to do –
Bird: How many houses are we going to serve in there?
Centers: This phase here I think is 215.
Bird: And what is the total that that sewer system is going to handle?
Centers: It’s designed to handle up to 400.
Bird: 400 homes? And who will do the maintenance on it?
Centers: Ray Shackelford, it’s called Quality Water, and United Water does the same thing, it could be either one of them. Before we were to let that I would offer it to the city of
Meridian. This works as well, if not better than what you guys are trying to do out there on Ten Mile. This is, a per lot basis, this is probably cheaper than what you guys do. You have
to dispose of your effluent and we can direct inject it back, it’s so clean, DEQ will let you do direct injection back into the aquifer or you can land apply it either way. Make the
decision that you’re going to make but you do need to know the facts about it. This is a R-4 county sub. IT meets the ordinances. It meets the comp plan. It meets Meridian’s
Comprehensive Plan. I did hear that we’re in the urban service area, we’re also in the impact area. I heard the Mayor say that you know they have plans to sewer this, just hold on. Staff
has told me, and I’d like to hear Gary’s comment or Shari’s, they plan to pull us out of the urban service area. So, there’s two things going on, they’re going to get to us soon, I think
is what the Mayor was saying. The other I’m hearing is we’re going backwards.
Corrie: Gary, do you want to answer that or do you want me to? One of the things I said was that we’re going to have the sewer out there. I didn’t say that it was going to happen right
now. I think, one of the things that I’m still concerned about is when we have the sewer line out there connected to that, are these people going to pay for that connection fee to the
city, pay the city for all that?
Centers: Gary and I have talked about trunk expansion, what did we call it, fund.
Smith: Well, it was a trunk expansion fee.
Bird: Fee.
Smith: System development fee.
Centers: Okay.
Smith: To finance the Black Cat trunk. I mean that’s what all the property in the Black Cat drainage is going to be subjected to.
Centers: And if there were enough of these in place, would that help speed up the Black Cat?
Smith: This is the only one that’s being proposed in the Black Cat at this point. I mean, we’ve got, to construct the Black Cat trunk along with the lift station is a $9 million project.
That’s the size of the project to get the Black Cat trunk constructed with the lift station.
Centers: What’s the projection on that?
Smith: I don’t have a projection on it.
Centers: Would you say it was 10 plus years?
Smith: I don’t have a projection on it. Right now our efforts that we’re trying to direct toward growth in the City of Meridian is the north side of town. The white drain, the extension
of the south slough, and the area to the southeast at Overland and Eagle Road. There’s development pressures for property north of McMillan Road as you know between Ten Mile and Locust
Grove. Two square
miles there that will follow suit with this project. There’s no doubt in my mind that that will happen.
Centers: Well, the county said that they are going to look at each individually.
Smith: Well, I understand that but the precedent would be set. I mean it’s that simple and things will move forward from this point, that same thing. I don’t enough about the package
treatment plant to say that it’s putting out drinkable water. I know what the claims are. I don’t know what the testing results are so I can’t either agree or dispute that claim. The
engineering in terms of being able to connect this to a future trunk line, because of it’s elevation I doubt would be a serious problem in determining some kind of elevation for the
gravity sewer line that would eventually discontinue the use of this package plant.
Centers: You said you do or you don’t?
Smith: I don’t think it would be a problem because of the ground elevation of this project in relation to the elevation of the Black Cat Trunk as it comes up Purdem Gulch.
Centers: What we would propose is to put our trunk line in the right-of-way so that it would be easily hooked up with the development agreement.
Smith: Sure.
Centers: I don’t know what the other –
Smith: We’ve got treatment costs at the wastewater plant that somebody’s going to have to pay for. Right now, we’re charging $1580 for each residential lot to connect for treatment
to the wastewater plant. That doesn’t include the cost of collection lines. That’s treatment cost. So, somebody’s going to have to pay $1580 per lot today. I mean that’s the cost today
for each lot that’s developed that connects to the city system.
Centers: But. Isn’t that typical in any city when they annex ground as they expand out, those people are on septic tanks. They run the sewer down the street. When they either sell the
home or they have a septic problem that’s when the city makes them hook up to the sewer?
Smith: That’s right.
Centers: I mean this isn’t unique. This is done in every city.
Smith: Right.
Bird: But the problem is Lee –
Smith: These people have paid for a system connection when you develop of $3200 a lot or whatever the number is that buys the treatment system. I don’t know what’s the cost per lot
for your treatment system.
Centers: So, they’ve paid that connection fee so to speak. They could care less about connecting to the City of Meridian for treatment. Why should they do that? They’ve already got
an on site system?
Centers: But all outlying areas that get annexed in are faced with the same thing if they’re already existing.
Smith: We haven’t gone through that process yet.
Bird: I don’t think there’s very many of these.
Anderson: That’s one of the things that got everybody up in arms in Boise is because Boise had extended those sewer lines and told them when you hook up to that, you’ll be annexed,
at some point you’re going to be annexed. But people’s memories get real fuzzy and then when they had to pay those connection fees years later, like Gary said, when they buy these lots
from you, they feel like they’ve paid it once they shouldn’t ever have to pay it again. Then if you hit them 15 or 20 years down the road with another connection fee to hook to the city
system, they’re upset.
Bird: (inaudible)
Centers: Wouldn’t anybody be upset if they’re getting annexed in. It’s the higher taxes. I don’t think anybody wants to pay that.
Bird: That’s not right in Meridian.
Anderson: Even at the, higher taxes is one thing to swallow if your taxes go up 4 or 5 hundred dollars a year but I mean when you get hit with a several thousand dollar connection
bill. That just about blows them over. Some people are having to take out second mortgages on their home and everything else to pay that. I mean it’s a large number.
Centers: That’s right.
De Weerd: But you raise an interesting question. You know why would people want to do that. So, that’s exactly why we would like to grow in a logical manner from the inside out.
So that you’re not giving false impressions to the people who will eventually be your citizens in your area of impact.
Centers: Now, Tammy, I am next door to an R-4 urban density subdivision –
De Weerd: Which we didn’t approve.
Centers: -- Mayor Corrie and Gary Smith both signed that plat.
Corrie: Which plat?
Centers: Kentucky Ridge.
Corrie: I never signed anything.
Centers: Gary, remember when I showed you those signatures on that plat?
Smith: I recall signing that plat after the City Council approved it.
(inaudible discussion)
Smith: It was a vote before the four Council people.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: I don’t remember ever signing a plat.
Smith: No, you haven’t Mayor.
Centers: Then who signed it beside you?
Smith: I think Will signed it as the City Clerk. I ‘m not sure of that.
Centers: Excuse me.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: There goes your job security.
Berg: That one in black and white that we were told to right?
Smith: Yes we were. It wasn’t this Council though but it was directed.
Centers: In answer to your question I think that can be handled in the CC&Rs. I think you simply state when the time comes you will be annexed into the city and everyone would understand
that.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Centers you haven’t been at the legislature with the citizens for annexation reform like I have and some of those people in their CC&Rs or had in connection with their
Boise City sewer that they were getting or if not them the previous owner that sold to them had previously agreed to be annexed. That didn’t stop those people from being upset about
annexation and the issue they raise are exactly the things that Council is raising here. Connection fees, increased taxes, difference In regulation with regard to things as simple as
how many kids in a day care facility per adult worker. You know there was one, I mean so, when you look at. It’s not a simple thing to say it’s in this agreement and therefore that’s
going to be binding. One of the bills in front of the legislature this last year would basically throw that all out the window. It didn’t make any difference if there was an agreement
or not. That’s one of the things that the Council is having to take into account is this issue of annexation. If the legislature would leave it alone, If Boise city had required annexation
somehow before they ran sewer out into west Boise to take care of those folks, we wouldn’t have had that problem. But it’s a problem that this city has to deal. They have not force annexed
anybody yet. Because of some of those things that are happening in the legislature, if that bill floats up, this city may have to annex its onclaves and get it done quickly or it’ll
never get them in. The city of Nampa’s got 200 onclaves. There are just a variety of issues that it’s one thing to say we’ll put it in the CC&Rs but for crying out loud how many people
don’t read them and don’t go by them, you know? With all due respect Mr. Centers, that sounds nice but in practical reality may not work. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes.
Nichols: I have a question for Brad I guess. Brad, the proposed Black Cat trunk, does it go through this 80 acre parcel?
Watson: Mr. Mayor, Council, and Mr. Nichols. The Black Cat proper I guess you would call it doesn’t go through this. It’s a branch that comes off of the Black Cat Trunk and runs down
over the hill.
Nichols: Is there a branch then in that master plan that goes through this parcel?
Watson: There is a 10-inch, the colors are so close, it’s 10 or 12. They’re both shades of blue that run diagonally through this.
Nichols: Okay. How many acres in the area of impact are upstream from the –
Watson: I have that figure somewhere else. It seems to me it was 100 to 140 upstream of this development.
Nichols: Okay.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes Mr. Bird.
Bird: Seeing as this isn’t a public hearing I think that both Steve and Lee have done a good job of answering some questions for me. I think we need to get on with the business at hand
and make our decision and do what we need to do.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: If the other Councilmen agree to that. Thanks very much Lee.
Corrie: Okay. Thanks Lee and Steve.
Item 15. Water, Sewer, Trash Delinquencies:
Corrie: I guess the final item is the delinquency turn off list. I think Gary had a comment. Let me read --
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: -- Gary and then you can make your comment on turn off time. Delinquency turn off schedule for 5-16-01. This is to inform you in writing if you choose to have the right to a
predetermined hearing 7:30 PM Tuesday May the 15th before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged in the facts to defend a claim made with the city that your water,
sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. The service will be discontinued on May the 16th or 17th unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes
to contest his or her water, sewer and trash delinquency? You are hereby informed that you may appeal and have the decision of the city reviewed by the fourth judicial court pursuant
to Idaho State code even though you appeal your water will be shut off. The turn off amount list is $26,168.99. I believe Gary had a request with the Council. Gary do you want –
Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor. The water department would request that May 23rd also be designated as a turn off day because of the number of turn offs they won’t be able to accomplish
all of those in one day.
Bird: The 16th and the 23rd, Gary?
Smith: 16th and the 23rd, yes please.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, if I may.
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: Gary, I see, how do we get some of these bills so far behind? I mean we’re not talking about little dollars.
Smith: Are they businesses or residential?
Bird: There’s some businesses too but there are some individuals.
Smith: I can’t answer the question on the residential units. I know on the commercial units, there’s a time like period from when the bills are submitted and when corporate has issued
payment.
Bird: This is existing businesses. It’s been in business for years, some of them.
Smith: Okay. It’s not a corporate –
Bird: It’s not the brand new building
Smith: Pardon me?
Bird: It’s not a brand new building some of it. You know it’s just like we let the speedway into $8,000 and of course I know that a lot of that was during the month that they didn’t
even run the speedway so I don’t know what happened there.
Smith: But see, they gave us a NSF check.
Bird: Yeah, but for all 8,000? It wasn’t that much.
Smith: No. It wasn’t that much, no. I don’t remember the number on the check, the dollar amount but there was a considerable amount of it that was non-sufficient fund check.
***End Of Side Five***
Smith: I don’t have the list in front of me Councilman Bird so I can’t, I couldn’t respond anyway. I can find out.
Bird: Gary, I don’t understand our billing in that department anyway. I just don’t I mean their water bills are hard to read.
Smith: The bill itself?
Bird: Yeah. That’s my opinion.
Smith: Well, we tried to pattern hat bill after some other cities that have used it. There’s been a considerable change to that bill from what it used to be, not only the size of it
and the amount of material that’s on it but, I think we’ve got even a return envelope now for the residents to utilize.
(inaudible discussion)
Smith: If you’ve got some suggestions on that Councilman Bird, I’d be happy to certainly entertain those.
Bird: Oh, (inaudible) I just, I mean we’ve got people here that are you know, evidently we haven’t turned their water off and they’re still delinquent, three months, four months delinquent.
Smith: Can I get together with you tomorrow and take a look at them and I’ll get some answers?
Bird: Sure, Gary. I’d be glad to. I’ll give you a call tomorrow.
Smith: Okay. I’d be happy to do that. I’m sorry I don’t have any answers for you tonight.
Bird: No. I understand that. That’s just something that has really been and I don’t want to come down hard on people or anything but it’s just, there’s a lot of money out there. If we’re
running this thing through and say we’re going to turn off and then we’re not turning off, and we’re letting these people build up big ones and they take out bankruptcy on us, I guess
you know. That’s all delinquent. Look at that. I thought Kenny kept up with that crap. I blame you. If they took out bankruptcy.
Smith: If they’re delinquent they’re supposed to be turned off and if they’re not getting turned off I can’t answer your question. I don’t know why. We’ve tried, I know last month
we tried to on some of the commercial businesses to give them a call and let them know they were on the turn off list and we were greeted with some real animosity from the people stating
that they were not on the turn off list, that they were going to pay their bill and that it took longer to pay it because it was a corporation than what it would if it was a resident
for example. So, the staff here took a little bit of abuse over the telephone for calling and trying to alert them that they were on the turn off list. So, we’re trying to make some
arrangements to delay the turn off for those big commercial accounts just because of the amount of time it takes to get payment through their accounting department.
Bird: Call their accounts receivable and see if they act the same way.
Smith: Right.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: Okay. Mr. Mayor. If there’s no more questions I would move that we approve the delinquency cut off list and extend it to May 16th and May 23rd as the cut off days.
Anderson: Thank you. I’ll second that.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second to approve the scheduled cut off date the 16th and the 23rd. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes.
Item 14. ACDS 01-04-S/01-11-CU/01-13-OTD/01-03-ZC/01-09-PBA/01-07-MSP Lee Centers – Powder River Subdivision: Discussion of Response Comments to Ada County for an 80.04-acre county
subdivision to include 215 single-family residential lots, 8 common lots, 3 open-space lots and 1 well lot; a Conditional Use Permit and Master Site Plan for a public/quasi-public use
to establish a municipal wastewater collection and treatment facility; A Parcel Boundary Adjustment; A Zone Change from RUT (Rural-Urban Transition) to R4 (Medium Low Density Residential);a
Zone Boundary Adjustment; and a One-Time Division. The property contains 151.98 acres and is located on the east side of Linder Road approximately 0.5 mile south of West Victory Road,
Meridian, ID; Section 25, T3N, R1W:
Bird: Don’t we, on this item 14, what was staff wanting from us or yourself was wanting? Were they wanting a recommendation from the City Council? Or were we just hearing it out? Or
what?
Corrie: There’s going to be a letter, it’s in the draft form now. When are we going to get to take a look at this?
Stiles: What (inaudible)
Corrie: This is the draft letter to the Ada County Planning and Zoning Commission.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Stiles: Oh that’s been redone.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The Council needs to direct staff whether to, I mean you need to recommend either denial or approval of this subdivision and either way
you need to direct staff to submit the whatever your position is and what supporting things you have for it to Ada County Development services so that it’s part of the record. The Council
needs to take some action here to say this is what we want done, I think. That’s what’s asked for when it comes as what’s the City’s recommendation, approval or denial.
Corrie: Okay. I’ll entertain a motion to either approve or deny to the Ada County Planning and Zoning Commission the request for Lee Center’s Powder River subdivision.
(inaudible discussion)
Stiles: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Shari. I’m sorry.
(inaudible discussion)
Stiles: Is there more information that you would like us to get together or for the applicant to get together? Is there any point in maybe requesting a continuance prior to submitting
our recommendation? I just wanted to go on record that there are several policies in the existing Comprehensive Plan that do not support this application. Those have been included in
Brad Watson’s letter. We will be including those in any draft of a letter or any final letter. We can prepare a letter for the Mayor’s signature or the Mayor and all the Council’s signature.
We will be attending the meeting on the 24th at the public hearing and would hope that some if not all of you will be attending as well. I mean, if you think there’s any benefit of
getting more information, or do we need anymore research? I think we’ve pretty much exhausted ourselves trying to address this issue.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: First I want to tell Lee and Steve and them that that is a nice project. You certainly pointed out some advantages, or what I was scared of was the sewer system. I’d like to know
more about it but I, we have sat down and had a plan of how we wanted to build and try to grow our city in a decent way that we thought was feasible. It might not be right. We have not
kept up with our timetable we’ve asked for. That is strictly our fault. You know I think every developer should have a shot as they go through the deals. But I as a Councilperson of
the City of Meridian I cannot back this development at this time. I just don’t believe that we are ready for it and so with that saying I would make the motion that we, as a Council
as Ada County Developmental Services to deny this application.
Corrie: Do we have a second?
Anderson: I’ll second it.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s made and second to notify the Ada County Planning and Zoning to deny the application from the City’s standpoint. Any further discussion? Does this take a roll
call vote Mr. Attorney? Roll call vote, let’s get on the record.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council roll call vote.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Dave you had, it’s not on the agenda so speak fast if it’s something –
Bowman: Mr. Mayor and Council. The Mayor has asked me to present a request to you to waive certain fees in the project of the building of the new police department. If I may approach
--. Chief Gordon has marked certain areas there. These were brought to his attention by the architects of the project of the new police department. Items in particular 3, 5, and 6 are
city fees associated with the project. If these fees could be waived that additional monies could be applied to the actual construction cost of the facility. Item No. 1 is an ACHD impact
fee allowance which is a $52,000 fee as you can see there. I guess his request would be to have either the City Clerk or some other person contact ACHD to request them to waive that
fee. These fees total $84,000. Those four different fees there which could be applied directly to that construction. That’s it in a nutshell. Any questions?
Bird: Yeah. I’ve got one Captain. When are we going to see the final footprint of the building?
Bowman: I’m not aware of that time schedule right now, that timeline.
Bird: Okay.
Bowman: I’m not involved in that end of the project.
Bird: Cherie, do you have any idea?
McCandless: I haven’t at the moment. I can find out for you though.
Bird: Okay. I think we need to try to waive these fees to –
Corrie: Probably, ACHD impact fee, they probably will not be willing.
Bowman: I believe you just make a request to the agency to do that.
Bird: Is our building inspector’s going to donate their time for this project, Mr. Gary?
Smith: I haven’t talked to them about that Councilman Bird. I don’t know.
Bird: What have we done on the fire stations? They’ve got, have we paid the building fees? We haven’t have we?
Smith: I don’t know. I’m sorry.
Bird: Have we, Clerk? Do you recall?
Berg: I don’t think so.
Bird: Ron?
Anderson: I don’t think I negotiated (inaudible) It seems to me like (inaudible)
Bird: I think those guys will do that. I think we ought to waive these fees. Holy Cow, it’s robbing Peter to pay Paul. It’s ridiculous.
(inaudible discussion)
Smith: Another way to voice that would be to put it from one pocket to the other pocket.
Bird: Yeah. You know to me that’s—The ACHD impact fee, who would be the best to probably hit that, Gary or Will?
Smith: To waive that?
Bird: To hit these people up and get that waived?
(inaudible discussion)
McCandless: 52,000
Bird: 52,000. Talking about ACHD, I wanted to die laughing when Durkin was up here telling us they’re going to start on north Locust Grove next week.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: Ten years ago.
Corrie: I can ask them.
Bird: Why don’t you?
Corrie: I’ll talk to them (inaudible) I have kind of a gut feeling that when they get through laughing they’ll probably say no but we can sure ask them.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: Mayor, can you and Gary see about the building fees. See if the inspectors ill do it. Now, if we have to pay the building inspectors then we’re going to have to charge this. It’s
only fair that we charge. If they would do it on conditions, you know. We’ve got to get the sewer and water hook ups fees.
Smith: Yes sir.
Bird: Right, Shari?
Stiles: Why?
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: Let’s see what we can do Captain. I think we need to, I personally believe we should waive as many of those fees as we can.
Bowman: Right. The last item down there, item No. 16, furnishings, fixtures and equipment. I’m a little unclear on this. Maybe Councilwoman McCandless can help me out on this item. The
Chief wanted to know about moving that into next year’s budget.
McCandless: Yeah. The building won’t be through until next year anyway. Those are the inside things.
De Weerd: It depends on if our mill levy passes.
(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: It depends on if our mill levy passes.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: Have you got any idea?
Bowman: No sir.
Bird: You really don’t because you don’t have the final print so you don’t know really what you’re going to need.
Bowman: No. I think he just wants to postpone that and put it in next year’s budget.
Bird: Yeah.
Bowman: Instead of tacking it onto this.
Bird: Oh, yeah.
Bowman: He’s trying to get the most for his buck out of this.
Bird: That sounds good to me.
Bowman: Okay.
Anderson: I guess the answer is let us do some checking with some of these other agencies and see how many of them would be willing to waive some fees and we’ll get back to you.
Bowman: Very good. Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. All right, I’ll entertain a motion we adjourn.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: So moved. Second.
Corrie: Okay. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:06 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK