HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 11-20Meridian City Council Meeting November 20, 2001
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:30 P.M. on Tuesday, November 20, 2001, by Mayor Robert D. Corrie.
Members Present: Mayor Robert Corrie, Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Cherie McCandless, and Ron Anderson.
Others Present: Bill Nichols, Mike Worley, David McKinnon, Gary Smith, Brad Watson, Ken Bowers, Will Berg, and Dean Willis.
Corrie: It's now 6:30. I will open the City Council Regular Meeting, Tuesday, November 20, 2001, at 6:30 P.M. We will have role call attendance, please, Mr. Berg.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Tammy de Weerd X Ron Anderson
X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird
X Mayor Robert Corrie
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Item No. 2, adoption of the agenda. Council, anything you want to change or --
Bird: I don't see we have any requested.
Corrie: No. We just had one to table on Item No. 14. We will let them know about that one. I think that was a Public Hearing, so we will have it, but it's been requested to change
that.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: With that I would move that we adopt the agenda as written.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion's been made and seconded to adopt the agenda as written. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of October 23, 2001 City Council Regular Meeting:
B. Approve minutes of October 30, 2001 City Council Special Meeting:
C. Tabled from November 7, 2001: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 01-010 Request for annexation and zoning from R1 to C-G zones for Podiatry Building by Smith
Brighton, LLC – 1065 East Fairview Avenue:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-021 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a dual restaurant with drive-thru in a C-G zone for Kentucky Fried Chicken/A&W
by G & H Enterprises II – 677 East First Street:
E. Development Agreement: AZ 00-024 Request for annexation and zoning of 20.20 acres from RT to C-G zones for Sparrowhawk Subdivision by Hubble Engineering – northeast corner of Nola
and Franklin Roads:
Corrie: I'd like to welcome everyone here this evening and we have 3 Scouts -- Boy Scouts here as well. Welcome to City Council Meeting. Those are the 2 boys that we met earlier. Thank
you for attending. Item No. 3 here is the Consent Agenda. Council's pleasure on that.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we accept the Consent Agenda as printed.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and second to approve the Consent Agenda A through E. Anymore discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor -- or roll call vote, please.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion has been carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4. Department Reports:
A. Mayor Corrie:
1. Appointment of Deputy City Clerk:
Corrie: Department Reports. Mayor Corrie, appointment of Deputy City Clerk. Council, after we have gone through the selection by the City Clerk and myself, went through -- and also
the Human Resource Director, we came up with a selection that we all felt was a good one at this point and I would like to appoint the Deputy City Clerk Sharon Smith. She's with us here.
She's well known by some of the different departments. She has worked for the city previously. So that is my recommendation for a Deputy City Clerk appointment is Sharon Smith.
De Weerd: This is your last chance to --
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'd move that we accept your appointment of Sharon Smith as the Deputy City Clerk for the City of Meridian.
De Weerd: Second.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Welcome, Sharon. We will see you about the 6th of December. Okay. Good. Thank you.
De Weerd: Welcome.
B. Public Work’s Department – Gary Smith:
1. Five-Mile Relief Sewer, Phase 2 – Award of Contract:
Corrie: Welcome. Public Works Department. Gary Smith.
Bird: Brad.
Corrie: I guess it's going to be Brad. I'm sorry. Gary -- we have been together so many times here this week. Brad. I'm sorry.
Watson: Thank you, Mayor, City Council Members. The first item on the Public Works Agenda is Award of Contract for the second phase of the Five Mile Relief Sewer. We finished up construction
of Phase 1 this fall. Phase 1 will finish out the project. The description of it is about 1,700 lineal feet of 30-inch sewer and some miscellaneous work. We received nine bids on this
and the low bid was $223,077.75 from Brown Construction. As I have written in the memo to you, they have done a lot of work for us and in the community and we would recommend award to
them in that amount. Be happy to answer any questions.
Corrie: Council, any questions?
Anderson: I have none.
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: This project I think is well overdue and, therefore, I would make a motion that we approve the contract for the Five Mile Relief Sewer Line Phase 2 and Award the Contract
to Brown Construction in the amount of $223,077.75 and authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made to accept the Phase 2 Award of the Contract to Brown Construction Engineers with a bid of $223,077.75. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all
those in favor of that motion say aye. All ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
2. 2001 Fire Hydrant Replacement Project – Change Order No.
Watson: Thank you, Mayor and Council Members. The second Public Works item is a close-out Change Order on the 2001 Fire Hydrant Replacement Project. Everything went according
to plan, but on one of the old hydrants that we replaced we didn't know what was underground until they actually dug it up. So we had a Change Order to match the size of the pipe that
was actually discovered underground and the total amount of the Change Order is $2,300, which would increase the contract amount from 28,900 to 31,200 and we would recommend that the
Council approve that Change Order.
Corrie: Okay. Any discussion? Questions?
Bird: I have none, Mayor. With that I would make a motion that we approve Public Works Change Order No. 1 for the 2001 Fire Hydrant Replacement Project, an additional amount of $2,300
and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Change Order on the Fire Hydrant Replacement Project in the amount of $28,900.
Bird: 3,000.
De Weerd: 31.
Corrie: $31,200. Okay. Any further discussion? Roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Watson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Just as clarification, were we approving just the Change Order there, Brad, or the Award of the Contract to --
Bird: Just the Change Order.
Watson: Councilman Anderson, just the Change Order. It's the close-out Change Order on the project.
Anderson: Thank you.
Meridian High School Cafeteria Addition – Water Main Easement:
Watson: The third and final Public Works item is just a Water Main Easement from Meridian School District. They are adding onto their cafeteria out at the high school and they are constructing
a little bit more water main and we required an easement on their site for operation and maintenance of that facility. We would recommend approval of that easement and I'd be happy to
answer any questions.
Corrie: Council, any questions on that one?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Entertain a motion, please.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion to approve the Water Main Easement between Meridian School District and the City of Meridian.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Council, I need to go back and take a voice -- take a roll call vote on the Five Mile Sewer Phase 2. That does require a roll call vote. So we will go back and do a roll vote
on the Five Mile Sewer Phase 2 Award of the Contract.
Berg: Mr. Mayor, just to refresh, the motion is the Award of the Contract to Brown Construction.
Corrie: Brown Construction, $223,077.75.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6. Ordinance No. : AZ 00-024 Request for annexation and zoning of 20.20 acres from RT to C-G zones for Sparrowhawk Subdivision by Hubble Engineering – northeast corner of Nola
and Franklin Roads:
Corrie: Item No. 6 is an Ordinance. Ordinance No. 01-931. This is a request for annexation and zoning of 20.20 acres from RT to C-G zone for the Sparrowhawk Subdivision by Hubble Engineering,
the northeast corner of Nola -- Nola and Franklin Roads. Excuse me. Mr. Berg, if you would read the Ordinance No. 01-931 by Title only at this point.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 01-931. An Ordinance finding that certain land to be known as Sparrowhawk Subdivision which lies contiguous or adjacent
to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho; and finding that the owner has made a request for annexation in writing to the Council; and that said land
be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated General Retail and Service Commercial District C-G; and declaring that the said land, by proper legal description as described
below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho; repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith; and directing the City
Engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho; and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and the map
of the area to be annexed with Ada County Recorder, 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.
Corrie: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Just for clarification, on Section 5 there is some blanks there. Do they need filled? On the Development Agreement.
Berg: Mr. Mayor, the Development Agreement was approved tonight on the Consent Agenda and it was dated and signed November 13, 2001.
Corrie: Okay.
Berg: Thank you.
Corrie: Is there anyone from the public that would like to have the Ordinance read in its entirety? Okay. Council, with that being the case I'd entertain a motion on Ordinance No. 931.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we pass Ordinance No. 01-931, a request for annexation and zoning for 20.20 acres from RT to C-G zones for Sparrowhawk Subdivision by Hubble Engineering
at the northeast corner of Nola and Franklin Roads, with suspension of the rules.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been and second to approve Ordinance No. 01-931 with suspension of rules. Any further discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is carried for Ordinance No. 01-931.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7. Public Hearing: AZ 01-012 Request for annexation and zoning of 70.72 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development – northeast corner
of East Ustick Road and North Meridian Road:
Item 8. Public Hearing: PP 01-015 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 214 single-family lots, 4 future office lots, 23 common lots and 3.43 other lots on 69.79 acres in a proposed
R-8 zone for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development – northeast corner of East Ustick Road and North Meridian Road:
Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 01-026 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 214 single-family dwellings, 4 future office lots and 23 common lots to include a neighborhood park and
pedestrian pathways in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L. Voigt – northeast corner of East Ustick Road and North Meridian Road:
Corrie: Items No. 7, 8, and 9 is a Public Hearing for request for annexation and zoning of a Preliminary Plat and also request for a Conditional Use Permit and -- for Sundance Subdivision
by G.L. Voigt Development, northeast corner of East Ustick Road and North Meridian Road. With the Council's approval I will open all three Public Hearings and we can hear them all at
once, if you so desire.
Bird: So desire.
Corrie: Okay. Then I will open the Public Hearing on Items 7, 8, and 9 and we will first have the staff comments, please.
McKinnon: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the same project essentially unchanged from the last time you heard this. It was denied on April 3, 2001. The reasons for denial
of this project of 214 homes in 70.72 acres were as follows. The development was premature in your mind. The sewer service is not readily available and I'll ask Brad Watson to address
that. Number 3 is the additional residential lots
would place undue stress and hardship among the public services. If I can direct your attention to the overhead. It shows the northeast corner of Ustick and Meridian right there. That
is in the 12 mile area that we refer to as the North Meridian Plan and there is ongoing debate as to how to develop that at this time, something that's rather important to us. One
thing that I would point out to you before I ask Brad to address the issue of the sewer system is that the reason that a Conditional Use Permit was attached to this is that in order
for the commercial project in the far northeast corner, you can see right there at the bottom and the left, was that under the new Planned Development Ordinance 20 percent of the uses
within Planned Development can be uses that are prohibited within that zone. Under the new PD Ordinance we can't approve this, we can only approve it under a Conditional Use Permit.
That was the major change that came forward from the last time. Some minor changes will be addressed tonight by the applicant concerning the recommendation from the Commission and
I'll let him address that. I'd ask that Brad Watson address the issue of the easement for the sewer and sewer availability at this time.
Watson: Mr. Mayor, Council Members, the plan for the White Drain Trunk are being submitted to DEQ tomorrow. We don't have all the easements. There are still a total of 5-4 downstream
of this that we are working with. One is the school district. As you know, the other is the Primeland Developer and the other one is the Howell Development through the Cedar Springs
Project. There is one other minor easement that we have been working -- we have been working with the property owner at length to get that done. All of them look doable it's just a
matter of time and giving them what they want but the final plans are going to DEQ tomorrow. If you have any other questions I would be happy to answer those.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Brad, what -- how long will we -- will it take to get that sewer line going through? What is it, 4, 5, 6 months once everything is approved and gone?
Watson: Council Member, Mr. Mayor, and Council Members, we estimated a 6 month construction period for the total project. So once we actually get a notice to proceed, that's the time
frame. There is usually a month to a month and a half of bidding and contract award, that sort of thing in front of that.
Bird: So, in reality, if all this were at DEQ -- and how long will they usually keep it, Brad, to -- before they will approve and send it back? What's their time table of turnaround?
Watson: Councilman Bird, Mr. Mayor, and Council Members, it's my understanding -- and I checked with DEQ about a year ago on this, but this project is eligible for the fast track process,
so we are looking at the most 10 days for approval. But the easements are still the hang up and there is some alignment questions from some of those people downstream, specifically
the Cedar Springs developer.
Bird: This isn't really -- well, it does pertain to this, but I think maybe as an entity we are going to have to start being like the ACHD and them people and going out and getting
some private people to go buy our easements for us and get them working on it where that's all they do. We are trying to do it with in-house people that are busy doing everything else
and I think that's something that the Council and the Mayor is definitely going to have to sit down and look at on -- as we go through here and turn somebody loose to go get those easements
that does nothing but easements. But that's something else we can decide at a later date. If we get that going and stuff we -- is June of next year too early where that would be available
-- that sewer would be available?
Watson: Councilman Bird, in my mind, yes, that's too early.
Bird: What are you looking at?
Watson: I would hope to be able to start construction in February, even if we have plans approved and get the easements secured in the next two to four weeks, we probably wouldn't actually
open bids until after the first of the year, because December is a terrible time to open bids, through the award process and mobilization, pipe ordering, we would be looking at February,
best case, before somebody hit the ground.
Bird: Okay. Then -- so we are looking at August if it's a 6-month project.
Watson: Correct.
Bird: Before it's up and running?
Watson: Correct.
Bird: I understand the sewer is up Ten Mile to the point it has to take off, am I not right?
Watson: Councilman Bird, yes, you are correct. It is up to the point where the White Drain takes off and going further towards McMillan where it terminates just south of McMillan.
Bird: Okay. So if -- in the perfect world we could have that sewer up and running by August, September next year?
Watson: Councilman Bird, ideally, yes.
Bird: Okay. Thank you, Brad.
Corrie: Okay. Any other staff comments? Okay. At this point I will have the representative from Sundance Subdivision.
Arnold: Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council, for the record, again, I'm Steve Arnold from Briggs Engineering, 1800 W. Overland Road, representing the client G.L. Voigt with Sundance
Subdivision. To give you a brief history, essentially about a year ago we asked for deferral on this item because of concerns that the City Council had with the sewer trunk -- the White
Sewer Trunk getting out to our project. I have been instructed by my client tonight that if the City Council still has some hang-ups and some concerns with that, we'd like to get recommended
for deferral tonight, instead of a denial, so that we can stay within the process and not have to go back through Planning and Zoning. We got denied in April and we resubmitted the
application shortly after and we are here before you tonight. So it is kind of a lengthy process, it's time consuming, and it does take quite a bit of money in fees. So, again, I'd
like to reiterate that if the City Council is heading towards that direction, we would request that this item be deferred until such time as you guys have a little bit more comfort with
the easements that are being acquired and/or the construction.
De Weerd: Steve, can you point out the easements so people can see what you are --
Arnold: That would be great.
De Weerd: If you need to point anything out you can use that microphone.
Arnold: Basically what we have changed -- basically what we have done is we have changed what we have submitted there at the corner -- the southeast corner of the project -- southwest
corner of the project. Originally we submitted there four lots that were large residential lots. One of the concerns of the City Council at the time that it was denied was that we
should be coming before you with a conditional use or PUD Application. However, at that time you never -- you didn't adopt the new PUD Ordinance, so we couldn't mix the uses. Now we
have -- there is a PUD Ordinance in place and we can meet the requirements of that. One of the requirements of the PUD Ordinance is that we provide two amenities. One being that we
could add -- in addition to the 5 percent, you can have 10 percent open space or you can have an amenity such as a pocket park with a basketball court and in this case we have added
a basketball court and a gazebo. I think we have got responses from staff that we are meeting the Conditional Use requirements for this project. In addition, one of the concerns was
the inner connectivity to the pedestrian pathways within there. I don't think they were as well depicted and it's hard to see from here, but you can see in the highlighted green we
are providing meandering pathways throughout the subdivision. In addition, we were asking that we not be required to pipe the drain originally, now we are piping the Finch Drain along
the east and the south property line. I have calculated the open space within the subdivision. I remember that was a concern within the recommendation. We have got a total of 5.7 acres
of landscape open space. That's everything. That's including the required buffers along Ustick and Meridian Roads. If you take out the required buffers we have 4.5 acres, which is approximately
6 percent open space. Again, the lots haven't changed. They are between 6,500 and 17,000 square feet. Those are the main changes. We have -- again, we have added a gazebo and
a basketball court within the center of the project. We have relocated the entrance of the subdivision on Ustick Road. We shifted that to align with the private road on the south side.
That was some concerns the Planning and Zoning had and we met with the property owner on the south. I did have a chance to speak with them and that was a favorable location, but also
worked out better for our design, essentially, because we were able to get rid of the wiggle in the project and straighten out some of the lots to the east of that -- or to the west
of that road. Basically there are some recommendations that Planning and Zoning had and I think that that wasn't addressed thoroughly in the Planning and Zoning hearing. I know I
had some conversations with staff that the focus of Planning and Zoning was some of the entrance issues and some minor design things. One of the issues that we brought up was -- in
our first reply -- and I believe slightly at the hearing, but, obviously, not enough, because it made it into the conditions here, was the Planning and Zoning is now recommending a stub
street to the east where you can see our buffer strip there. The problem with that is, one, the property that we would be stubbing to is one that Voigt had looked at purchasing, he
retained us to try to do a layout on it. It's next to impossible to utilize -- there is a 115 foot wide strip to the west of -- to the east of our property line. If you stub in there,
one, you won't be able to extend the roadway further to the east of that 115 foot strip, because those are one acre lots and the likelihood of them redeveloping is next to none. You
can't run a road up that 115 foot strip, you would be double fronting lots on our subdivision and/or the subdivision to the east of us. So we are asking that that be addressed tonight
and that that be eliminated. The stub street in this case -- normally I'm very favorable to connectivity, but in this case it would not go anywhere and it won't be in the future. The
other issue was a -- and I will point to this -- was the pedestrian pathway from this road south to the office unit. The reason behind the recommendation was for a pedestrian interconnectivity
and interconnection between uses. I am in favor of that. We have provided, however, a pedestrian access out to Meridian Road, which does connect to a detached sidewalk that could be
utilized going down. If it is the direction of the City Council tonight that we direct something directly from that road into that office unit, I would request that we pull that one
from the street that's going out to Meridian Road, relocate that in the north-south orientation that is recommended, but I think the two of them would be a duplication of pathways in
such close proximity. They are 175 feet apart from each other so I would -- that would be one of the items that we request be eliminated tonight. Basically, I think this is kind of
old business that the City Council has seen it before. I have addressed the main changes that we have done. Again, the only ones that we have changed since we have come in with the
conditional use and tried to comply better with the PUD Ordinance that we have in place now and we have requested that stub street be eliminated and that we can eliminate the recommended
pathway. I think those are all the changes that we are requesting. I will stand for questions but, again, I'd like to reiterate that if it is the direction that City Council has tonight
that they are uncomfortable about recommending approval of the site at this time, we would request that this item be deferred until such time that perhaps more easements are acquired
or that the City Council is more comfortable. Do you have any questions to myself?
Corrie: Council?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Steve, I did have one question -- a couple of them, actually. Obviously, we don't have all the Sewer Easements secured that we need to and we don't have a real good answer
yet on how we are going to be able to afford to provide the public safety services to these large projects and, as you know, our recent attempt to increase the mill levy failed, so we
still have some outstanding issues, but we are working with the developers in this 12 square mile area. Is the developer that you're representing, this G.L. Voigt, are they involved
in that process and how involved are they with that?
Arnold: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Anderson, I don't know if you're aware, but I was at those meetings and I met -- the last meeting that was held, I have been meeting in the north -- in
all those meetings concerning the north -- the 12 square miles that you're discussing. That is our involvement. How -- to what extent are you looking? Are we involved in some suggestions
of how the City Council can handle those? No, there has not been any discussion of how they are going to come up with more police stations, more fire stations. However, I think this
case is a little -- this project is a little bit unique. We have got an existing fire house I think off of Ten Mile that's approximately two miles away. One is planned on Ustick.
I know that a lot of extra police services, those can be provided at your Albertson's, at your fire stations. I think the only question that we have here is perhaps schools and it's
been the school district's standpoint that they are -- they continually play catch up, whether right or wrong, but that is the situation. They'll build the schools and homes come. I
know that Cedar Springs is planning an elementary site there. I have seen the proposal within that 12 square mile. As a matter of fact, G.L. Voigt has been in contact with Wendel Bigham,
who is with the school district, they are looking at four office units, that four acres there, to locate I believe one of their administrative offices. So in regards to have we proposed
to build any fire houses or police stations, I don't think that's necessary for this site. As part of the discussion on the 12 square mile area, I don't think that that's been brought
up to try to facilitate having development build those facilities.
Anderson: Well, it has been brought up, but evidently not in some of the workshops or the meetings that you're in, but there are two fire stations, for example, that are planned in
that North Corridor Planning Area that we are talking about. The only thing that we have done at this point is purchase land for one of those over off Locust Grove, but there is still
a substantial cost in capital to build these stations, buying fire trucks, and those types of things. Yes, it is being discussed, but the developers will be asked to share some of that
burden, either through a public safety impact fee system or something that is yet to be determined. So there are a lot of details that are not being -- that have not been worked out
in regards to how we will provide those services in that area. So my question was -- is the developer participating in that and evidently you're there representing several clients who
have an interest in that north Meridian area, not
specifically maybe this one and what role he's going to play and whether he's going to be a participant in those talks and work towards a resolution in that.
Arnold: The discussions that I was involved with were in regards to parks and how our development within the 12 square miles is going to help fund some of the parks. It was discussed
fire stations and the cost of those and I'm not sure if there was any further discussion how to fund them. I know locations were discussed. I know Mr. Voigt has a great deal of interest
in here. I know that he's looking at other properties within these 12 square miles. So when -- I guess when that comes up to us, when there is some options that are thrown out, that's
something that he will definitely consider I'm sure.
Anderson: Okay. My other question is on this -- it looks like a landscaping strip that goes down the east side of the property. Is that -- does that have some of the meandering pathways
on there that you mentioned or where are these meandering pathways that you had talked about?
Arnold: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Anderson, meandering pathways, if you can see, are in the buffer strip along Ustick and Meridian, along the two collector roadways that come into the project,
both off of Ustick and off of Meridian. There is some green that are in between -- that are on Meridian Road and as you can see about a quarter way up and -- three quarters of the way
up the project. We were not proposing any pathways on the Finch Drain that we have.
Anderson: So basically the pathways you're talking about are just the ones that border the property on the perimeter on Meridian and Ustick?
Arnold: There are a couple internal.
De Weerd: The micropaths.
Arnold: They are micropaths.
Anderson: All right. Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions, Council?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Steve, what is the projected build out on this project? 5 years? 6 years? I realize the economy will dictate it, but what is the -- what is the potential in the build out?
Arnold: Generally speaking on a project this size it would be between 6 to 10 years, depending upon the economy. This may come to a rapid halt real soon. I doubt that in this area,
though, with these lot sizes.
Bird: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: The ACHD report is that a final report?
Arnold: Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman de Weerd, that is a final report. We have sent one that we got approval back in -- I believe it was December, January. Actually, it was further back
than that. Then we resubmitted in May and we sent this application -- or transmitted to ACHD and basically ACHD sent a letter saying comply with the requirement of the previous report,
because nothing -- roadway configurations, nothing had changed. Since then I have met with them and discussed the option of tweaking the road a little bit to the west to line up with
the private road and I did receive approval of that.
De Weerd: So they haven't really discussed with you the impact of this North Corridor Planning Process and -- or any extraordinary impact fees?
Arnold: Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman de Weerd, the only discussion that we have had with them is me being at the meeting and the discussion of possible extraordinary impact fees. I doubt
that -- I'm not sure what's going to be the outcome of the extraordinary impact fees, but I think it will come with quite a bit of opposition. But that's not been addressed. They are
not placing that as a requirement on this subdivision. They technically can't go back after they adopt an extraordinary impact fee within a benefit zone once they have approved a subdivision.
De Weerd: Well, then, maybe, then, I would echo Councilman Anderson's concerns. You know, I know you probably anticipated this with your request coming up here that this would be deferred
and I probably would like to defer it for an additional reason to the White Trunk and that would be for whatever recommendations come forth in the north corridor planning process. I
know that the Planning and Zoning Commission has added language into their recommendation and I certainly appreciate them forward thinking to that point, but at this point it's still
pretty fuzzy in the definition and I think this is a great use, especially across from a regional size park, this really compliments that, and so I just think we do have a lot of issues
with the failure of the mill levy to pass, but the North Corridor recommendation as it come out and how all of the developments in that area kind of participate in addressing some of
these issues are really key at this point as to how we proceed forward and with the White Trunk still in question, I guess there is -- there is a little bit of time to look at that as
well.
Arnold: Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman de Weerd, we anticipated that and that's why one of the things we represented at the beginning was deferral, instead of denial. But going back to the
ACHD issue of impact fees, there is -- the ACHD is exacting from this
developer approximately 30,000 dollars for a traffic signal, which I imagine, if they do have an extraordinary impact fee within the benefit zone, if that's the direction, I imagine
they will -- I mean they will pull that from us. I mean they won't require a deposit of 30,000 and then have an extraordinary impact fee on top of the system upgrades, so just to clarify
that issue.
De Weerd: Okay.
Arnold: One more item. Is it the direction of the City Council -- I guess before we continue the Public Hearing, is it the direction that we look at redesigning these -- I mean the
minor issues that were brought up tonight with the stub street and that extra pedestrian pathway into the office units, is that a direction the City Council wants us to look at? If it
is the direction tonight that we are looking for an outcome out of the North Meridian Development Plan, I believe that plan is going to be presented shortly in the new year after our
January 7th meeting, I believe.
Corrie: That would be in February that it --
Arnold: So are we looking at deferral after that or after -- I guess I'm trying to get a little bit of a time frame.
Corrie: Council?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I had a question, if we do defer it, for Legal Counsel. Does it have to have a date certain or can it be an ambiguous date that when we get these issues resolved with the North
Meridian Planning Group, that then we can come back and address that. But we don't know what that date is at this point. It doesn't have a date certain. I mean it has projected dates,
but nothing certain.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Councilman Anderson, Mayor, Members of the Council, my recommendation would be that you -- if you were to defer this application, that you table it or continue the hearing to
a date certain. If on that particular date you don't have all of the information that could be presented to you because the plan's not done and sewer status, whatever the issues are,
then you can at that point continue it again, so that it's not just held in limbo until somebody brings it up. You also have the benefit by continuing the hearing to a date certain
of not requiring -- it's not a requirement under the ordinance that it be re-noticed in the newspaper or reposted at the property, because anyone that was interested in the application
would either from the minutes or from attendance at this meeting know when it would be brought up again.
Anderson: One more question. Is there a maximum time line that that can be tabled until?
Nichols: My reading of the statute says you have to handle these things in a reasonable time. If the applicant, as part of their testimony, is agreeable to a referral of the decision
for additional information, which is not available at the time of the hearing, then I think you're okay. I don't think the statute allows you to put off just any application for a lengthy
period of time, sort of a spot moratorium, if you will, but here you're just -- there is additional information that you may want to have that you're going have to defer until then to
get it.
Corrie: We'll give you a chance to -- we will give you a date and then -- before you leave, so we can close this up or continue it, so that you have one shot and it will give you some
guidance then. Any other questions?
Bird: I don't have any now.
Corrie: All right. Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who would like to issue testimony on this request? Nobody signed up for it, but -- okay. Steve, I guess come back up and
we will give you a date here and see what you think. Councilmen, it looks like in February is when we are going to get pretty much all the information we are going to need. Probably
February the 19th would be a good day to take this back up to you. Does that meet -- does that date sound familiar -- or not sound familiar. Excuse me. Sound okay to you or your client?
Arnold: That date is much better than a denial. Yes and that's assuming that something is presented by the North Meridian Group --
Corrie: We hope it will be by the first of February and that would put you the third week in February on a Tuesday on a land use issue date.
Arnold: Okay.
Corrie: Other than that, it would be the first Tuesday in February and we might not get all the information back by that time.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: You had asked about stubs in the east and in my opinion I don't see that that is an issue. I think your micropath there between Lots 18 and 16 pretty much satisfy the connectivity
to the office area from the north side, so I don't have an issue and those are the only two questions that you really had.
Arnold: That and I think we have met -- as long as the City Council is comfortable with our PUD and we are meeting those, that that was a question on the --
De Weerd: On the amenities and the open space?
Arnold: Yes.
De Weerd: Yes. I think Planning and Zoning had you add two additional -- you added the gazebo and --
Arnold: We added a gazebo and some trash receptacles was one of the things that they added to that. I just want to make sure that we are -- the design of the project we are okay with,
so that there is nothing that I should be doing right now -- between now and the next hearing, that the only issues are sewer services.
Corrie: I think if you attend those meetings you can kind of see which way we are going with a lot of this 12 square miles and you can adjust accordingly at that point. I don't think
it would be a whole lot, but there may be some.
Anderson: And I was just going to comment, I prefer where you have the pathway shown and if that does develop in any type of commercial down there, I think that's better from a safety
standpoint, that if you had somebody that wanted to rob a small business, it would be a great little pathway to get into the community. This way they have to come back out on a major
street before they could get back into the community, so I would think that for -- the Police Department would prefer this arrangement, too. So I think that's a good thing where you
have it there.
De Weerd: Yes.
Corrie: Okay. Thanks, Steve. Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Now, Council, I -- you know, they come in April and we told them what to do and they redid everything, come back, and now we are taking it to February. So let's make sure that
in February we either make the aye or naye and not keep putting this thing off forever and ever and ever. So I -- we just can't keep deferring it. I mean they come back with everything
we asked in April and the plans get passed and we knew at that time we was going into a north corridor study and everything else and nothing was said at the time to them. So let's be
fair with the people.
Corrie: No. It wasn't April. What did you mean when you said April?
Bird: In April we had been talking about the north corridor.
Corrie: Oh, I see what you mean. Okay.
Bird: This year.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I would agree to a certain extent. I think a lot of things come up and you have to be able to adapt to those, too. We realized during this last budget session that we have
some real serious issues that need to be addressed and we tried doing that through a mill levy and also the city attempted by the development community, in conjunction with a number
of governmental agencies, to have a good faith effort trying to address issues that have risen since then. So I would agree that we need to be quick in acting on this, too, when we
have the information that we can do that. So I would make a motion to defer or continue this Public Hearing until February 19, 2002.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made to continue this Public Hearing on --
Bird: All three.
Corrie: All three, Sundance Subdivision and the annexation and zoning, Preliminary Plat, and request for a Conditional Use Permit until February 19, 2002. Any further discussion? Okay.
All those in favor of that motion? All ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10. Public Hearing: PFP 01-005 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of 3 building lots on 5.21 acres in an L-O zone for Mystery View Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers,
Inc. – 2930 East Magic View Drive:
Corrie: Okay. We will do that, Steve. Item No. 10, Public Hearing request for Preliminary and Final Plat approval for 3 building lots on 5.21 acres in an L-O zone for Mystery View
Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. At this time I will open the Public Hearing on the request and invite staff comments first.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. This is another project that you have seen before in a different format. This was brought to you earlier as a Conditional Use
Permit for a certain number of buildings on a specific lot. The applicant has now requested that those different buildings be allowed to have individual lots, so
they have requested a three lot subdivision at this location, northeast -- in the northwest corner there on the overhead. If I could direct your attention to the recommendation of the
City Council, Page Number 2. There are a few items that have changed since this applicant was brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission that I'd like to address. I spent a little
bit of time talking with the applicant this afternoon. If I could get you to turn to page, Item No. 2, on the recommendations. They submitted Landscape Plans -- there were Conditional
Use Permits that were already issued for the Lincoln Plaza and for the Mountain West Bank. Both of those buildings have already been constructed. Landscaping has already been installed.
Additionally, the third lot there is not building -- no building is proposed at this time. The landscaping has been extended across the back of Greenhill Estates and so has the fencing.
Irrigation has been put in. So that would nullify, essentially, the effects of item two, which require a detailed Landscape Plan, Number three, a detailed irrigation plan, due to
the fact that the irrigation is already in. Item Number four, all the landscaping and fencing adjacent to Greenhill Estates shall be installed prior to issuing a Certificate of Occupancy.
It nullifies that. Number five, that all of the required perimeter landscaping and fencing shall be bonded for prior to signature on the Final Plat. Due to the fact that the landscaping
and fencing is already installed, there would be no requirement for them to bond for that. Additionally, Item Number 6, there are no trees of a 4-inch caliper size on that lot, so there
won't be any requirement for mitigation of that. All those items could be removed from this application and the staff recommends that that be done. At this time there is only one lot
left, it's a 30,000 square foot lot. It's in the northwest corner of this project. I have no other comments. If you have any questions I'll stand for questions.
Corrie: Council have any comments or questions for staff?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. This is a Public Hearing and is there anyone from the public who would like to testify in this request for the Preliminary/Final approval of 3 building lots? I'm sorry.
The applicant.
Boyle: That's all right. Mayor and City Council, Clint Boyle with Pinnacle Engineers, 12552 West Executive Drive in Boise, Idaho. I just want to get up here in front of you and concur
with staff's report. We agree with the recommendations that staff just outlined and that are found in the findings. With those exceptions the staff just noted -- and just to breeze through
those again. Item Number 2, Item Number 3, Item Number 4, and 5 all relate to landscape buffers and fencing. That landscaping and fencing has been installed. It's in place now. So
there is fencing along the entire perimeter boundary adjacent to Greenhill Estates, as well as landscaping is in place along that boundary. Outside of that there is one final lot to
be developed that is in the northwest portion and, again, additional landscaping per the individual site will come into play and that is noted under Condition No. 7 related to the interior
landscaping related to that site. So with that, again, Item 2, 3, 4 and 5 we would request to be struck from the Findings of Fact and recommendation for this project. Item Number 6,
as the staff mentioned, there are no trees over 4 inch in caliper, so if you want to leave that
comment on, it really has no bearing on the project and could also be removed if you so chose to do that, but we don't have a problem with that one staying on there as well. The two
other lots in question have already been developed as well and have landscaping and irrigation that has already been installed on the site. With that I will entertain any questions.
Corrie: Council?
De Weerd: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
Boyle: Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Now I can ask in a proper order. Is there anyone from the public that would like to issue testimony? Okay. Hearing none, Council, any discussion?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: I have none.
Corrie: I'll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Anderson: So move.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to close the Public Hearing on Item -- Preliminary and Final Plat 005 signify by saying aye. Oppose no. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Council, any discussion on the request for Preliminary/Final Plat?
Bird: None.
De Weerd: No.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: No discussion, I would move that we have the attorney draw up Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order for the approval of 3 building lots on 5.21 acres in
an L-O zone for Mystery View Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., 2930
East Magic View Drive and with the noted changes of taking out the items noted, 4, 5, 6-- 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts for the Preliminary/Final Plat and exclusions. Any further discussion? Hearing none,
Mr. Clerk, roll call vote, please.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion carried. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 01-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 1 building lot on 2.44 acres in a C-G zone for proposed Commercial Tire Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers,
Inc. – South Meridian Road and south of the Eight Mile Lateral:
Item 12. Public Hearing: CUP 01-031 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a tire facility and retail store in a C-G zone for proposed Commercial Tire Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers,
Inc. – South Meridian Road and south of the Eight Mile Lateral:
Corrie: Items 11 and 12 is the Commercial Tire, one is for a Preliminary Plat and the other for a Conditional Use Permit. Item No. 11 is a request for Preliminary Plat approval of
one building lot on 2.44 acres in a C-G zone for proposed Commercial Tire Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineering. Item No. 12 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a tire facility
and retail store in the proposed Commercial Tire Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineering. With Council's approval I would open the Public Hearing for both 11 and 12 to hear testimony on
the two requested items.
Bird: Agree.
Corrie: Okay. Then I will open the Public Hearing for Items 11 and 12 and staff comments first, please.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. This is a project, which before you tonight as a Preliminary Plat, not a Preliminary/Final Plat. The reason for that is the Pennwood
Street will be dedicated. Our ordinances require that if there is ever a dedication of a public right of way the process goes Preliminary Plat, then Final Plat. This is actually a
one-lot subdivision. The only lot that they are creating is taking the hash marked areas that are up on that map right there in the middle of the overhead, they are taking those smaller
lots, creating one larger lot, and then they are going to dedicate the right of way and approve Pennwood Road through the stub area
to the west. The Conditional Use Permit, as the Mayor stated, is for a tire facility and that will have bays that will open out directly to the Meridian Road and the bays also open
towards Pennwood. To the north of this project there are apartment buildings. I went out to the site again today. During the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing there was some
discussion as to how far away those apartments are from this project. I went and paced it off. The actual -- the actual apartments that are adjacent to Meridian Road -- there is one
that's further back and I will address that -- they are over 100 feet from the project. In addition to that there is a lot -- there is an apartment building that's over 180 feet to
the rear of the property that won't be -- that actually doesn't line up with the rest of the buildings. There is no wall that's been proposed. At the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting there was some discussion concerning whether or not there should be a sound buffer between the two, a concrete wall or a fence of some sort. The Commission came down to the
decision that additional landscaping would be preferable to a solid wall. A solid wall provides no visual benefit, to where the landscaping can provide visual benefits, as well as the
auditory benefit from the buffering of noise. The Commission requested that additional landscaping be put in at that time in the northeast corner of the property. That is the only
area that is adjacent to the apartment building that is open. There is some open areas of the parking. The additional landscaping in that area would provide a buffer for that and it
would also buffer the noise. At the Commission meeting there was no specific type of landscaping that was requested. It says additional landscaping be installed that would provide
a buffer, fast-growing shrubs and evergreen trees, but there was not decision as to what type of landscaping there is. With that I would ask if there is any questions and turn the time
back over to you.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you, staff. Is the developer here this evening?
Boyle: Mayor and City Council Members, Clint Boyle again with Pinnacle Engineers, 13552 West Executive Drive. I wish my address were shorter. Appreciate the opportunity to be in front
of you again this evening with this request, again, for a -- oh, I'm trying to figure out what to call it myself, a single lot subdivision, I guess, though we are not technically subdividing
anything, we are platting a single lot parcel from a lot plat and with that plat, if you have it in front of you, again, it's for a single lot and we are proposing to connect Pennwood
Street to Meridian Road, so we will provide a connectivity for Meridian Road through the Traveler Business Park area, which I have a street that also hooks up to Franklin Road and will
provide some connections within that area. As far as the staff comments go -- and I appreciate Dave's comments on this -- we have reviewed the items in the recommendation for both
the Conditional Use Permit and the Preliminary Plat and this one is somewhat unique in that all of the landscaping and drainage and irrigation will -- for the subdivision will also be
running concurrent with the development of the building and the site and I didn't have any specific objections to any of the comments that were listed. As Dave mentioned, there was
some discussion related to buffering. First of all, I just want to point out on the site plan, this is an exterior wall. The interior of the building itself has some sound
attenuation measures that will reduce the noise that is admitted from within the building, so there is -- there shouldn't be any sound or very minimal sound that would escape through
the walls. The bays face out towards Meridian Road and also out towards the west from this location here. What the Planning Commission was looking at was potentially some screening
and sound issues within this area here and how it may impact the apartment uses and also I believe there is an apartment further back in this area and the developer at that time did
not want to propose a fence or a wall, he felt that he had provided substantial landscaping, would be willing to provide some additional shrubbery and tree plantings to further reduce
noise and potentially sight issues with those apartments. There are -- I think there is just one. Maybe Dave can clarify. There is an existing evergreen tree out there --
McKinnon: There are two existing evergreens.
Boyle: Two existing evergreens within this location here and then he also in the Landscape Plan has some plantings in there and he could increase those plantings and -- I don't know
if the Council wants to put specific numbers on three or shrubs, but we are willing to work with the staff to come up with an adequate screening and buffer level for those apartments
that are next door. As Dave mentioned, those apartments are not immediately adjacent to this site as far as the building themselves. You do have an irrigation lateral that extends --
you saw on the site picture along the north portion of the site. The apartments have their parking drive aisles and parking area, as well as some of their landscaping that enters the
site and then the buildings are beyond that. So there is some -- there is a substantial amount of distance as well between say our parking area -- I think the biggest factor that came
into play was the sound that could potentially be emitted from the bays, with the people changing tires and whatnot, rather than just noise from the parking area, because the apartments
already have noise from their existing drive and parking area. And with that I'll entertain any questions.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Do you have -- Clint, is that drawing trees along there? Are you going to put those in there or --
Boyle: That is an existing. That's an existing. There are trees. New plantings.
Corrie: Okay.
Boyle: As part of the Conditional Use Permit that you see along that north boundary.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I think it's not really a question, I guess it's more of a comment and I would concur, I think the landscaping is a much more appeasing way of doing some of that sound buffering
between the apartments and that, but as you know, as well as I do, that quite often, even though you have bays there, cars will pull in front of a bay, and they
will pull their hoses outside, and they will change tires outside and those impact wrenches are very noisy and I would encourage you -- and I'm not a landscape engineer by any means,
but I would encourage you to put real heavy buffering and landscaping in that area to the north of that parking lot there, because, otherwise, we are going to have continual complaints
from the neighbors. Even though they have a parking lot there, pulling a car into a parking lot and getting out of it doesn't generate near the noise as busting tires and changing tires
does. So common sense would say that area probably needs to be thicker as it gets down to that end close to Meridian Road and next to that parking lot and anything you can do to add
buffering there would be greatly appreciated.
Boyle: Okay. With that comment -- I appreciate that Mayor and Council Member Anderson. With that in mind, the other advantage to this is the hours are also restricted. I concurred
with them. The hours did get brought up at the meeting.
De Weerd: 7:30 to 6:00?
Boyle: 7:30 to 6:00 at night. So I guess just, you know, it's not going to be an activity that will have noise impacts late into the evening, you know, as far as that goes. The store
is not proposed to be open on Sundays as well. So hopefully -- and I realize your concern with the sound as well. One of the benefits is that it isn't open late into the evening hours
either, so hopefully that will help with people being gone to work for the most part when the noise is occurring.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Just one comment. I think that our staff is very talented with the landscape issue and I don't have any problems with you working with our staff on how to go about landscaping
that northeast corner.
Boyle: I appreciate that. I would agree.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Clint.
Boyle: Thank you very much.
Corrie: Is there anyone from the public who would like to issue testimony at this time? Okay. Thank you. Council, any other discussion for the Public Hearing?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Then I will entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on the Preliminary Plat and request for Conditional Use Permit.
Bird: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor of the motion say aye. All ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Okay. Discussion, Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion on the request for Preliminary Plat.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the request for Preliminary Plat of one building lot on 2.44 acres in a C-G zone for the proposed Commercial Tire Subdivision and have the attorney
draw up the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and second to have the attorney draw up Findings of Fact and Conclusions and Order with the recommendation of approval for the Preliminary Plat,
Item PP 01-018 for Commercial Tire Subdivision. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Any further discussion on the Conditional Use Permit?
Bird: I have nothing.
Corrie: Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion on the request.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the request for Conditional Use Permit for the proposed Commercial Tire Subdivision in an C-G zone and ask the attorney to draw up the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and second to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order in the affirmative for the Conditional
Use Permit of the Commercial Tire request 01-031. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion has been carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13. Public Hearing: VAR 01-013 Request for a Variance to keep the existing Bucket Sign at Kentucky Fried Chicken location in a C-G zone for Kentucky Fried Chicken by Nampa Neon,
Inc. – 677 East 1st:
Corrie: Item 13 is a Public Hearing, a request for a Variance to keep the existing Bucket Sign at the Kentucky Fried Chicken location in a C-G zone for Kentucky Fried Chicken by Nampa
Neon, Incorporated, 677 E. 1st. So at this time I will open the Public Hearing on the request for the variance and have staff comments first, please.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. I guess it's not that often we have the opportunity to talk about a little pop culture that's involved here in the City of Meridian.
You can see on the photos that we have got on the screen right there that that's the existing bucket that's been in existence for over 20 years in the City of Meridian, somewhat of
a landmark at this point. As you know, there has been an application to abandon the existing Kentucky Fried Chicken building and build a new Kentucky Fried Chicken/A&W building to the
south of this project. In order to continue to use this sign they have to -- the applicant has had to request a Variance from our new Sign Code. If I could just direct your attention
to the Sign Code. I don't know if you have a copy of it, but the section is 11-14-A, Item Number 6 under D of that section, it says the requirement that any time we change a site by
more than 25 percent, all nonconforming signs upon that site need to be removed. This is the first time that this part of the Sign Code actually addressed any signs in the City of Meridian,
so we do have a new ordinance and so we haven't flushed everything out with that. The staff report, as you notice in your packet, there isn't one in existence. When I talked to Shari
last night, she wanted me to point out to you that there are findings that do go along with the Variance, that staff is not stating an objection of the sign, the location of the sign,
however, due to the fact that there is a new ordinance in place that it's hard for
the staff to go against ordinance and support a variance at this time. However, there is no objection to the existence and the location of the sign at this time. As you know, the findings
that are required for you to find for the variance are located in our code book under the chapter -- well, actually Title 11, Chapter 18, No. 3, the findings that are required on a variance.
Those Variance -- I'll briefly go over those for you tonight. It says no special circumstances or conditions affecting the property where strict application of the provision will clearly
be impractical or unreasonable. In sort, is there anything that makes it impractical about requiring the applicant to remove this? B, the strict compliance of the requirements of this
Title will result in extraordinary hardship to the owner. Obviously, to take down a sign that's been in existence of that dimension would be somewhat of a hardship. Number C under the
findings that are required. The granting of a specified Variance will not be done detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to other properties in the area to which the property
is suited. Staff has a hard time finding that this would actually be injurious to other properties in the area. D. That such Variance will not have the effect of altering the interest
or purposes titled in the Comprehensive Plan. That's a sticky point, because we do have an ordinance that does say -- in part of this title it says that anytime you change the existing
layout of a piece of property by more than 25 percent we are required to change those signs. Finally, the -- actually, those are the findings that we are required to find. I ask the
Council if there are any questions of staff and turn the time back to you.
Corrie: Thanks, David. Any comments? Questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor. David, could you specify why this sign does not meet the current code?
McKinnon: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Nichols, Members of the Council. The applicant has requested that the existing Kentucky Fried Chicken Building be vacated and build a new building directly
to the south of this project. The vacation of the building is in the air right now as to whether or not another business will go into that building or if the building will be demolished.
If I could read for you from our new Sign Ordinance it will explain -- I'll give you a brief explanation and I will read it for you. It says that anytime you change a specific piece
of property's building or layout by more than 25 percent and a nonconforming sign on that property exists the sign is no longer legally nonconforming and must be removed. I'll read
that for you. It's under Section 11-14-8, B. Legal nonconforming. Any sign which does not conform to the requirements of this code, but which is legally erected in any of the following
circumstances: A, a valid permit was issued for the sign prior to the adoption of the code. Or, 2, that the sign required -- the sign required no permit, but was a legal sign prior
to the adoption of this code. No temporary or prohibited signs shall be eligible for legal nonconforming status. That's really not the issue. This was a sign that was legally established
and that's not something that's arguable. However, further in the reading it
says a legal nonconforming sign shall lose it's legal nonconforming status if one of the following situations occurs. Item Number 6. There are alterations or enlargements to the site
or building on the property in excess of 25 percent or more of the existing site or building. The amount of alterations shall be cumulative over time. Or the legal nonconforming sign
has been damaged to the extent of more than 50 percent of it's reproduction value. The site plan has changed. We are adding a new building. That's significantly more than 25 percent
change to the property. We are essentially removing the use of the building, adding a new building, and staff feels that is, in fact, changing or altering the use of the property by
more than 25 percent, thus requiring a variance.
Corrie: Council, do you agree or disagree with that?
Nichols: Well, Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't disagree that that's what the ordinance says. My question is why is this sign nonconforming? Is it too tall?
McKinnon: It's too tall and it's too large.
Nichols: Okay. That's -- that's what I was asking.
Corrie: Okay. Is the applicant here this evening? Yes.
Harold: Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, my name is Ron Harold. I'm with Nampa Neon at 3209 Garrity Blvd. in Nampa, Idaho, 83687. We are requesting that the variance be approved on
this sign and the reason being, as -- obviously, as staff said, it's been there for 20 years. We could see the point if he was -- there wasn't a Kentucky Fried Chicken there and we
were asking to put up a brand new one that didn't meet Sign Code. At this time we do feel that he is getting highway traffic off of there, he has gotten highway traffic off of there,
and we don't believe that it should come down. If it does come down we do believe that it will hurt his business somewhat.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I just have a question. Since you're remodeling the restaurant and you're adding an A&W, are you going to be hanging additional things off of this sign? Is that your intent?
Harold: The discussion I had with staff when I put in for the variance was because of our two roads running along there, which is Meridian and First Street, the code says that he can
have two pole signs and we were in agreement with the owner of the business that if this variance is approved through staff we told them that we would not shoot for the two pole signs
on two streets, just the one and this. So there will be -- but every other sign in that package will be into code. So, yes, in answer to your question there
will be additional signage.
Anderson: But on this pole?
Harold: Not on this pole. This pole will stay exactly the way it is.
Anderson: Okay.
McKinnon: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I just thought of one additional -- there is actually a few items that make this sign nonconforming. The new Sign Code requires that all
pole signs have cladding around the pole, some sort of wrap, a decorative wrap, which, obviously, from the pictures this doesn't. There is a few reasons why it's nonconforming, other
than just the size and height.
Corrie: Anything else?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Anybody from the public that would like to issue testimony?
Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin. My address is 380 East Park Center Blvd. I'd like to say that I think this is a great sign and I'm an avid consumer of Kentucky Fried Chicken products.
I just wanted you to know I sat on a committee for about a year. We had monthly meetings and sometimes more frequently within and we wrote the ordinance for -- the new sign ordinance
for Meridian and this very type of subject came up. When we were looking at the existing signs in our workshop session, we brought in many experts from the industry, we looked at codes
from cities throughout the country, the intent in drafting the ordinance was how do you bring -- really, how do you bring signs into conformance when you say, oh, let's pass an ordinance
and go out and give everyone 3 years to tear down their signs and bring them into conformance. But this very subject came up and it was sensitive and it took a long time. If U.S. Bank
has a sign that doesn't meet code and Wells Fargo buys them and they want to change it, this gives the city a method in which to bring the signs gradually into compliance. I just have
to tell you, without -- without enforcement of that, the next one that comes along -- you know, I love Kentucky Fried Chicken and I wouldn't testify in opposition to Kentucky Fried Chicken,
but you might not like, you know, another use or another sign and this is really the only way that the Council and the City has to eventually, in the long run, bring all of the signs
in the City of Meridian into the modern day sign code. This is close to the highway. There is -- in my recollection there is a separate section in the ordinance for highway signage
and that gives people within a certain distance of the highway greater signage and this exceeds that greater signage. So this is a specific example in our workshop and I think -- I
don't know if any of you were in those workshops with us, but it's a specific example that we talked about. Exactly. And whether it was rotating -- the city doesn't allow rotating
signs and to make it not rotate, what if it was flashing --
this is the only remedy you have to eventually bring all the signs into compliance. I just wanted you to be aware of that discussion.
Corrie: Thank you, Larry. Appreciate that. Any questions of Larry?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Is there anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony? Okay. Hearing none, Council discussion for Public Hearing record? Okay. Since they are not all talking
at once, I will entertain a motion, then, to close the Public Hearing.
Bird: So move.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and second to close the Public Hearing for the variance on the existing bucket sign at Kentucky Fried Chicken. Further discussion? Hearing none,
all those in favor of the motion say aye. All ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Corrie: Discussion on the request?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess I'll just throw this up for discussion. When I first read this application and when I listened to it, I was thinking to myself I really don't have any problem with
this sign. It's been there for 20 some years and haven't had a lot of complaints and things like this, but then after I listened to Mr. Durkin’s testimony I'm actually thinking, yeah,
he's right, we probably have a lot of nonconforming signs out there and by making -- or putting in effect the ordinance that we did, this would be our -- our chance to eliminate these
types of signs and we said in our ordinance that we didn't like these types of signs and now we have the opportunity here to eliminate one of those and it seems like we are probably
all leaning towards leaving it. It's not that bad of a thing. So it makes me ask the logical question does the ordinance say what we want it to say? If we don't mind that sign --
I mean it's close to that 300 foot that we talked about to the interstate and things like that. But I don't know. It's -- it's a dilemma for me, because I really don't find this sign
all that offensive in the particular location it is, but I find myself in conflict with our City Ordinance. I just throw that out for discussion.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Ms. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Having sat on that sign committee I was also part of that conversation and also realize the intent of what this ordinance was supposed to do. It's a Pandora's Box, isn't
it? You know, there are signs out there that are offensive that it was meant to replace and -- you know, but if you're not going to be consistent it does really make it difficult.
Corrie: Any further comment?
Bird: I have none.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I'd just throw out one more additional comment, that the minute you start to make exceptions and allow these types of Variances -- and I speak from first-hand experience,
because I'm married to a woman who works in the sign industry, she will be in here next week saying, hey, you granted this variance for KFC and I want one for this other business and,
fortunately, I'm off the Council in January and I won't have to be the one making those decisions, it will be you folks, but I just think that you really set a precedent when you pass
an ordinance and then you go ahead and grant variances for it. So that having been said, I would make a motion to deny this variance.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to deny the request of the variance. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion for denial is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 14. Public Hearing: VAR 01-014 Request for a variance for the requirement to record the Final Plat within one year of approval by City Council in an R-4 zone for Pintail Pointe
Subdivision by Kelly Hunemiller – south of West Cherry Lane and east of North Black Cat Road:
Corrie: Okay. Item No. 15 is a request to --
Bird: No, 14.
Corrie: -- appeal the decision to withhold building permits for Lot 13 of Block 2 until annexation is approved and final for Packard Subdivision by Packard Estates Developers, LLC.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. Don't we formally have to take 14 and --
Corrie: Oh, I'm sorry. My apologies. We have a Public Hearing on a request for a variance for the requirement to record the final plat within a year of approval by the City Council
in an R-4 zone by Pintail Pointe Subdivision. We have been requested by the applicant to table that until the next meeting due to the fact that they did not have the -- because the
signage was not properly posted correctly. So is there anyone here who wishes to testify at this time on this? We will probably table that to the next meeting and you will have a chance
to testify at that time, but since it is a Public Hearing -- McKinnon: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council --
Corrie: -- I will have to open the Public Hearing and then we will continue it at that point. So, all right, I will open the Public Hearing --
McKinnon: Mr. Mayor, before you open the Public Hearing, I'd ask you to defer to our attorney Mr. Nichols. Can we open the Public Hearing when the property was not posted correctly?
Corrie: I guess I'm -- it was posted as a Public Hearing, but it wasn't -- there may be some people here -- all right. Go ahead.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I believe it was published as a Public Hearing, but the property itself was not posted. So if you -- you can table this to a date certain
-- you haven't opened the hearing. It allows the applicant to post the property with the correct date and time -- excuse me. Mr. Clerk, do you have -- Mr. Mayor, I believe the Clerk
has some input.
Corrie: Okay.
Berg: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council. Unfortunately, this is one of those three legged stools things that the requirement is three things and that's according to
our ordinance, not the state statute.
McKinnon: That's correct.
Berg: But I still have to re-notice it in the paper and re-notice the property owners around. So it's just like setting up a brand new hearing, because I have to do those notices because
of one thing that didn't get completed. Is that correct of my understanding of what the --
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Members of the Council, with the input from the City Clerk, my recommendation is that you table this to a new date that is sufficient to allow the Clerk to do his part of it
and the applicant to post the property and I believe that under those circumstances the applicant pay the additional noticing and publication costs.
Corrie: So we can table without opening the Public Hearing?
Nichols: You can table it. You can't continue it without opening.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, with that input I would move that we table the request for variance for requirement to record the Final Plat within one year of approval of City Council in an R-4 zone
for Pintail Pointe Subdivision by Kelly Hunemiller, south of West Cherry Lane and east of North Black Cat Road until December 18, 2001.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion to table the request for Variance until December 18, 2001. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. All ayes. Motion
carries. It will be tabled until the December 18th meeting.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 15. AP 01-003 Request to appeal the decision to withhold Building Permits for Lot 13 of Block 2 until annexation is approved and finalized for Packard Acres No. 1 by Packard Estates
Developers, LLC:
Corrie: Okay. Item No. 15 is a request to appeal the decision to withhold Building Permits for Lot 13, Block 2, until annexation is approved and finalized at Packard Acres No. 1 by Packard
Estate Developers, LLC.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Can I state something here?
Corrie: Sure. Go ahead.
Bird: Mrs. Sharp called me today and we -- regarding this and we did not discuss anything in particular. I just -- but I do want to let you know that I did have a phone call from Mrs.
Sharp and nothing was discussed.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I think it's also important to note that at a workshop we did have a discussion with Mr. Groves regarding this issue.
Corrie: The records also show that no decision was made at anytime during the discussions in the workshop. So I guess we will have the applicant for the appeal to the City Council.
Groves: Mayor, City Council, my name is Craig Groves, I reside at 3920 East Shady Glen Court in Boise, 83706. We requested an appeal of the -- an appeal to the decision to withhold
a building permit for Lot 13, Block 2 of Packard Acres Subdivision No. 1. We had a work session on this issue. I think it's fairly cut and dried. We sold this home site when it was
Preliminarily Platted, but prior to Final Plat, on a reservation to Mr. Hohn -- and he's here this evening -- in February of 2001 Mr. Hohn sold his existing home, he's in a rental house,
and he would like to get under construction on his home on this particular lot. He has agreed to enter into an agreement that should the annexation of this 13 and a half wide strip
of ground, roughly 8,500 square feet, is denied by the City Council, that he would participate in amending that Final Plat at our public. At our P&Z, Planning and Zoning Public Hearing
last Tuesday night -- or Thursday night, I'm sorry, there was a recommendation by Planning and Zoning to recommend approval of that annexation to City Council and if you have questions
I'd be happy to answer those.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Anyone else have any questions? Okay. Council, discussion? Staff, do you have any comments?
McKinnon: No comments.
Corrie: Okay. Mr. Nichols?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, the record should reflect that a letter from Helen Sharp and Dale Sharp was received dated November 20, 2001, and should be part of the record on this appeal and
I believe the Clerk has furnished a copy to Mr. Groves.
Groves: Do I need to address anything on the record that --
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I think that would be very appropriate.
Corrie: Mr. Groves.
Groves: The issue that I recall in that letter has to do with the suitability of Wingate Lane in terms of a requirement in our development agreement to bring the street back to its
normal condition or accessible condition. I had met with Mr. and Mrs. Sharp personally about 30 days ago. I did talk with the code enforcement officer -- Mr. Burns is that it? Okay.
Fred Burns. What the issue is -- there is a two stub -- there is one stub street -- well, there are actually two stub streets, but there is one stub street that's stubbed right into
Wingate Lane. The stub street is roughly 18 inches lower than the lane. I told Mr. and Mrs. Sharp at the time that the appropriate way to fix it would be to change the grade of the
lane, so that there is less than a 2 percent slope coming down to that stub street, because if we have the lane 18 inches higher than the stub street, over time, since that lane is only
15 feet wide, the lane is going to continue to slough off into the public stub street. Okay. I told them at the time, 30 days ago, that as soon as we had a pre-construction meeting
for Packard Acres No. 2 and I had my grader out there grubbing the subdivision out, that I would fix the lane right then and there and we expect those plans to come out of the city momentarily.
Thank you.
Corrie: Any questions on the -- council?
Anderson: I did have one question for Craig. In your discussion, then, with the Sharps, were they amenable to that lowering the grade 18 inches and sloping it back or were they opposed
to that?
Groves: I'm not completely sure what Mr. and Mrs. Sharp would prefer or would not prefer, but it's the only -- really the only way to fix it, you know. You know, the plans were approved
by ACHD for Packard Acres, they were reviewed by the City Engineer, the streets were designed for the drainage retention pond. In that one little section the lane is -- you know, on
one side it's 12 inches, on the other side it's 18 inches higher than the public street. You know, we can -- we can grade the lane so that, you know, over -- you know, over a 150-foot
length down the lane a one to two percent grade, you won't hardly notice the difference. If you go down there and look at the lane now, it goes up and down all the way from Mr. and
Mrs. Sharp's house clear to Ustick Road, so --
Anderson: Is there a possibility a piece of corrugated pipe or something could be put in as an interim fix?
Groves: No. No. I mean I don't see that as a long-term solution.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Craig, what are we talking about in time? I know this doesn't affect you, but you know, the lane has been promised a lot of stuff that never has come through prior to you taking
this over. I mean what is a reasonable time? Is your crew going to be out there in a month or 6 weeks or --
Groves: Well, we need to have a pre-construction meeting and I'll have my street excavator -- street contractor, when they are grubbing out the streets for the new phase, will just
fix the lane right then and there. I mean weather is going to be an issue right now.
Bird: Yes.
Groves: But, you know, if I can have those plans and we can get a pre-construction meeting in the next short little bit, if the weather will hold, we can have it done in a day, day
and a half at the most. But, you know, I'm not going to commit to a time period here, Mr. Bird, because I don't know what the weather is going to do. If it becomes an issue throughout
the winter, I will do my very, very best to make sure that Mr. and Mrs. Sharp have access to their home.
Corrie: They have access now, don't they?
Groves: Yes, they do. Absolutely.
Corrie: Do we have anything from the city the time frame or -- Brad?
Watson: Mr. Mayor and Council Members, I don't ordinarily review Development Plans, I do, however, have to review this one, because the South Slough is going through it, and they are
in my office and they were given to me late last week. I believe we have had them a week and a half, two weeks on the first review, but what -- the hitch in getting approval on this
one is that there is some irrigation -- gravity irrigation that affects Mr. Allmon, who we are trying to get an easement from on the South Slough. So I wouldn't envision these being
turned loose next week.
Groves: But your issues with Mr. Allmon on that gravity irrigation we have already -- we have got an approved design for that gravity irrigation work that Mr. Allmon's already signed
off on.
Watson: Mr. Groves, Mayor and Council, I'm unaware of that. The plans that I do have in front of me were very sketchy. If there is something, that's great.
Groves: Okay. I just -- you know, anyway, we can talk about that --
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I have one more question. Craig, was your condition to return Wingate Lane to its original state, is it tied into the next phase that's in approval or is it tied into the
phase that you built?
Groves: Well, we did bring Wingate Lane back to its original state when we finished Phase 1. You know, we put down new gravel, we compacted it, we brought it back to what we thought
was its original state. The issue is, is that because the lane is higher than the public stub street, over time with weather, you know, the side of the lane deteriorates and right now
the side of the lane is deteriorating anywhere from eight inches to maybe 12 inches into the lane and if it deteriorates a foot or a foot and a half or 2 foot, then, you know, it could
be a problem. But I can assure you that if that were the case, we would be out there and we would be fixing it.
Anderson: Is that deterioration being caused by water that's backing up on your road in the new phase or what's deteriorating it? Because we haven't had a lot of rainy weather until
last week.
Groves: I don't know if I can answer that, Ron. I wish I could, but -- you know, you'd have to really go out there and look at it. I mean I know I can fix it, but --
Anderson: Well, I guess I'm just thinking in consideration for them and since that was one of the conditions that maybe waiting until you get approval of the second phase isn't what
we ought to be looking at here, but just getting out there and getting it fixed now. I know it's more cost effective to wait until your digger is there --
Groves: Well, sure. That could be -- I mean, you know, I'm completely open, but on the other side of the thing, you know, on the other side of the coin, if we are going to go to that
point, let's go ahead and enforce every single aspect of the Development Agreement. We are doing things right now out there that were not approved by this Council for -- specifically
for Mr. and Mrs. Sharp and that's not -- you know, it can't be two ways. You know, it can't be one way for them and the other way for us. It's got to be either black and white or not
at all.
Anderson: I don't know what specific things you --
Groves: Well, we don't need to bring that up at this point.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions from --
Bird: I have no more.
Sharp: My question is -- this is not a Public Hearing, but if the applicant gets to speak, do we get to comment?
Corrie: Okay. Well, you know, technically, no, but you're involved this. I will permit it
this time just to hear what you have to say, Mrs. Sharp. I think it's only fair we do that for you.
Sharp: Thank you.
Corrie: We are not ugly guys with horns, so --
Sharp: Thank you. I appreciate that, Mayor and Council people. I'm a little confused here, but that's nothing too terribly new. One thing I -- Building Permits for Lot 13, he's asking
you to give him a Building Permit in the City of Meridian and it hasn't been annexed. That won't happen until your next meeting when it's brought before the board and it's rezoned and
annexed. I can't believe that, you know, we are putting the cart before the horse and since he wouldn't name off anything he's done to satisfy Mr. and Mrs. Sharp, I'd like to hear at
least just one. Back to the lane being put back in its shape right after they were done, as I mentioned in my note, Shari Stiles has pictures of that lane that were taken shortly after
the completion of the fence. We were told when that was done that the road would be re-put in condition. If there is a problem because of the -- the height variance, that's not the
residents on Wingate Lane's problem, that's the developer who caused the problem, even though it's a public street going into Wingate Lane. My husband put sod down in there from the
older house that's there making that driveway, so he put it in and if we should have snow it could slide right into that fence. We have had very bad snow drifts on that lane to the
tune of the fact that nobody had a plow, we are a private lane, so the city doesn't plow it, we had to walk down Wingate Lane, because we couldn't get our vehicles down there and with
fencing that we will have now on both sides, we don't know the problems we are going to have and I can't believe if I call Mr. Groves at 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning or 5:00 or 6:00
in the morning, come and get me down Wingate Lane, he's going to be there to do it. Let's get real. And I -- like I say, I'd like to see the conditions he did to satisfy us. We were
trying to make him to comply with what was requested on that part of the subdivision and not the second part, so he's waiting to get this second approval before he takes care of the
lane. As you said, Mr. -- excuse me -- Anderson, I don't think that's fair to anybody. Not just us, but to those that use Wingate Lane. Thank you. I appreciate you letting me talk.
Corrie: Thank you. Council, any questions?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I think there needs to be a clarity. The question in front of us is that the Building Permit would be on annexed land that the amount of -- that this piece that needs to
be annexed is not required to build on. They would still meet their same setback -- the required setback and everything, it's just a piece that runs along the backside of this piece
of property -- is that correct, David?
McKinnon: That's correct.
De Weerd: Okay. So it's legal -- if they get the Building Permit they are still meeting the legal requirements for their setbacks, it's just the piece of land in question that would
not affect a legal Building Permit.
McKinnon: Councilwoman de Weerd, that is correct.
De Weerd: Okay.
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Hearing none, I will request motion on the appeal of the decision to withhold a Building Permit on Lot 13 of Block 2 until annexation is
approved.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we grant the request for appeal for the decision to withhold the Building Permits on Lot 13 of Block 2 until annexation is approved and finalized
for Packard Acres No. 1 by Packard Estates Developers, LLC.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and second to grant the appeal on the request to withhold the Building Permits on Lot 13 of Block 2 until annexation is approved and finalized for
Packard Acres No. 1 by Developers, LLC. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess I would just like to comment a little bit and add a little bit on what Tammy was saying and just -- I guess for the applicant and for the Sharp's sake in this case.
Part of the reason why I feel the way I do and that I think that we should grant this appeal is that the individual that bought this lot is living in a rental home and he's been waiting
several months now to build this house and this is really kind of a technicality that this additional piece of property wasn't added in there. So by not allowing this building permit
to be issued, we are not penalizing Mr. Groves any, we are penalizing the poor guy who is wanting to build his house who is living in a rental and I don't think that's right for us to
do that. I do believe, however, that Craig should go out and try to do what he can to take care of the road, because we have got winter coming on, we have had some wet rainy weather
and that was a condition upon the last approval, not the approval of the next phase, and so I think it's only appropriate that he try to do what he can to take care of that situation
for them and I would appreciate it.
Bird: I'd echo that.
Anderson: Those are my comments.
Corrie: Thank you. Any other comments?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'd agree with Ron 100 percent. Craig, get out there and see what we can get done and as soon as your equipment gets on the deal, get over there and get that fixed for them,
because, you know, it's not right.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: You know, I -- these are two separate things, but, you know, I can appreciate -- I know every time we have Wingate or this subdivision in front of us, Packard, we hear some
-- a lot of the issues that the Sharps are having and right now I don't think it's good enough just saying we want you to do it, I'd like it done by a date certain and leaving things
open-ended, if the weather steps in, you know, there is an excuse or -- it's just too fuzzy for me. You know, I don't know what's realistic, Mr. Groves, to do, but the weather is setting
in and it better be done soon, because then you will have the excuse of the weather and it will be a legitimate excuse. But it still won't satisfy the needs of what needs to be done.
So I don't know if there is a realistic time frame, but I would certainly like to see a time frame imposed if that's a possibility.
Corrie: We have a motion before the -- and it would be out of line at that point until we get the motion taken care of.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I do have one other -- I have one other question.
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: On Wingate Lane -- I think I know the answer myself, but I just want to clarify it. I believe that the only people on Wingate Lane that is probably affected are the Sharps, because
they live the farthest down; am I not right with this?
Groves: There are two properties that are affected. There is a --
Bird: Go up to the mike.
Groves: Mr. Bird, there is two properties that are affected by this issue here. One is Mr. and Mrs. Sharp's home, the other is a home that we own that we currently rent out. We have
to access that home off of Wingate Lane, just like Mr. and Mrs. Sharp do.
Bird: Okay. Thank you.
Corrie: Any further discussion?
Bird: I'm done.
Corrie: Okay. Mr. Berg, if you will give me a roll call vote, please.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. Motion has been carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I'd request a 5 minute recess.
Corrie: Sure. Let's be back here at 8:30. We will have a 5 minute recess.
RECONVENED AT 8:33 P.M.
Item 16. Request for Mediation for CUP Application 01-026 by Avest Limited Partnership:
Corrie: Okay. It's now 8:33. I guess we ran over a little bit, so I will reconvene the City Council. Item No. 16 is a request for mediation for CUP Application 01-026 by Avest Limited
Partnership.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: As I have explained to Council, I do believe I have a conflict of interest and I know of late you haven't allowed me to step down, but I have reiterated my conflict and I
would hope you can allow me to step off of this.
Corrie: Is there any objection, Council?
Bird: I have no problem.
Anderson: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you. You are excused.
(Councilwoman de Weerd stepped down.)
Corrie: Let the record show that we do have a request for a -- from Avest Limited Partnership to appeal -- or ask for a request for mediation for this CUP Application. Our attorney
has explained the statute on this and it's the recommendation of the Council that we have the -- either we can honor the request for mediation or we can refuse it at this point. Is
there -- is that correct, Mr. Attorney?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, as I read the mediation statute in the Local Land Use Planning Act, there is no requirement that mediation has to occur. It can only
occur by agreement of the parties, both the one requesting mediation and the applicable public entity or other interested parties.
Corrie: Okay.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, you should also note for the record a letter from Mr. Durkin, dated November 20, 2001, which was received November 20, 2001. I believe it's
in your Council packets.
Corrie: Mr. Clerk, do you have a copy of that as well, for the record?
Berg: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I do.
Corrie: Does all the Council have copies?
Bird: Yes.
Anderson: Yes.
McCandless: Yes.
Corrie: Okay. I guess the question is -- to the Council, do we want to approve a mediation or to -- or not? Any discussion at this point?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: After I read the state statute -- and I'm not an attorney by any means, but my understanding of that mediation section is that it pertains to the applicants and affected parties
and in this case we are the decision-making or the governing body and that statute doesn't suggest, in my mind, that the governing body or the decision-making body is the one who ought
to be entering into mediation and that that statute has to do with if you have two parties that have a conflict and in this case we are the governing body. So I do not believe the statute
applies in this particular case. Therefore, I would not be in favor of entering into mediation.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I truly agree with Ron after reading that, but I also -- I'll get on the soapbox, although this probably isn't the time to do it. I still believe that we are -- being the --
I guess the positive vote for the application originally, I just -- I don't know how we can deny something when in the same -- in the same development there is the same type of thing.
It's just reversed. You're meeting at the northeast corner on one and you're meeting on the southwest corner on the other one and it's identical. You know, I -- but the mediation, I'm
not for it at all. I don't see -- I think it's for two parties and we are the governing party and I'm not a lawyer by a long shot, but --
Corrie: Okay. Any other comments?
McCandless: The only thing I can say is we have listened to this over and over again and I don't think that we need to enter into a mediation.
Corrie: Okay. Then with the Council's seeming approval here, I will enter a motion, then.
Durkin: Would you allow me to --
Corrie: At this point I don't think it would do any good, Larry. Because we -- this is from our attorney, if you had -- our lawyer. Yes. But the basis of this -- and I'm not doing
this, Larry, is the fact that we have all three Council people in agreement and we have the attorney of city's opinion of this statute, I'm going to deny it at this point, Larry. So,
Council, I will take a motion on the mediation request.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we not enter into mediation for this CUP application, as I do not believe it applies.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and second to not enter into mediation on the Conditional Use Permit of the Application CUP 01-026. Is there any further discussion from Council? Okay.
Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
Corrie: All ayes. The motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSTAINED.
Corrie: We will not enter into. We do have -- I will say we do have a letter from Larry that you do have other avenues that you can go with this and you pointed them out and under
the circumstances we'll have to let you do what you feel is necessary.
Item 17. Request for Late-Comers Agreement for off-site sewer with Golfview No. 5 Subdivision by Seaboard:
Corrie: Okay. With that we have -- Item No. 17 is a request for Late-Comers Agreement for off-site sewer with Golfview No. 4 Subdivision by Seaboard. I guess this is a Request Agreement.
Who is this for, Gary? Who is making this request? Brian McCoy?
Smith: Yes.
Corrie: Okay. Are you going to fill in for -- to hear - the request or -- I don't see any -- is he here?
Smith: No.
Corrie: Okay. Staff comments?
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Bruce Freckleton from our office has been in contact --
Corrie: Excuse me, Gary. Can we have Tammy come back in?
(Councilwoman de Weerd returned.)
Corrie: I'm sorry. Okay. Thank you.
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Bruce Freckleton has been in contact with Mr. Brian McCoy, who is the developer of the Golfview Subdivisions and apparently they have installed some sewer
line outside the confines of their subdivision that will serve other property as part of their development, the to-and-through process. Mr. McCoy is requesting that the city approve
of them entering into a Late-Comers Agreement so that
he can recover some of his costs for the line that is being -- that is serving other parties. I don't have any details on the cost that he is requesting to recover. I think his request
right now is just to enter into a Late-Comers Agreement that would have to be prepared and then come back to you for approval at a later date. This is -- and this is similar to other
developers that have installed sewer and/or water that serve other properties. I'm sorry, I just -- Bruce is on vacation this week and I didn't notice on the agenda, I don't have an
explanation for you of what it involves, other than what Mr. McCoy's letter outlines.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I think that my preference would be that we send this back and get more information -- more detailed information before we even approve a request for a Late-Comers
Agreement. This is sketchy and Gary hasn't been working on it, so, you know, him and Brad, neither one of them have been working on it, so they are in the dark as much as we are. Bruce
being on vacation, I'd like to have some more facts and figures before I agree to it -- going forward with a Late-Comers Fee.
Corrie: Would you like to suggest a date Mr. Bird?
Bird: December 4th would be fine with me, Mayor. I'd make a motion that we table this until December 4th and have staff and Mr. McCoy come back with some better facts and figures.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. The request -- motion is for the request to be tabled until December 4, 2001 and for the staff to come back with an explanation for that. Any further discussion? Hearing
none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 18. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
Corrie: Item No. 18 is water, sewer and trash delinquencies. I would like to ask the Council to request to put that in on the 27th agenda. Being Thanksgiving is the 22nd and 23rd,
we have the 21st as the cutoff and nobody's going to be in town or in the office to turn them back on. So we would like to have that the 22nd with the approval of Council to do that
and have the 28th as the cutoff.
Bird: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second for the cutoff delinquency the 28th, then, and all those in favor say aye. Anybody opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 19. Executive Session
Corrie: Okay. Good. Thank you. Next is Executive Session. It has been requested by the City Attorney, so if we can get a motion on that.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345, F, C, C.
Corrie: Okay. Is there any second?
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. All those in favor of this motion say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: So moved.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Roll call please, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Let the record show that nothing was resolved for voting in the Executive Session. Hearing that, coming out of Executive Session I will entertain a motion to adjourn.
McCandless: So moved.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and second. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:35 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE APPROVED
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK