HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 09-18Meridian City Council Meeting September 18, 2001
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:30 P.M. on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, by President Keith Bird President.
Members Present: Keith Bird, Tammy de Weerd, Cherie McCandless, Ron Anderson.
Members Absent: Mayor Robert Corrie.
Others Present: Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Tom Kuntz, Brad Watson, Tom Kuntz, Ken Bowers, Bill Nichols and Will Berg.
Bird: I'll open the meeting of the Meridian City Council on September 18, 2001, at 6:30 P.M. I'd like to welcome everybody here, especially Troop 138, Boy Scouts. To start our meeting
we will have the Pledge of Allegiance. If everybody will stand and join us we'd appreciate it.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Bird: Thank you. Mr. Clerk, could we have roll call, please.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Tammy de Weerd X Ron Anderson
X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird
O Mayor Robert Corrie
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of July 23, 2001 Joint Meeting/Workshop with ACHD and Ada County Commissioners:
B. Approve minutes of August 21, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting:
C. Approve minutes of August 27, 2001 City Council Joint Meeting/Workshop with ACHD and Ada County Commissioners:
D. Approve minutes of August 28, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting:
E. Approve minutes of August 29, 2001 City Council Special Meeting:
F. Tabled from September 4, 2001: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 01-003 Request for annexation and zoning of 371.42 acres from RUT to R-4 and
C-G zones for a planned development consisting of residential, office and commercial uses for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development Company – 2420 Ustick
Road:
G. Tabled from September 4, 2001: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 01-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 336 building lots and 58 other lots on
175.91 acres in proposed R-4 and C-G zones for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development Company – 2420 Ustick Road:
H. Tabled from September 4, 2001: Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 692 single-family lots, 59 townhomes, 17 office lots and 10 commercial lots on 370.55 acres in
proposed R-4 and C-G zones for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development Company – north of Ustick and east of Ten Mile Roads:
I. Tabled from September 4, 2001: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law of Approval: AZ 01-008 Request for annexation and zoning of 12.71 acres from R1 and RUT to C-G and R-40
zones for proposed Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C. Development, Inc. – Franklin Road west of Locust Grove Road:
J. Tabled from September 4, 2001: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 01-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 10 building lots and 3 other lots on
12.71 acres in proposed C-G and R-40 zones for proposed Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C. Development, Inc. – Franklin Road west of Locust Grove Road:
K. Tabled from September 4, 2001: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-015 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for mixed
use Residential/Commercial in proposed C-G and R-40 zones for proposed Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C.
Development, Inc. – Franklin Road west of Locust Grove Road:
L. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 01-025 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Day Care Center for approximately 100 children in a C-G zone for The
Learning Garden Day Care Center by Shanalee Slade – 1230 West Overland Road:
M. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PFP 01-002 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of 4 building lots on 10.98 acres +/- in a proposed I-L zone for proposed
Presidential Subdivision by Dakota Company, Inc. – southeast corner of East Presidential Drive and North Eagle Road:
N. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 01-010 Request for a Variance to delete the requirement for subdivision street buffers to be on a common lot, maintained
by business – owners association in an I-L zone for Presidential Subdivision by Dakota Company, Inc. – southeast corner of East Presidential Drive and North Eagle Road:
O. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 01-011 Request for a Variance to delete requirement of 35-foot buffer width for entryway corridors and maintain existing
20-foot buffer width and to delete requirement of the 25-foot buffer between Intensity Class I and Class IV and maintain the 20-foot width for Presidential Subdivision by Dakota Company,
Inc. – southeast corner of East Presidential Drive and North Eagle Road:
P. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 01-006 Request for Rezone from I-L to L-O zones for proposed Elixir Subdivision by Elixir Industries – 521 North Eagle Road:
Q. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 01-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 3 building lots and 1 other lot on 15.49 acres in proposed I-L and L-O zones
for proposed Elixir Subdivision by Elixir Industries – 521 North Eagle Road:
R. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 01-012 Request for a Variance to the Landscape
Ordinance for Elixir Properties Subdivision by Paul Clayton – 521 North Eagle Road:
S. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the expansion of the chamber office and visitor center in a C-G zone for
Meridian Chamber of Commerce by Meridian Chamber of Commerce – 215 East Franklin Road:
T. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-027 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to offer classes for Master’s and Bachelor’s Degrees in a C-G zone for the
University of Phoenix (office) by Rocky Mountain Management & Development, LLC – 3080 Gentry Way:
U. Agreement with Blakeslee and Associates:
V. Order Granting Appeal: AP 01-00 Stop Work Order at 2340 West Franklin Road by Walt Morrow:
Bird: Council, adoption of the agenda. Is there anything that we need pulled or -- on the Consent Agenda or any changes you see? I believe that we received a letter from Baltic Place,
which is I J and K, which I believe we probably should take off the Consent Agenda and move to 5-I, 5-J and 5-K. Also I believe Item V, granting appeal for Walter Morrow, would like
to be pulled to 5-V and I don't believe there is any in the Regular Agenda that -- yes, Shari?
Stiles: President Bird, did we need to remove F, G, and H from the Consent Agenda to discuss those changes?
Bird: Yes that's true. F, G, and H needs to be moved to 5-F, 5-G, and 5-H on the Regular Agenda. Without any other changes, I would move for the adoption of the agenda.
Anderson: Mr. President?
Bird: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve the Consent Agenda, with the exception of moving Items F, G, H, I, J, K, and V to Item 5 on the Regular Agenda.
De Weerd: Second.
Bird: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda with the exceptions of F, G, H, I, J, K and V being moved to 5 on the Regular Agenda
under that order. All in favor say aye. Roll call? Roll call. I'm sorry. Okay. I'm sorry. Roll call vote, please.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President. Roll call vote, Members of the Council.
Roll Call: De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye;
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
A. TREASURER'S DEPARTMENT:
1. Finance Report.
Bird: Okay. The next item is department reports. Treasurer's Department.
Stacy?
Kilchenmann: Okay. Members of the Council, did everyone find their financial statements in your box? Okay. The first thing -- I think I'm going to -- would like to try to move the
finance report to the third meeting, because it would -- to try to get the financial information out in a more timely manner, if there is not an objection. I'm doing it this time, because
I'm going to be gone next week and no one on my staff volunteered that wanted to do this, but it's kind of --
Anderson: Did you say third meeting? This is the third meeting.
Kilchenmann: Yes.
Bird: This is the third meeting.
Kilchenmann: Yes. We usually do it -- I think usually do it the fourth meeting, the last meeting. So that's something to consider. Okay. The first thing I will look at are the investments
in that first page in your report and we did get more cash moved, but this is not a good time for investing, so our investment advisor's strategy is going to be to keep that in short-term
liquid investments and when the market improves he will be able to move it into a little longer term investment, with hopefully a higher interest rate. So if you look on the second
page, the top one, it says FY-2001 investment income, where it graphs the interest rate, that would be our aggregate interest rate for everything together. You can see it's still going
down. But if you look at the bottom graph where we show a comparison of our investment balances from year to year, we have reduced the amount that we
are holding to simply in cash and the treasurer is working -- we are working on some cash projections and I think we can move a little bit more out. If we look at the financial statements
themselves for August, you see we are just really -- essentially the year is pretty much over. There is nothing that has varied or really changed from the projected budget trends, just
still hoping that the police are
going to get in a budget. They have just I think enough to squeak by from last month, so the year is essentially over for the police. Revenues on the last page of the graphs, as I mentioned
before in the last couple years has been an over-exaggeration or an error in the water budget, so if we remove that, both water and sewer are now trending where we would expect them
for this time of the year. Everything looks normal there. And lots of capital projects in both -- in all funds is complete, so you will see them trending far short of their actual
budget. So that's all I have for now. We are getting ready for the audit. That's our next big project. Are there any questions?
Bird: Any questions from Council?
Anderson: I have none.
B. PUBLIC WORK'S DEPARTMENT:
Bird: Nice job, Stacy. Next up department report, Gary Smith, Public Works
Department.
Smith: Thank you, Mr. President, Council members. I will turn the microphone over to Brad Watson, city engineer, to review these projects for you.
Bird: Thank you.
Agreement for Professional Services – Water System Telemetry Upgrade:
Watson: Thank you, Mr. President, Council. The first item we have is an agreement for Professional Services, ACS, and I think you have a copy of a memo that our new staff engineer
wrote to me that described in detail what we are to do that involves both programming and installation of some software, as well as some documentation of what we have got. It also includes
some new software. And the total amount on that is $18,003.07. And unless there is any questions, we'd recommend that City Council award the contract for the Water System Telemetry
Upgrade to Advanced Control Systems in that amount and authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Bird: Any questions, Council? Okay. Hearing none, I'd entertain a motion.
Anderson: Mr. President.
Bird: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I'd make a motion we award the contract for the Water System Telemetry Upgrade to Advanced Control Systems in the amount of $18,003.07 and authorized the Mayor to sign and
the Clerk to attest.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: It has been moved and seconded to award the Water System Telemetry
Upgrade to Advanced Control Systems in the amount of $18,003.07, authorize
the Mayor to sign and the Clerk attest. Roll call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President. Members of the Council, roll call vote.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Okay. Brad, second item.
2. Vienna Woods Latecomer Agreement:
Watson: Thank you, Mr. President, Council. The second item is the Vienna Woods Latecomer Agreement. It's a latecomer agreement that covers both the lift station, pressure sewer,
which is one agreement, and then the second agreement is for a water line. The one thing that I need to point out to you is in the last couple of days the final fee was adjusted upward
slightly, whereas in your packets the fee is -- for water is 962.22. It has been recalculated and the developer has agreed to this, obviously, to a fee of 974.28. And the sewer --
pressure sewer lift station fee has risen from $615.80 up to $623.52 and we went over those costs with the developer, agreed to that, and unless there is any questions, we would also
recommend that the Council approve the latecomer agreement proposed fees in those revised amounts and authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Bird: Council, any questions for Mr. Watson?
Anderson: I have none.
Bird: Okay. Hearing none, I'd entertain a motion.
Anderson: Mr. President.
Bird: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve the latecomer agreements for Vienna Woods Subdivision for a water line with the amounts stated by Brad Watson for the fee adjustments
in the amount of 974.28 and 623.52 for the lift station.
De Weerd: Second.
Bird: Motion made and second to approve the Vienna Woods Latecomer Fee
Agreement, as stated by Brad Watson. Roll call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President. Members of the Council, roll call vote.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Five Mile Sewer Trunk Latecomer Agreement:
Watson: Thank you, Mr. President, Council. The third item is the Five Mile Sewer Trunk Latecomer Agreement. That hasn't changed since it was transmitted to be included in your packets.
There is evidently a letter from the Woodbridge developer regarding this item that was sent sometime to the city clerk and I would trust that you have that in your packets. I would
be happy to entertain any questions.
Bird: Council?
De Weerd: Mr. President.
Bird: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Brad, what is the issue and the timeliness of passing this action item? This letter dated September 18th, today, requests that we defer this. Have you looked at this letter
and have you had an opportunity to talk to the O'Neills?
Watson: Councilwoman de Weerd, Chairman -- President Bird, Council Members, I just looked at this about ten minutes ago and I don't know that there is a great urgency in passing it tonight,
although work has been going on on this for quite some time.
Bird: Brad, in the letter it states that they just received -- which I take it was the 17th, the latecomers fee from Bruce. How would we have -- you know, and then we will pass it
and then when the developer didn't get it until -- this was on the agenda, so it had to be on by Friday, the 14th.
Watson: President Bird, Council Members, I'm -- other than that's when it was completed when it was drafted last week, when we finally got it done, I guess this has sort of been a long
time coming, we thought there is no sense in waiting weeks more to get it on. At the time we weren't aware of any objections.
Bird: Has this been discussed with the developer out there prior with the cost and stuff or when he got it the 17th, was that the first time he had seen the actual costs of what the
agreement was going to be, when he got the invoice?
Watson: President Bird, Council Members, I'm sure that was. That's the first time that we had seen it, too, in its final form. I don't know if there were any estimates prior to that
that were being charged against the homes in that subdivision. Maybe Gary can answer that. Maybe not.
Bird: Don't you believe, then, it would probably be appropriate to table this thing until we work it out with the developer and -- I mean that's kind of a short notice when this is
in our agenda -- in our packet Friday and he don't get -- he don't get his until the 17th. He did respond with a letter asking that we would delay this until he can get together with
Gary and yourself, Brad.
Watson: President Bird, Council Members, I don't have any objection to that. I think it's a pretty standard calculation format that we go through, but we can discuss it with them.
Bird: Council, what's your pleasure regarding it?
Anderson: Mr. President.
Bird: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess I would make a motion, then, that we table this one until the -- until October 2nd and give the developer a chance to at least discuss his concerns with Brad and Gary.
It just doesn't appear that there is a big rush on this and, obviously, he has a number of concerns and I'd like give him the opportunity to voice those concerns.
Bird: It's been moved and seconded to table this until October 2nd, 2001. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Next item, Brad.
Award of Contract – UV Equipment at Wastewater Treatment Facility:
Watson: Okay. The next item is award of contract for the ultra-violet disinfection equipment at the wastewater treatment facility. This is a procurement only bid where we solicited just
the equipment to be installed later by a general contractor as part of an overall larger project. And we received one bid, which we expected. It's the same equipment that's already
installed out there, it's down to the model and make, and it came in quite a bit lower than our engineer's estimate. It was at 117,100 and I would be happy to answer any questions,
but unless there are
any, we recommend the contract be awarded to Trojan Technology in the amount of $117,100 and authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk attest.
Bird: Council, any questions for Brad?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor -- I mean Mr. President.
Bird: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Sorry. I move that we approve the award -- we move the -- approve the award for contract for the UV equipment to Trojan Technologies in the amount of 117,100 dollars and
to authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Anderson: Second.
Bird: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the contract for the UV equipment to Trojan Technologies for the sum of $117,100 and authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to
attest. Roll call vote, Mr. Clerk, please.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President. Members of the Council, roll call vote.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
5. Award of Contract – Drilling of Wells 23 and 24:
Bird: Brad, Item No. 5.
Watson: Item No. 5 is a -- it's an award of contract for the drilling of Wells No. 23 and 24. No. 23 is in the Silverstone -- will be in the Silverstone Subdivision, 24 will be in a
lot already owned in Tumble Creek Subdivision. We are trying to get some economy of scale here on these and I don't know that happened, but the prices didn't go up either and it's that
we got one bid from the same driller that's done the last -- let's see here -- six. It's Riverside of Parma. And we would recommend that the Council award the contract to the drilling
of Wells 23 and 24 to Riverside in the amount $356,161.28 and authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Bird: Any questions, Council, for Brad? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor -- Mr. President.
Bird: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I move we award the contract for the drilling of Wells No. 23 and 24 to Riverside, Incorporated, in the amount of $356,161.28 and authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk
to attest.
Anderson: Second.
Bird: It has been moved and seconded to award the contract for the drilling of wells No. 23 and 24 to Riverside, Incorporated, for $356,161.28 and authorize the Mayor to sign and the
Clerk to attest. Roll call vote, Mr. Clerk, please.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President. Roll call vote, Members of the Council.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Okay, Brad, No. 6, re-award of Contract for Clarifier.
Re-Award of Contract – Clarifier No. 3 Re-Coating Project:
Watson: Right. No. 6. You have seen this one before. We ended up having a little bit of a problem with the low bidder on that project who couldn't secure payment of performance bonds.
We notified them that we were proceeding to the next -- the second low bidder and there is two issues here and we have kind of requested or recommend Council action in a weird way,
because our staff engineer isn't getting a real warm feeling from the second low bidder either. We want to logically award the bid to the second low for Diversified Coatings for $21,500
and hopefully -- I would hope that you could make a motion that if they failed to provide these bonds, these required bonds, that we could sign a contract with the third low bidder Frontier
Construction in the amount of $31,020. The second issue here is there is a bid superior required on all of these and we have a thousand dollar certified check from the initial low bidder
and we need a little direction. Our staff engineer has contacted Bill Nichols and we just want to make sure we are all on the same page, if we keep this or if we want to send it back
to them.
Bird: Brad, the second low bidder, did they send in a cashier's check or did they get a bond -- bid bond?
Watson: Mr. President, Council members, that -- I can't answer that.
Bird: If they get a bid bond, then they are bondable, because if they give you a bid bond, they will bond you -- they automatically bond you, at least every time I have ever done that
that happened.
Watson: I just can't answer that for sure.
Bird: And I think it said right in the specs and papers that if you couldn't come up with the performance and payment bond, that you forfeited your bid bond; right?
Watson: I think our words say may be forfeited. There is some statute that I'm more concerned about that may require that to be applied to the difference between that initial bid and
the second low bid and I'm not sure that that's the case.
Nichols: President Bird, Members of the Council, my advice would be to forfeit the bid bond.
Bird: Keep it?
Nichols: Keep it. Yes.
Bird: Council, what's -- have you got any --
De Weerd: Mr. President.
Bird: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I would have a real problem with that on the advice of the attorney. There is a concern. There is a 10,000 dollar difference between the second and the third bidder,
you know, is there a reason for that or --
Watson: Councilwoman de Weerd, Mr. President, Council, I don't have an explanation for that. I could get into some reference -- some verbal references that we were given by our contract
inspector, but I don't think this is probably the place I should do that. We are pretty comfortable with that third and fourth bidder and he is pretty comfortable with the other.
De Weerd: So you don't feel that it's out of line?
Watson: No, I don't. I think that the second low bidder, according to our contract inspector who knows them, can adequately do the job. Our initial estimate on this project was 40,000
dollars, and which doesn't -- we are not very good estimators of the coating, but -- for what that's worth.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. I have nothing further.
Bird: Council, any other -- okay. I would entertain a motion to award the contract to the second low bidder, if they are bondable. And then they are asking if they are not bondable,
I guess to go to the third low bidder, if he's bondable.
De Weerd: Mr. President.
Bird: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I have just one other question of the attorney. Is this accepted practice by lining them up like that?
Nichols: Councilwoman de Weerd, President, Members of the Council, upon the failure of a successful bidder to qualify for the actual contract after the bid's been awarded to them, you
can go up the line to those who bid on the project.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, with that, then, Mr. President, I will make a motion to recommend approval of the award of contract for Clarifier No. 3 Re-coating Project to Diversified Coatings
in the amount of $21,500 and to authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. If Diversified Coatings is unable to enter into the contract for any reason in the allowable time
period, the contract will then be awarded to Frontier Construction in the amount of $31,020 and authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: It's been moved and seconded. Discussion?
Anderson: Mr. President.
Bird: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I don't know, I agree with the awarding of the second low bidder if the first one is defaulted, but I have a little bit of a conflict with going down a third one, saying,
well, if you default, then it goes to this one. I think if the second one defaults, my opinion is the project ought to be re-bid. I think that's -- we are just dominoing effect and
there is no reason for us at this point to believe that the second bidder, Diversified Coatings, wouldn't be responsible and be able to do the work.
De Weerd: I think there is a time issue here with weather and if that's --
Bird: I think there is a time issue and I disagree with the domino effect, but I agree with you, I think that we should just award a contract to the Diversified Coatings. We can't award
-- you basically can't award two contracts like this motion was saying and that's basically what you're doing is you're just, you know - you got to award one and they do have a time
period. I don't know what your specs call for, but how long are these bids good for, 45, 60, 90, days? What is our --
Watson: Mr. President, Council Members, typically they are valid for either 30 or 60 days. I would think that on the smaller ones it's a 30 day thing, what we thought was a slam dunk
and, obviously, it's not turning out to be that way. The one thing that I can tell you about the time line is we can't actually issue a notice of award until you make a motion, we prepare
that, send it out, and it starts a ten-day calendar in which they can provide those bonds and that was our concern is if the second one fails at that 10th day -- well, actually, the
11th day, then we have to come back and reschedule, so we could be losing as much as two, maybe even three weeks, depending on the Council agenda, and this is, as you were stating, not
a cold weather project, so we would be pushing it to spring is what we would be doing. But if that's the way you feel comfortable --
Bird: What kind of a bid bond did the second bidder bring in? Did they bring in a cashier's check or did they bring in a bid bond from an insurance company?
Watson: President Bird, Council Members, again, I don't know for sure. I wasn't the one handling this project, so I can't say.
De Weerd: Mr. President.
Bird: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: The attorney seemed to think that it wouldn't be an issue. Staff felt comfortable that the second one would most likely fulfill its requirement, so I don't know if it's really
an issue, but there is a time element here. It would be nice to be sensitive to it.
Bird: We have got a motion on the floor. Anymore questions? Roll call vote, Mr. Clerk, please.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President. Members of the Council, roll call vote.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Watson: Thank you, Mr. President, Council.
PARKS DEPARTMENT:
1. Skateboard Facility of Tully Park – Bid Award:
Bird: Okay. Item C, Parks Department. Mr. Kuntz.
Kuntz: Mr. President and Council. We opened two bids yesterday, Monday, September 17th. The first being for the Tully Skate Park. As you can see from this memo, the architect's estimates
were approximately $128,000 or 12 dollars a
square foot. We had two bidders at low bid, being RSCI at $204,000. After lengthy discussion today with the land group, there does not appear to be any clear justification for the vast
difference between the architect's estimates and the bids. The land group was in touch with one other bid holder to find out why they hadn't bid on it. Their response was that their
concrete prices range from low to very high, so they did not bid on the project. They contacted one of the bidders to find out what some of their costs were. For some reason the excavation
costs were a quarter of the bid, $2,000, and the landscape architect is not real clear why that is. They also contacted several companies outside of the city to find out what the going
rate is for building skate parks and these are the companies who do this as a specialty item and they support the 12 dollars per square foot price. As you can see, the low bid is almost
20 dollars per square foot. Our recommendation tonight is to reject both bids and that we will come back to you at next week's meeting with some options. And I can certainly discuss
those with you tonight, but would like a little more time to research them before I --
Bird: Council, any questions?
De Weerd: Just disappointment.
Bird: Yes. Big time. I can't believe $20 a square foot. That's -- Jimany Christmas.
McCandless: Very hefty.
Bird: That's very hefty. Tom, do you have any idea what Eagle bid -- what they paid for their skate park?
Kuntz: They built a 12,000 square foot facility for between 140 and 150. The reason they were in shock is that they built their whole Phase One for a little over 300,000. That included
a parking lot, a skate park, roller blade, restroom, for I believe 320 or 340. So they were in a state of shock as we were.
McCandless: Tom, do we need an extra parking lot?
Bird: No.
Kuntz: No, ma'am.
McCandless: Then the parking you have got listed back here is for the Chateau?
Kuntz: Yes.
Bird: Council, what is your pleasure?
De Weerd: Mr. President.
Bird: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I would recommend rejecting all bids related to the Tully Park Skate Project and ask staff to report back options on our September 26th or 25th meeting.
Anderson: Second.
Bird: Second? Okay. Move and second to reject all bids regarding the Tully Park Skateboard Park and have staff report back on the 25th of September to the City Council with some options.
All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Next item.
Chateau Park – Bid Award:
Kuntz: The second one brought better news. That was for Chateau Park. We had a single bidder, which was KJ Corporation for the lump sum of $256,081. The architect's estimates were 336,632.
We reviewed the individual bid items, staff did, and it appeared that there were two items that were fairly high, hydroseeding and the irrigation system. Specifically the hydroseeding
was double what we just paid to have some work done at the pathway. What we are recommending tonight is that we delay approval one week to give us time to talk to our attorney, as well
as KJ Corporation, possibly pull one of those two items, probably the hydroseeding. We would save $15,000 right off the top and we would do the hydroseeding outside the contract with
a company that we use on a regular basis.
Bird: Any questions?
De Weerd: Mr. President.
Bird: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: How long would this delay -- would it delay the time table of this park?
Kuntz: What I would hope is if I could get a fairly clear indication tonight that the Council would approve this next Tuesday, we would meet with our attorney and then KJ Corporation
and get all the bonds and everything in place, so that when the Council would approve it next Tuesday, then they could actually start work towards the end of next week. So it has the
potential of delaying it five days or the potential, depending if I get some clear direction tonight, of only a couple days.
Bird: Tom, I don't think it's an appropriate habit to bid bids and have sections and stuff and then come in and decide that they can do one section of it cheaper. I don't think it's
fair to the people and maybe that's why we are getting two bids on one and one bid on another one. I think you go back and ask the low bidder if he can take some money out somewhere
or do some stuff. I don't -- I just don't -- and then if he can't, then I guess we can do something else. I just don't think that's -- I don't think that's an ethical practice, to be
truthful with you.
Anderson: Mr. President.
Bird: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Yes. I was just going to comment the same. I mean I have been in business before where you do estimate and sometimes you may under bid certain aspects and make it up on others
and I think the bottom line is that this total bid came in well under the architect's estimate and he was the low bidder and I think if you go in and start trying to pick a bid apart
like that and try to find ways to cut corners and pull things out of there that you can do yourself, I think that's part of the reason why it would make other people reluctant to bid
on projects and maybe that might be part of the reason why these other two bids are so high. I just don't think it's a good practice myself and I wouldn't recommend doing it in this
case.
Bird: Any other questions? Okay. What is your a pleasure, Council?
De Weerd: Well, does Tom have a further comment?
Kuntz: No. Just that -- I guess my first comment would be we certainly don't want to get in the practice of doing that and when we compared all the individual pay items, everything else
was well within line. The one that was, I guess, hardest to swallow was that the hydroseeding was double. We've paid five to six cents a square foot and this was 12 cents a square foot.
It is an item that would be the very last thing to be completed as part of the project. Everything would be in place, the fine grading would be done, and it would also possibly release
the contractor from the contract sooner, depending on the weather. If we get into bad enough weather and choose to wait until spring to hydroseed, it would release the contractor from
that responsibility. So that was the other reason we thought it would be a -- have a win situation is we save 15,000 off the top. You do need to keep in mind that we are still planning
to build the restroom ourself by buying the materials and hiring someone to build it, as well as there are some amenities, trash cans, drinking fountains, and those type of things that
we still need to include in this and have not had an opportunity to discuss this with the KJ Corporation.
De Weerd: Well, I would agree with what Councilman Bird and Anderson were saying about splitting up the bids and I appreciate you being frugal, but I do see that they have a good point
and so --
Bird: What action do you want to take? Do you want to take their recommendation and delay this until next week and let them have a chance to talk to KJ?
De Weerd: And talk to them about what? About --
Bird: Essentially the price of --
De Weerd: Affecting the prices or --
Kuntz: Well, we really wouldn't discuss all the prices, we would discuss pulling the hydroseeding out of the contract is what we would discuss with them.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, I think we need to keep the bid intact.
Bird: Motion? You either award it or you don't. Council, what is your pleasure?
De Weerd: Mr. President.
Bird: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the bid for KJ Corporation for a lump sum of $256,081 and have the Mayor sign and the Clerk attest.
Anderson: I would second that.
Bird: Okay. Discussion? Hearing none, we have a bid to accept the Chateau Park bid from KJ Construction for $256,081 and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Roll call vote,
Mr. Clerk, please.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President. Members of the Council, roll call vote.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Thank you, Tom.
Kuntz: Thank you, Mr. President.
Item 5. (ITEMS MOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA)
Bird: Get started on it. Okay. Council, first item five -- under five is 5-F, G, and H. We will take all -- 5F, 5G, and 5H all at the same time. Staff?
5-F. Tabled from September 4, 2001: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 01-003 Request for annexation and zoning of 371.42 acres from RUT to R-4 and C-G zones
for a planned development consisting of residential, office and commercial uses for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development Company – 2420 Ustick Road:
5-G. Tabled from September 4, 2001: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 01-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 336 building lots and 58 other lots on
175.91 acres in proposed R-4 and C-G zones for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development Company – 2420 Ustick Road:
5-H. Tabled from September 4, 2001: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 692 single-family lots, 59 townhomes,
17 office lots and 10 commercial lots on 370.55 acres in proposed R-4 and C-G zones for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development Company – north of Ustick and
east of Ten Mile Roads:
Stiles: Mr. President, Council, there were several issues that came up regarding this. I believe Ms. Bowcutt may have had a conversation with Tammy de Weerd earlier. She discussed some
of the items. I don't know what the outcome of that discussion was, but I think it would probably be best if Ms. Bowcutt got up and stated her position on some of those findings. I don't
have any particular objection to the changes she's requested, but I would like a clarification from legal counsel as to what the -- what their opinion is regarding the request to include
the entire Conditional Use Permit when we have not seen the entire plat at this time. I guess my personal feeling is it should only be for -- the Conditional Use Permit approval should
be approved in detail for what's been presented as a preliminary plat. Maybe we could approve the concept of the entire subdivision, but I think if you get down to the exact number
of lots, we haven't determined what that exact number will be. So I just wanted to know what Mr. Nichol's opinion was on that portion of her request.
Nichols: President Bird.
Bird: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Shari, are you specifying -- are you talking about that question that came up with regard to the CUP findings as to whether it should indicate the number of lots that were in
a specific proposal versus the total potential?
Stiles: Yes.
Nichols: Is that what you're talking about?
Stiles: Yes.
Nichols: Thank you.
Bird: Would the applicant like to say something?
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 12715 West Edna Court, Boise. Councilman -- or Council President and Members of the Council, there is just some housekeeping items. As Shari indicated, in the
findings it referenced the number of lots associated with the preliminary plat. As you recall, we had three applications, annexation, a preliminary plat on only a portion of the project,
and then we had our PUD or Conditional Use Application, which was approval of the concept as a whole. The drawings that we did submit were to scale, they did specify the exact number
of residential townhome, commercial, and office lots. I just thought as -- reading through these findings, when it continued to reference only the preliminary plat, that maybe five
years down the road when people change and so forth, that somebody may say, well, you know, this was not approved for 692 residential lots, it only says 259. I think in my conversations
with Mr. Nichols a couple weeks ago was maybe you should reference both, that this is conceptual approval based on the number of lots that were specified on the concept, but preliminary
plat or specific approval is only granted to the 259 and a new preliminary plat I think as a condition of approval was set forth in the original conditions that had to be submitted by
I believe 2002 or something to that effect to accommodate the elementary. So it is recognized in there that that second preliminary plat will be coming your way on the project. I guess
it's up to the Council. I just -- I just thought for, you know, safety purposes it should be referenced or at least recognized what we -- what was approved. Secondly, the issue was
Settler's Irrigation. I Faxed over a copy of the new letter to Will and to Shari. Their board did reconsider. They will allow us to utilize the White drain as a water amenity in the
event that we enter into an agreement with them and they also want to enter into an agreement with the city. It is their preference that that pathway along that drain be public. They
will also accept our storm drainage if we can meet certain criteria and they will allow us to interconnect the pressure irrigation pond with the White drain. So they have made a reversal
from the original comments that are incorporated in these findings. And that letter is dated September 18th. The other issue, I think Mr. Nichols cleaned up the issue on the setbacks.
There was just a reverse number based on front entry versus side entry. And then there was some typos in the number of townhome lots. And then
there was a typo referencing the office lots, I believe it referenced seven and there are eight. And I think I brought that to Marlene's attention. The memo that was just handed to
you by Mr. Berg -- and I apologize, I have been out of town for a couple of weeks and I just got this information, these minutes on Monday, so I have been struggling to get this done.
Councilwoman de Weerd brought up at the August 8th meeting when we deferred this -- these findings that she had some concerns. What I have done here is basically typed verbatim the
reference of the page and section items that she had concerns with. Her question was that the north corridor planning process has been expanded beyond transportation and that condition
as written by Mr. Nichols just emphasized transportation. In going back to the July 3rd minutes of the discussions which Mrs. de Weerd was included in, Councilman Bird, Councilman Anderson,
made statements to the same effect, that transportation was the critical issue. At that time -- that was prior to this north corridor process being expanded to look at the other issues.
We have been an active participant in this process with this north corridor, we haven't missed a meeting, we attend all workshops and we are participating financially in providing monies
for the consultants that are being utilized to come up with some of these overlays. One thing I wanted to stress, that part of that process is identifying school sites, park sites, pathways,
dealing with emergency vehicle -- or emergency services and so forth. We have included a park -- a private park on our site, an elementary school site, our collector roadways, public
pathways, and the mixed land uses. So we basically incorporated what we were trying to do on a larger scale in this north Meridian area. We are a participant, because we still have
an additional 400 acres that's in that corridor. We have this property also. And so we will continue to participate and do everything we can to make sure that that area is planned
properly. So we feel that since that process is ongoing and at the time, based on discussion and the motions that took place, transportation was the critical issue, we felt that the
condition as written by Mr. Nichols was appropriate. The second question was the stub street under page seven, section four, item A on the preliminary plat findings concerning the stub
street to the Anderson parcel. Mrs. de Weerd's concern was that is the language strong enough. I just want to state that the condition does say shall provide stub street, which basically
is a mandate. We did provide two lot concepts to the Andersons showing a stub street either at the south or the east, whichever worked best. They indicated that their preference was
to the south, because they couldn't be assured that their neighboring property -- or their neighbor would participate with them and they are the largest property holder of the three
parcels. So we have in our concept adjusted that location and we have indicated to the Andersons that we will coordinate that with them and their engineer as far as the exact location,
because we have a common lot there, so we have latitude to move that stub street. Secondly was the -- or thirdly was the issue of pathways. Councilwoman de Weerd was concerned about
the clarity of the condition and then brought up the issue of the Five Mile Creek within the first phase of the original Bridgetower. We have always been open to the idea of the internal
pathways being -- the possibility of them being public as we build them through this project, especially along that White drain. Settler's encourages that.
So I don't think we have deviated on that. We have agreed in writing to work with the Parks and Recreation Department on coordination of pathway locations and widths and how all these
will intersect and I will be beginning those meetings here shortly, since I just got back into town. One issue was about the first phase of Bridgetower. We were required -- I went back
through the comments. We were required to interconnect a micro path to the first loop on the western side and that intersected with Five Mile Creek. One of the main discussions on
that original first phase was the fact that Five Mile Creek was not owned by us. There was a hundred or hundred twenty foot swath that was under Bureau of Rec which now is under Nampa-Meridian.
So it was considered an off-site improvement. Therefore, it was determined that we would build a pathway to intersect with it. Also the last time I was out there after they put the
Five Mile Creek relief line, they had gone in and they had added gravel it looks like it's been compacted, so it is a pretty nice gravel path now as is. But we will be working with
Tom in these pathways. The creeks and lateral that we are piping along are -- cuts through our eastern side. We will be providing a 12 foot pathway. It will also double as a Nampa-Meridian
vehicular access. We will loop that down and intersect that with Five Mile Creek. We are leaving the existing bridge that's out there that's been used by the farmers, to interconnect
that with the sidewalks and our pathways and our park. So we feel that the pathway issue is in control. The condition requires that we coordinate with your parks director. When we
bring in a final plat if he's, obviously, not satisfied with the pathway locations or something about that, then he will have an opportunity to comment and you guys will have an opportunity
to take a shot at me. Hopefully, we don't come to that. So I feel -- I guess the way the conditions have been written by Mr.
Nichols, that they are pretty much in line with what we have agreed to and with just some minor housekeeping and the issue of shall we -- should we include the reference to the concept
and the lots that were in that PUD. Thank you.
Bird: Is there any questions for Ms. Bowcutt?
Nichols: President Bird. Ms. Bowcutt, with regard to the Settler's Irrigation
letter, on the indemnity agreement are they referencing something like a
license agreement that we have had with Nampa-Meridian for pathways
there?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. And they have a copy and they have reviewed it and their
attorney indicated that to me.
Bird: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. President.
Bird: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Shari, have you had a chance to look at these findings and have any comments? We have kind of a collection of notes here from Ms. Bowcutt and our attorney on some of the
changes and I feel comfortable with the response from Becky on my issues, but there does remain one, though, on the Conditional Use Permit, page seven, number nine -- and it might be
nine or ten. It has to do with the collector roads and we had a new plat that showed access off of McMillan, but it wasn't reflected in the findings.
Stiles: I guess my response to that would be that the findings should reflect maybe the number of lots and the concept of a planned development, but should not indicate any kind of
approval of the street configuration or the school site or -- there was no approval of any of that as far as I'm concerned and that may still be up for some changes with the new overlay
district. So that will be up to future approvals by the Council. As far as Conditional Use Permit, if they want to reference both the specific approved detailed plan and the reference
to proposed future number of lots, then there weren't any other uses in the future portion, except for the school and --
De Weerd: Residential and some offices. Offices and townhomes.
Stiles: Just where the concept of that in the eastern portion of the development, but I don't think we should get into approving -- any type of approval for the configuration of it,
if we need to tweak that a little bit based on the new overlay.
De Weerd: So did you have specific comments about the findings in front of us, what to delay or --
Stiles: I agree with all of the changes suggested by Ms. Bowcutt, except the only clarification I wanted to be made was regarding the planned development portion of it to the CUP.
De Weerd: Which was in what finding?
Stiles: It was referenced in a couple different, but -- different findings. I don't have those findings with me tonight, but I believe --
De Weerd: Shall we just take a broad brush and say omit those?
Stiles: To omit the --
De Weerd: Preferences.
Stiles: Well, I believe Mr. Nichols suggested or Becky suggested or -- I can't remember which -- that we might reference both the specific detailed plan that was approved and the overall
concept in this Conditional Use Permit, which I believe may need to be reflected also in the annexation ordinance and the
development agreement -- the annexation findings in the development agreement just as an overall concept, but not a specific detailed plan approval. Does that not make any sense at all?
De Weerd: Are we clear on what her comment is?
Nichols: Councilwoman de Weerd, President Bird, Members of the Council. Yes and no. Is that a good lawyer answer?
De Weerd: Well, I'm kind of there, too.
Nichols: What we have got to work on is we have to have some specific -- what you're asking us to do is come up with some specific language that takes into account the concept which
could include up to 692 lots, but not bind you to a specific layout with this additional area that was annexed or is proposed to be annexed. That's what you need us to do. And then
present that to you specifically up or down or -- I mean that's what we are struggling with, I think, is we have got -- these findings had to be so detailed they took into account some
of the things, like the annexation zone, development plat, and the CUP, and we are afraid that somehow or another, particularly given the size of the project, that we may miss something
which either ties the city where it doesn't want to be tied up or binds the developer where the developer doesn't have the concept issues to take care of. So we could -- I hate to defer
this anymore, but we could defer it again and then Shari and I could sit down and come up with some specific language, which we would then have to approve specifically and we would have
it to you in a memo or we would have it to you in a red line draft of the findings to where you could see what was in or out.
De Weerd: Mr. President.
Bird: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I would prefer a red line draft at this point. You know, there is a number of corrections and I'd like to know where we are at. And I hate to defer it any longer, too, but
this is -- I have a hard time approving findings without knowing what they say.
Anderson: I agree.
Bird: Okay. What's your pleasure?
De Weerd: Mr. President.
Bird: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Do you want me to make two separate motions or to do it all in one?
Bird: Yes. Three separate.
De Weerd: I move that we table the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Bridgetower Crossing for annexation and zoning of 371.42 acres from RUT to R-4 and C-G zones for a planned
development consisting of residential, office, and commercial uses to October 2nd.
Bird: Okay. Do I hear a second?
Anderson: Second.
Bird: Okay. Motion has been made to table the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Bridgetower annexation and zoning of 371.42 acres. Roll call vote, please, Mr. Clerk.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President. Members of the Council, roll call vote.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. President.
Bird: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we table the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the request for preliminary plat approval of 336 building lots and 58 other lots on 175.91 acres in proposed
R-4 and C-G zones for the proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision to October 2nd, 2001.
Anderson: Second.
Bird: Okay. Motion and second to table the Facts and Conclusions of Law for request for preliminary plat on 336 building lots and 58 other lots on 175.91 acres by Primeland Development
in the Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision. Any questions? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President. Members of the Council, roll call vote.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: And then, finally, I move that we table the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval of Conditional Use Permit for request of 692 single family lots, 59 townhomes,
17 office lots and 10 commercial lots on 370.55 acres for Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision until October 2nd, 2001.
Bird: Okay.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: Okay. Motion has been made and second to table the request for a Conditional Use Permit on 692 single family lots, 59 townhomes, 17 office buildings, 10 commercial lots, on 370.55
acres for Bridgetower Crossing until October 2nd, 2001. Any discussion, Council?
De Weerd: No.
Bird: Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President. Members of the Council, roll call vote.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5-I. Tabled from September 4, 2001: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law of Approval: AZ 01-008 Request for annexation and zoning of 12.71 acres from R1 and RUT to C-G and
R-40 zones for proposed Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C. Development, Inc. – Franklin Road west of Locust Grove Road:
Item 5-J. Tabled from September 4, 2001: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 01-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 10 building lots and 3 other lots
on 12.71 acres in proposed C-G and R-40 zones for proposed Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C. Development, Inc. – Franklin Road west of Locust Grove Road:
Item 5-K. Tabled from September 4, 2001: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-015 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for
mixed use Residential/Commercial in proposed C-G and R-40 zones for proposed Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C. Development, Inc. – Franklin Road west of Locust Grove Road:
Bird: Okay. Council, next item is from the consent agenda I, J, and K, which we have moved to 5-I, 5-J, and 5-K, which is the Findings of Fact, preliminary request for annexation and
zoning for the Baltic Place Subdivision and also the preliminary plat for Baltic Place and the Conditional Use Permit for Baltic Place. Staff, do you have any comments on this?
Stiles: No, I do not.
De Weerd: Does our attorney?
Bird: Council, I believe we have had a letter delivered to us from Mr. Bradbury
representing the applicant on Baltic Place, Council, regarding this and if the applicant would like to come forward and state the reasons for why this should be changed, tabled, or whatever.
Bradbury: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council, my name is
Steve Bradbury, my office address is 225 North 9th in Boise. I represent the
applicant. I did submit a request for reconsideration to you asking the Council
to reconsider its proposed Condition of Approval No. 25. And, by the way, this
is the condition of approval only on the Conditional Use Permit portion of the
project and I know that you have got three sets of findings in front of you. We certainly have no objection with or complaint about Council's approval of the project, obviously. The
objection that the applicant has is with respect to the condition of approval which would not permit the construction of the apartment portion of this project until the widening of Franklin
Road has been completed. In trying to think through the Council's rationale for proposing that condition we came to conclude that it must have to do with the Council's thinking with
respect to the traffic capacity of Franklin Road and the impact that this project would have on Franklin Road's capacity to carry that additional traffic and so in reviewing the record
we spent a little bit of time looking at the traffic study which was prepared by Doherty Engineering and the Ada County Highway District report, which was, of course, prepared by the
Highway District on this project, and we just couldn't find any indication in the record that there was -- that there was a potential for this project to cause Franklin Road to exceed
a reasonable level of service or carrying capacity. And I guess the part of the -- of the Highway District's report that I thought was the most important was what I quoted on page two
of my letter to you, where it -- where the Highway District said Franklin Road has adequate existing roadway capacity to accommodate side traffic and will operate at an acceptable level
of service of B or better and, of course, I'm sure you're familiar with their ranking systems, they go from an A to an F, B being considered, well, like what you might see on a report
card, meaning good. I
couldn't find anything in the record to suggest that this project would cause a
capacity problem on Franklin Road and it seems to me -- and I think that the
law would support my view -- and that is that in order for a condition to be
enforceable -- legally enforceable, it needs to address an effect which is
caused by that project. In this case we couldn't identify an effect which is
caused by this project, which would cause -- which would suggest that the
project needed to wait until Franklin Road was widened. So that was really probably the primary legal thrust of the argument that I wanted to make with respect to the request for reconsideration.
A couple of other points that I think might be worth noting and that is that we got the impression perhaps -- the applicant got the impression, perhaps, that Council wasn't entirely
familiar with alternate routes of access in and out of this project. I sat through one of the two hearings that you had and, frankly, I didn't understand which road you guys were talking
about either. But in the meantime we put together a map, which is attached to this drawing, which indicates that there are a number of ways to get in and out of this project or ways
to, I guess, work your way through the transportation system without having to necessarily come in and out of Franklin and I guess that additional route of access is off from Kalispell,
which goes east, I think, out of the project, and then you can work your way from there and you can make your way to Locust Grove or you can work your way to Watertower and from Watertower
over to East 1st and so there are other ways to get around. We
just weren't convinced that you had understood that that -- those additional routes were going to be available and so we were thinking that perhaps that
additional information would help you. You're looking at me like you I think I'm crazy. Sorry I made -- I suppose that you will have a chance to tell me that here in a minute. The other
thing that I thought was worth talking to you all about was the timing of development and it became -- in subsequent conversations it became clear that even were the Council to approve
this project today, it would be probably two and a half years before there would be -- before those apartments would be filled up with people, be a year for -- a year for -- through
the approval process and another year for the construction process and then probably another six months to get them filled up and at that point in time, from what we last understood
that the Highway District has in mind with respect to Franklin Road, Franklin Road will probably be well on its way to being widened, if not completed by then.
De Weerd: 2004.
Bradbury: So the basic argument, I think we have got a legal one, we've got some factual information that perhaps may help you to see this in a different light. Our suggestion was
that if the Council was inclined to reconsider and wanted to take into account any of the additional information, you might considered reopening the record, scheduling a hearing at some
point in the future, and we can come and talk to you about these issues in a little bit more detail.
Bird: Questions, Council? Steve, I do. I don't know whether it's a question. You know, you say that you got all kinds of exits out of there. My biggest concern is no stop light in
front of the fire station. That's my biggest concern, regardless of whether it's widened or not, and we don't get that until we get the thing widened. The south Adams -- or Adkins
-- get my glasses on. Anyway, Adkins Road, it's not completed down to the water tower, nor do you know when it is going to be
completely completed. I mean it's been cut out, but it stops at Barnes' deal and then it's just -- just a rough road. I think it's just a roughed in there, because they have got to
get Watertower through our police station. So actually -- and the only way -- the only thing you're going to dump onto -- I mean some people go up and dump onto East 1st there at Zamzows,
but they are still coming back to dump on Franklin Road. Like I said, my concern is the -- is the added traffic on Franklin Road with no fire -- with no light at the fire station.
And that is really my only concern. I don't doubt that Franklin Road couldn't handle the traffic right now, but I think it's very dangerous there without the traffic light.
Bradbury: Well, I guess --
Bird: With what we've got -- with what we've got traveling there now.
Bradbury: I guess I understand what your fear is and your concern, but I think that what the Council is charged to do -- and I'm about to launch off into a bunch of legal talk -- but
I think what the Council is charged to do, the Council is charged to take into account the evidence that's in the record and make its termination on that and I understand -- I understand
that you have concerns, but the traffic studies and the governmental entity that is charged with making decisions about the transportation facilities in this county has concluded that
the existing infrastructure can safely handle the traffic that would be generated by this project and it just -- I don't think that the Council is legally permitted to simply make its
decision based upon fears and concerns that have not translated themselves into some factual evidence that's in your record. And correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't seen it. I just
don't find where that – where the -- the evidence in support of what concern exists.
Anderson: Mr. President.
Bird: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I appreciate you telling us what you think the Council's job is and -- from a legal standpoint, but we also have to take into consideration, I guess, some common sense things
and we have talked about the fact that you would be building an apartment complex in here and we have got a park just down the road with no sidewalks to get there. Those were concerns
that the Council had, as well as the fire station. We asked the applicant about this phasing of this project, so that maybe we could get an idea that the apartments might be coming
later down the road when the road was improved. It was very vague, it was as the market dictates, so I mean we were left with not a whole lot of choice in this matter, but to put that
provision or condition on there, that when Franklin was widened to five lanes, that then it would be safe, in our opinion, for various reasons, fire station, traffic. Right now we have
numerous complaints from the people on Locust Grove that can't even get onto Franklin Road. They sit there for minutes on end waiting for a break in the traffic and if we add an additional
1,700 vehicle trips and it doesn't matter what an engineer tells me, common sense would tell me those people are going to be waiting to get on there and are going to cause some accidents
and I don't need to kill somebody before I use common sense there.
Bird: Any other questions? Respond, Mr. Bradbury?
Bradbury: I'm not sure that I can. I guess I don't have a response for you. Again, I understand the issue. Unfortunately, I just don't think that there is the evidence that supports
the notion that this project is going to cause that traffic hazard that you're talking about and that's what I think you need to be focusing on. I mean if that's the position that you're
taking, it seems to me that you're in a position where you have got to say no to anybody that wants to put anything onto Franklin Road.
Anderson: And, believe me, we take that into consideration with every project we look at.
Bradbury: And I -- and you just need to understand that if it's not going to be -- it's not appropriate for the Council to single this application out. I mean there are projects that
are being approved up and down -- I'm going to say throughout the vicinity that in some fashion or another -- or another are likely to generate some additional traffic on Franklin Road.
And if you want us to talk about Franklin Road, maybe you need to talk about Overland Road and then you got to talk about Locust Grove Road and you have got to talk about Ustick Road
and then you have got to -- just about any two lane road that you're talking about. I guess what I'm suggesting is that there needs to be a measure of consistency in the Council's --
in the application of the Council's power and discretion. And that's why I think the courts have said that there needs to be a causal connection between a condition and the effect you're
attempting to cure.
De Weerd: Mr. President.
Bird: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I think in particular it was the location we are talking about. It's in close proximity to our fire station, which has fire trucks coming in and out of there. One of the
reasons we phased it like we did was because we allowed the commercial end and the residential to wait until there were sidewalks and traffic lights because of the safety factors and
much of the development on Franklin is commercial, it's not residential, it doesn't -- this is for multi-family, we will have children in there, and in our decision-making process we
do not think it's safe to put kids out on that road at this time, nor our fire trucks, and that was the determination that we made and I feel comfortable and say if you need to do something,
do it.
Bradbury: Well, that -- I understand. Thank you.
Nichols: Mr. President.
Bird: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. President, Members of the Council, one thing that I would ask the
Council to clarify with regard to the findings is what stretch of Franklin needs to be improved or why you -- there was some discussion about having a widening project from East 1st
all the way to Eagle Road and there is some additional discussion, I believe, that there would be -- the first portion to be widened would be Eagle Road -- or, excuse me, East 1st to
Locust Grove, then Locust Grove to Eagle. So whether -- the finding now says the widening of Franklin Road, but it doesn't specify between where, I don't think.
De Weerd: I think Franklin, at our last conversation with ACHD, is -- the two mile stretch will be done in 2004, all at the same time. The stretch of road that we were most concerned
about would be that area between where the two traffic lights would be for the fire station and traffic -- in stopping traffic both east and west going, so that the trucks can safely
get out onto it. And, as well, that there would be constructed sidewalks for any of the children in the -- in the apartments that utilize it. So it was more the area between Stratford
and --
Bird: East 1st and Nola, basically. East 1st and Nola.
De Weerd: No. I think when we had the conversation it was mainly from South Adkins Way where the business park -- where ever you would put the stop light for the fire station and I
can't remember -- yeah, Stratford and Adkins? Is that there the lights were going to go? Nola.
Bird: They were going to go to Locust Grove.
De Weerd: Start at Locust Grove.
Nichols: Mr. President.
Bird: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Okay. If the Council chooses to address this -- this particular finding, you need to direct me to change that finding to reflect that the portion of Franklin Road that's referenced
is that portion between Stratford and Locust Grove and then, secondly, I would ask the Council to consider changing the finding that construction could not begin until construction begins
on that widening project, as opposed to waiting until it was finished. That would seem to a possible accommodation to the developer. I mean there is going to be some process where
they actually started digging the roadways to widen the road and at that
point the road would be finished before the apartments would be finished, as opposed to waiting until they were all done. That's –
Anderson: I mean my only concern with that is a lot of times with the widening of a roadway project they will start even as early as now with location of the -- relocation of some of
the utilities and when you just put it in vague terms, like start construction, then that could be misconstrued. Did you mean starting to relocate the utilities that sometimes could
be started two years in advance of the actual removing of asphalt cutting into the sub grade and that type of stuff. So I think you would have to be a little more specific than just
when construction of that roadway starts.
De Weerd: Could it be occupancy, you know, on completion of the road, something to that effect?
Nichols: Councilwoman de Weerd, President Bird, Members of the Council, the problem with the occupancy, as I understand it, and it's raised by Mr. Bradbury's letter, is a practical
one in terms of the funding of the project in terms of what a lender would do. If you defer occupancy permits until the road is widened, the lender essentially doesn't want the project
to get started, not knowing when the road is going to be finished, as far as occupancy permits. It would make the loan, if not impossible, nigh to impossible to get.
Anderson: How about upon ACHD awarding the bid for reconstruction of this road or something like -- I mean that's a little more specific than just when construction started.
Nichols: I'm just throwing that out as a possible accommodation to the --
Anderson: And I'm kind of like Tammy, I mean my first understanding was that ACHD was going to develop Franklin Road in one mile phases and then I'm of the same understanding she is
now that now that's a two mile section that they are talking about there. I think our primary concern is the mile that goes from East 1st to Nola or where the Locust Grove will actually
end up being ultimately. But I think both those mile sections are going to be done simultaneously, so if for some reason they separate those and break them into one mile sections, then
I would say that the section that goes from Nola to East 1st, that --
Bird: Mr. Bradbury?
Bradbury: Yes. Mr. Centers is asking if he might have an opportunity to address the Council for a moment.
Bird: Sure. Real short.
Centers: Lee Centers, 325 Meridian Street. You know, I appreciate the Council looking at some of these options. I worked with planning and zoning for probably six months, eight months
on designing this project. Wasn't aware that there was a traffic problem. Would Council be more comfortable with an industrial site there? I mean is it the multi-family that's got
your concern? If I had some assurety, you know, that this wouldn't happen again, I would redesign it and go with the industrial. No one ever said anything about, you know, that it would
be a traffic in -- you know, we met with ACHD in the initial stages and that's usually your clue, you know, if there is going to be a problem down the road and, you know, we got a green
light there, I got a green light from P&Z, and went to the drawing board, so --
Anderson: I guess I can't give you any guarantees, but I feel better with industrial. I'm concerned about having little kids in that area trying to make their way to the park and
where ever else they are going to head to and I just personally don't feel that putting residential in the middle of all that commercial and industrial is a good idea. I mean when
they get bored, they are going to go find mischief to get into and it will be breaking the windows behind a warehouse or something else. You know, and I would feel better with industrial
in that area.
Centers: Even the future land use plan shows that high density residential.
Anderson: I understand. I'm speaking for me personally.
Centers: But the problem with tying it with something that might happen at a certain time, you know, I just can't hold that property that long, you know, on something that ACHD is going
to do in the future because it takes -- it takes a long time to get one of those approved, get one of them built, and get them up and leased out and, you know, I don't want to take that
chance. I would rather just redraw it into industrial, if that's what you would like to see there. But, you know, I hope you can appreciate I don't want to do it twice or three times.
Bird: Council, any questions? Statements?
De Weerd: I guess we always had concern with the multi-family there and we thought that it was compromised with the timing of the road improvements as far as safety with the fire station
across the street and the park down the street with the residential component and I, like Councilman Anderson, we are not going to give a blank guarantee on something that's not in front
of us, but the phasing in was put in place because of the concern about the safety issue, because the road wasn't improved and there were not sidewalks and there would be kids involved,
so --
Centers: Well, an industrial site would be simpler to Murdocks and Stonebridge and everything else that's in the area, but I just don't want to, you know, give up what we have already
got going if there isn't -- the widening of that road is just so
far down the road, I mean it's three or four years down the road, you know, and if they get some delays in acquisition or whatever it is that, you know, right of ways and so on, it's
just too long.
Bird: What would your -- Mr. Centers, what would your time table be on doing your multi-housing, the -- as we were told here, the office -- it was seven lots or six lots of office would
go first and then you would do your apartment building. What are you looking at, two, three years to get it out going or --
Centers: If we got approvals on it now, the way things are moving through Meridian, it would probably be a year before we got approvals for construction drawings. A project like that
takes the better part of nine months to a year, depending on weather and when we start it. It's generally a six month lease up period, so it's about two and a half years down the road.
And the timing on widening the road isn't good. I'm not sure that that's a good time to be trying to lease up when it's all torn up, if that were the case.
Bird: Yes. The condition, but like Mr. Anderson said, if we was to give you the go ahead and start building at the point of when the contract was awarded for the road widening, which
I can foresee if they are doing it in 2004, the contract is probably going to be awarded either towards the tail end of 2003 or the first of 2004 and if that's what Councilman Anderson,
as I understood, was agreeable to, then that would get you started in about your time period that you're just talking about, the actual building of it.
Centers: Is there a phasing that would work? I mean we had talked about it. Generally those projects are built all at one time, but, you know, if there was --
Anderson: See, that was -- I think the key issue I was trying to get out of you when we asked the question on phasing was because of the concern about the children and the traffic,
that if you could phase it so that you didn't start the apartment complex part of it until we were getting real close to having the road under construction and so that's why I think
we ended up putting the condition that we did on there, but when we asked you that question you said, well, you know, it depends on the market. Well, that didn't tell us a whole lot
of anything. I mean it could right at the start, it could at the very end.
Centers: True. But I should have explained how long it -- from the time you started until the time it's ready to -- even before it would impact Franklin. I mean I guess that's a phasing.
But if multi-family would be allowed there, I might look at, you know, permitting 70 a year, but to wait until they widen the road or the contract is let is a long time to hold that
property. And I'm just concerned that if -- you know, if they run into some more obstacles -- it seems like they are moving ahead, then postpone, and I don't want to be tied to something,
you know, that is just open-ended out there. I would rather redesign it and do the industrial and move on, than wait that long.
De Weerd: Would you like us to table this all to October 2nd and you can give that some thought? We don't have to act on this.
Bird: Well, what we can do is they agreed to the first two items, the annexation and zoning.
De Weerd: On the annexation, the --
Bird: And the request for preliminary and then they wanted to do the conditional use program, if they wanted to reconsider it, is what they considered doing, as I understand.
Anderson: Well, I'm like Tammy. I mean if we gave you a little bit of time to maybe work with our staff and come up with a phasing plan on your own with them that would somehow satisfy
our concerns about the roadway improvements, then we would be glad to listen to those.
Centers: Well, at the rate of 70 a year where it would be finished about the time, you know, the road was anticipated to be finished, would that be accepted to you? Because if it's
not, then I think we need to, you know, look at the industrial.
Anderson: What was the total number of units?
Centers: 228.
De Weerd: There was how many units there?
Centers: Pardon me?
Anderson: You're roughly talking about possibly a three year --
Centers: Yes. It wouldn't be built out, I don't believe, sooner than the three year period.
Bird: Okay. Council, what's your pleasure?
Anderson: I guess I would be favorable to tabling it if we think we have some common ground that we can work on. If we don't, then, may as well take a vote on it tonight.
Bird: Well, make a motion or whatever way you want to go.
Nichols: Mr. President, Members of the Council, I would just say that if we are going to table it to take in new information, such as a phasing plan, you would have to schedule a public
hearing to take that testimony, so it couldn't be done
on a second, it would have to be done on the third Tuesday in October in order to have sufficient time for the notice to be published and the property be posted, so that that information
could be received. Just a point of information.
Bird: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess where I'm coming from is that I don't think -- like when we had the original conversation that the apartment shouldn't be there until the sidewalks and the roads are
improved, because that means the existence of kids in that area until the sidewalks and the roads are improved. With the fire engine traffic going out of there and the proximity of
that park, that that was the safety issue that I was concerned with. We phased it in terms of the business component and the apartment component, so that was phasing that I was comfortable
with. I guess the question that Mr. Centers raised is, you know, what he needs to I guess make a decision on is if what -- where we have it right now is okay or if he wants to come
back with an industrial -- a different application than what we have here. So those are the two choices I see, either we keep it as is or he comes back with something else.
Centers: One more thing. I'm not trying to convince you to put multi-family in there. Just tell me what I can put in there, if it's not the plan that you have got before you, and
I will redraw it.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, you heard what I thought.
Bird: Council, what's your -- what do you want to do?
Anderson: Well, I'm not sure. Shari and Stanley sound like they are pretty much set on the condition that we have on there now, that that would create the phasing, so I'm not sure
making any other motions is going to go anywhere anyway.
Bird: Okay. I'll let them make the motions.
Anderson: Make a new motion or the current one?
Bird: Number five. We need to get all of it. We can sit here and talk all night and not get anything accomplished.
De Weerd: Well, so do we want to vote on these findings? Is that what I'm understanding?
Bird: Yes. We pulled them off so we could talk about them and then we've got to vote on them.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Whether you table it or whatever you do, you got to vote on it.
Anderson: We either vote on them or I guess Mr. Centers would have the option of withdrawing the application and then if he wanted to go back and come back with industrial, he could
at that point.
Bird: Mr. Centers?
Centers: Yes. I just -- it would be very difficult to hold the property for that length of period. I would rather withdraw -- and I mean if we could leave our light office the way
it is, those are all platted lots. I think we worked through all of that. You simply would have X amount of industrial lots going back to Adkins back there if we did the industrial.
De Weerd: Well, that would be a new application then.
Centers: Right. Bill, I don't think we could -- you know, I wouldn't agree to annex and rezone that back piece with that condition on it, so I would have to withdraw it, wouldn't I?
Nichols: Reasonable minds can differ. President Bird, Members of the Council, response to Mr. Centers' question. The only thing you can act on is the applications that are in front
of you now and that application is for annexation and zoning of that entire parcel, with a portion of it being commercial and a portion of it being residential. So you can't -- I don't
think we can modify the application midstream here to take out -- to leave a portion of it out.
De Weerd: Mr. President.
Bird: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Why don't I propose to table this until October 2nd and give the applicant time to confer with his attorney and if he decides to withdraw, then he can withdraw it in that
meantime.
Anderson: That would be a good idea.
Bird: You started out --
De Weerd: I will make a motion to table the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law for request an annexation -- request for annexation and zoning for Baltic Place Subdivision to
October 2nd, 2001.
Bird: Is there a second?
Anderson: I will second.
Bird: Okay. There is a motion to table the annexation and zoning of 12.71 acres of Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C. Developers, Incorporated. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Mr. President.
Bird: Ms. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we table Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for request of preliminary plat by Baltic Place Subdivision until October 2nd, 2001.
Anderson: Second.
Bird: Okay. Move and second to table until October 2nd, 2001, request for the preliminary plat, approval of 10 building lots and three other lots on 12.71 acres for Baltic Place Subdivision.
Any questions? Hearing none, all in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Finally, I move that we table the Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval of the request of a CUP for a planned unit development for mixed residential/commercial
for Baltic Place Subdivision to October 2nd, 2001.
Anderson: Second.
Bird: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to table the request for Conditional Use Permit on the planned use unit development for mixed use residential/commercial for Baltic Place Subdivision
to October 2nd, 2001. Any questions? Hearing none, all in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5-V. Order Granting Appeal: AP 01-00 Stop Work Order at 2340 West Franklin Road by Walt Morrow:
Bird: Okay. Thank you. Sorry. The next one is 5-V. Mr. Morrow had a question on the Finding of Facts and if the applicant would like to come forward and point out what his --
Morrow: Mr. President, Council, Walt Morrow, 2340 W. Franklin Road, Meridian. This item was before you on August 24th and again on September 4th concerning the stop work order with
respect to my project on my place. The Findings of Fact were given to me a couple days ago to review. I'd like to discuss them item by
item, because there are some inaccuracies in that. Item No. 1 says: Walt Morrow submitted for approval to the Planning and Zoning administrator an application for an accessory use building
to an existing land use at 2340 W. Franklin Road within an I-L zone. That's totally incorrect. I submitted my plan and specifications to the building department. At no time did I ever
appear before the Planning and Zoning administrator concerning this application. All communication to me with respect to this stop work order was through the city building department,
either through Daunt Whitman or through Gary Smith. So that's an incorrect statement. Item No. 2, the Planning and Zoning office denied the application. I didn't submit an application.
How could it deny the application? For an accessory building to an existing land use at 2340 W. Franklin Road upon the basis that the administrator determined that this building permit
request did not meet the criteria for an accessory building and therefore the request would need to be processed as a request for a Conditional Use Permit with additional concerns. Once
again, I did not submit that to the Planning and Zoning administrator. The Planning and Zoning administrator apparently sent her concerns to Daunt Whitman of the building department.
The building department, then, through Daunt Whitman, sought a stop work order, list of some concerns that he had to send to me by virtue of the letter, because the letter took them
off of the stop work order. Annexation requirements of the property had not been met, including making provisions in how the property would be served with sewer, water, and design review
of all buildings. Once again, if you review your minutes from the meetings those questions were --
De Weerd: Mr. Morrow.
Morrow: Yes.
De Weerd: We know that this all needs to be rewritten, so why don't we not go through it item by item and just ask the attorney to draw up some new findings.
Morrow: Well, I -- and I agree with that, but I want to make sure they are on the record, because we seem to have a problem with what's in the record and what's on the findings of fact
as represented here.
De Weerd: Okay. Mostly we ask our applicants to submit their comments in writing, so maybe you could submit them in writing and give them to our attorney and he can redraw these.
Morrow: That would be fine, but nobody told me that before right now.
De Weerd: Is that right?
Morrow: That's correct.
De Weerd: Usually the cover letter says submit your comments in writing.
Bird: I have got a question on where these findings of fact come about. Because none of this stuff was even stated in any of the discussions or --
De Weerd: I don't know.
Bird: Or -- that's the reason I asked the -- and I told the applicant he could come forward. I mean --
De Weerd: We made them up.
Nichols: Mr. President, Members of the Council, if I may, we have got these from the staff comments with regard to the reason for this stop work order. If they are not accurate, we
will change them, so if you tell us to take them out, we will do it. But that's where they came from.
Bird: Okay. And they evidently are not -- not accurate.
Nichols: Mr. President.
Bird: Yes.
Nichols: Mr. Morrow, do you have any problem with the actual terms of the order? The bottom of page two, top of page three.
Morrow: I have a problem with item number two. It's vague. Essentially at some point in time when the building is converted to another use, if it's within the criteria of an industrial
zone, which it's in, at that point in time why would it require a Conditional Use Permit? If it's outside usage of the industrial zone that applies or the zone requirements that applied
at the time of conversion, then, obviously, it should have a conditional use. But in terms of the motion approving the stop work order, there was no reference to a conditional use.
Nichols: Mr. President.
Bird: Yes.
Nichols: Well, let me just explain why I phrased it the way I did. My understanding -- and you spoke before in terms of the storage use of the building and the agricultural use of the
building and that it was not being developed or built to industrial standards, nor did you wish to. At least that's my recollection.
Morrow: If you read the minutes you will see where I -- I made the statement concerning the construction of the building is being constructed in such a manner that at some point in
the future it can easily be converted to any type of industrial use that would conform to the covenants and restrictions that I would put in place
for development of that property. Part of the issue here is this is not a development application, it's a single use building, that covenants and restrictions in the design of this
building are exactly the same as the buildings that we are building in Riverside or in Stonebridge or in -- on Commercial Street, light industrial park. The design of the building is
such that it qualifies for all that. It also will say in the minutes that I indicated that at some point in time, should I choose to develop this property and subdivide it, with the
exception of the house -- and this is the only building that survives that development, all the rest of the buildings would be destroyed and development would occur. And so I did reference
those, that at some point in the future. I believe Daunt Whitman referenced that in his testimony before the Council, that at some point in the future, in terms of changing of usage,
that it would go back to the building permit process and at that point in time, if it's industrial use, there is no need for a Conditional Use Permit. If it's something that's outside
the zoning of industrial use, then a Conditional Use Permit would be required. And that would be the natural course of things. It doesn't need to refer to a Conditional Use Permit
in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
Nichols: President Bird.
Bird: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: I believe that Ms. Stiles has something.
Bird: Shari?
Stiles: President Bird. Council. I think the intent of that comment -- or that condition would be that since it is a nonconforming use, since typically this application would require
a Conditional Use Permit or any other individual, because you're expanding a nonconforming use, if that were expanded further to be a further expansion of the nonconforming use, they
would need to do a Conditional Use Permit, and also just by virtue of him saying it's turning into industrial does not make it a permitted use. You still have nonconforming uses on
the parcel. He would still -- I mean if he went through the subdivision process, platted it into a separate lot, could meet the ordinance requirements to plat it, the house would have
to be discontinued as its residential use for that zone. Sure, he could do it through a platting process and not have to have the Conditional Use Permit, but simply to change it to
an industrial use without a Conditional Use Permit, he would not be able to do that.
Bird: Council, what's your pleasure? Shall we continue this and let the attorney redraw the Findings of Fact and go through the minutes and --
Anderson: Well, I missed the last meeting, because I was out of town, so I guess I just will fill in the voids for me here. At the last meeting I was at one of the
issues was complying with all applicable building and fire codes. Are you going to meet those codes?
Morrow: We are meeting the building codes as per what Daunt specified with respect to the building, the two divider walls, as the building was submitted. There was -- I think part of
the suggestion, Councilman Anderson, was -- is that had Skip reviewed the plans -- I believe that Daunt testified that he didn't think that Skip had reviewed plans, that the plans had
been approved by him for the usage with the divider walls and the same process had been followed as was followed with the other four building permits that have been issued at that site
over the course of the last few years.
Anderson: I guess -- I mean I have a concern with that, because at the last meeting I talked about I don't understand how somebody can get a building permit without submitting through
all the normal channels that anybody else would have to. And I also talked about, you know, the fact that you were a former councilman and that you're a builder and that you know Daunt
and I wanted to know what Daunt's explanation was of why those plans weren't submitted to the proper channels. And if they weren't submitted to the proper channels, then before we proceeded
any further we needed to do that, because -- just because somebody made a mistake and let this go doesn't mean that we should let this slide through the entire process. And especially
if we let you, as a former Council person, and as a builder build a building that doesn't meet all applicable codes and it sounds like the only ones that you are meeting was the building
codes, not the fire codes. Then what kind of an example does that set for us and what kind of a precedent does that set for anybody wanting to come in in the future, that they can somehow
slip something through or if they know somebody that they get special favors. And I definitely don't want to have anybody to have that impression, that that kind stuff goes on in Meridian.
Morrow: And I understand that and am sensitive to that and the issue was -- and on the record in terms of the minutes from what Daunt testified in answering those questions. I submitted
those plans with the same procedures for that project that I had submitted the other four projects for over the course of the last 15 years and it was determined by Daunt that it was
in compliance with the building codes and the necessary things that needed to be there and that's why he issued the building permit. I think that if you review those minutes you will
also see that it's his belief that he may have errored in his issuing that permit, but, nonetheless, he did, because of lack of conversation through the Planning and Zoning Department.
That's all that I can answer for you with respect to that. We did everything that we had typically done for that parcel of ground over the course of the last four building permits prior
to that
Anderson: Did Daunt come and testify at the last meeting?
Morrow: All the testimony at the last meeting was basically Daunt's. I think that there are something like -- there is four pages of his testimony, there is a page of Council testimony,
and there was a couple of questions asked of me and that was the extent of it.
Nichols: Mr. President.
Bird: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. President, Councilman Anderson, Members of the Council, one of the reasons I specified the uses in the order is because of my recollection of Daunt's testimony with regard
to the fire issues if it's used as storage only and Mr. Morrow testified he was only going to be storing items inside the building that were being stored outside in the weather now and
the loafing shed part of it. It doesn't have to have the fire code prevention, as I understood it, that -- like the one down the road would have to have had because of the hot work
and stuff that was going on inside the building. So we did address the fire code issues with Mr. Whitman.
Anderson: Well, it does and it doesn't. I mean you can ask Kenny, but a building that size still has to have water flow available to it, fire hydrants, and municipal systems. It may
not have to be sprinkled, but there has to be water within so many feet of that building. If he changes the use of that building, then it may require -- I mean if you started doing
some type of processing in there and manufacturing, then it may have to be a sprinkler building. But one of the big issues right now is that it does not have water supply available
to it. Is that correct, Kenny, or --
Bowers: Mr. President, City Council, Councilman Anderson. Yes, there is no water on Franklin Road at this time in front of the -- in front of Walt's residence. It stops I believe right
by Interstate Battery.
Anderson: So the use and the building that he wants to put up does not meet current fire codes?
Bowers: No, it does not.
Anderson: And I guess I just -- I just have a problem with approving anything that doesn't meet the current code. And I think it's such a real poor example of the Council that if we
make an allowance, regardless of whose mistake it was initially who gave you the building permit.
Morrow: I understand your position.
Bird: Council, what's your pleasure?
McCandless: Mr. President.
Bird: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: It was my understanding that when we reversed the stop work order that any -- just exactly what this says, any expansion of use of this building will require a Conditional
Use Permit. We talked about it.
Bird: The minutes are here. I will let them -- staff deal with that. I don't remember word for word. But I think we need to get it straight whatever it is.
De Weerd: Can this be revisited at -- it's not a land use, is it? Can this be on our agenda next week?
Bird: It is a land use. Variance.
De Weerd: If it's qualified land as use we could always put it for October 2nd, but these cannot pass in their current form and it looks like we need to refresh our memory with the
minutes.
Nichols: Mr. President, Members of the Council, I'm going to be leaving town tomorrow afternoon and won't be back until Monday and so even if I get these things dictated tomorrow morning,
I'm not going to have a chance to look at them until Monday, as far as looking at the minutes and the rest of it to clean up the deal, and Mr. Morrow should have an opportunity to see
whatever it is that I revise more than a day before the meeting.
Bird: Council?
Anderson: Mr. President.
Bird: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Again, I don't want to just beat this -- beat this point either, but I am having a real time emotionally with this one, because I know a little bit about the business, that
when plans are submitted they have to be approved by both the building official and the fire official and the building official checks the building to make sure that it meets building
codes. The fire official checks the plans to make sure that they meet life safety codes. And apparently that did not happen in this case and you're setting a very dangerous precedent
if the Council approves this building permit and allows this building to be built at this point. Without going back and having the fire department review these plans, you, in a sense,
are taking the liability that if anything happens in that building -- this has never been reviewed by the fire department, it's never been approved. If somebody is ever killed or injured
in that building, it's on your heads for approving this. And I, for one, as a Councilman will not approve it.
Bird: Council, let's take this on, we can go through the process October 2nd.
I'll entertain a motion and then we can get the minutes all taken care of and
done with.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, Mr. President, I move that we table this until October 2nd.
Bird: 2001.
De Weerd: 2001.
Bird: Is there a second?
Anderson: Wasn't Bill going to be out of town on the 2nd?
Bird: He said, no, he would be back.
Anderson: I will second it.
Bird: Okay. Been moved and seconded to table to October 2nd, 2001, the order granting appeal of the stop work order at 2340 W. Franklin Road by Walt Morrow. Hearing no discussion,
all in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Morrow: Thank you.
Bird: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. President.
Bird: Yes, Mrs. De Weerd.
De Weerd: Will, when you get the minutes on that can you stick it in all of our boxes, just that one section?
Berg: Yes.
Item 6. Tabled from August 28, 2001: Ordinance No. : Flood Damage Prevention and Repealing Chapter 11 Title 11 Floodplain Overlay District:
Bird: Okay. Council, Ordinance tabled from August 28th, the Flood Damage Prevention and Repealing Chapter 11, Title 11, Floodplain Overlay District. What is the number, Mr. Clerk?
Berg: Mr. President, the number is 01-928.
Bird: Mr. Clerk, would you read the ordinance by title only.
Berg: Thank you. Mr. President, Members of the Council, Ordinance No. 01-928, an Ordinance of the City of Meridian pertaining to flood damage prevention, amending Section 10-6-5 B-1,
residential construction by addition thereto of the new Subsection C to amend Section 10-6-5 C-2, floodways for the addition thereto of the reference in Section 10-6-5 and for the addition
of a new Section E, all of Chapter 6 of Title 10, Flood Damage Prevention and repealing Chapter 11, Title 11, Meridian City Code, Floodplain Overlay District FP and providing an effective
date.
Bird: Is there anybody in the audience that would like to hear the ordinance read in its entirety? Hearing none, discussion, Council?
Anderson: Mr. President.
Bird: Yes, Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I still had the question -- I think I heard Bill at the strategic planning meeting a while ago, we were waiting on what FEMA's definition of what the finish floor was. Did
we ever get that definition?
Bird: Got it at the work session.
McCandless: Yes.
Anderson: Well, would you, please, give me the official version?
Bird: Right here.
Nichols: Mr. President.
Bird: Yes.
Nichols: And Members of the Council, Councilman Anderson. FEMA interprets crawl spaces as basements and the -- what it boils down to with regard to this particular ordinance is the
language about the lowest finished floor is already in the existing ordinance and so you're not changing that part of it. FEMA -- we can argue the language. We can argue the language
from the Code of Federal Regulations, all of that stuff, but what it boils down to is FEMA in Region 10 is taking the position that the crawl space is a basement and, therefore, the
bottom of the crawl space has to be at or above the floodplain when they -- in order to satisfy the minimum insurance premium level and absent further clarification from
the politicians in Washington on that issue, it appears as though the regulations are designed for either places on a hill with a basement or a slab on grade construction. And that's
where it's at. They don't take into consideration the hydrostatic pressure is mitigated by the floor joists every 24 inches or any of the other issues. So -- anyway, so we didn't get
the answer we wanted from FEMA, but at least we know where they are at. The major concern is for the builders in how they approach these -- construction in these floodplains and that
they know going in how they have to construct these homes in order to get out of the high premium flood insurance issues. And according to the representative from the Department of
Water Resources at the meeting that I attended, they have had meetings where they have presented that issue to builders, they have talked with the builders about the elevation certificates
that have to be part of the final approvals before certificate of occupancy is issued and so there is an understanding among the many builders with regard to what they have to do in
the floodplain. So what this order essentially does is it removes that Floodplain Overlay District, but it still incorporates all the existing requirements that FEMA has imposed on
the city in order to have structures qualify for flood insurance.
Bird: Does that answer your question, Councilman Anderson?
Anderson: Yes.
Bird: Any other questions?
Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Gigray -- I mean Nichols.
Bird: Hearing none, I would entertain a motion.
De Weerd: Mr. President.
Bird: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 01-928, Flood Damage Prevention and Repealing Chapter 11, Title 11, Floodplain Overlay District.
Anderson: Second.
Bird: Okay. Motion been made and second that we approve the Flood Damage Prevention 01-928 -- oh, that's roll call vote. Mr. Clerk.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President. Members of the Council, roll call vote.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7. Public Hearing: AZ 01-011 Request for annexation and zoning of 9.79 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Franklin Mini Storage by Ron Osborne – 1975 East Franklin Road:
Item 8. Public Hearing: CUP 01-024 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a storage unit on 9.79 acres with one office/commercial pad for Franklin Mini Storage
by Ron Osborne – 1975 East Franklin Road:
Bird: Okay. Council, we have got -- and with your permission I'd like to open up Items 7 and 8 together as a public hearing. Request for annexation and zoning of 9.79 acres from RUT
to C-G zones by Franklin Mini Storage by Ron Osborne. And also the request for a Conditional Use Permit for construction of a storage unit on 9.79 acres with one office/commercial
pad for Franklin Mini Storage by Ron Osborne. I will open it up for the public. We will have the staff go, the applicant will have seven minutes, and if there is any public testimony
we'd like you to hold it to three minutes and then applicant can have five minutes for rebuttal. We'd like to stay to this as close as we can. Staff.
Stiles: Mr. President, Council, this is for a property on Franklin Road. It's immediately adjacent to Green Hills Estate Subdivision. It's approximately a quarter mile east of Locust
Grove Road to the south. Also to the south of this development is -- this is Woodbridge. This is an older aerial photo, so it doesn't show the existing development in there. Five Mile
Creek traverses the property on the northwest corner. Woodbridge has done extensive landscaping in this area. Their pool and clubhouse is along the creek here. And with their second
phase they will be continuing the pathway along Five Mile Creek. As part of the Conditional Use Permit for this they would extend the pathway, connecting it to Woodbridge, and do a
paved pathway to their property boundary. It shows better the existing platted development of Woodbridge and Green Hill Estates. This doesn't show up as being annexed yet, but this
would be the property that has been -- oh, I'm sorry. I think that's for the -- oh. This is the property that was -- what was that called? It was approved as a mixed use development.
You may recall approving that not too long ago. There is no development there at this present time. In the recommendations that were submitted there are some clarifications that need
to be made on those recommendations. Do you have a copy of the position statement submitted by Steve Siddoway?
De Weerd: Yes.
Stiles: There were some clarifications made in that position statement and those changes would need to be incorporated into the findings. Also the recommendation that was made -- or
the way that was worded indicated that that would be -- that that five foot high berm would be completed when Phase Two was completed, but it needs to be constructed with the construction
of Phase
Two. The other exterior landscaping -- perimeter landscaping for the project would need to be completed with Phase One. And then on page nine of the recommendations, the roof pitch shall
be a minimum as submitted of 1.5 to 12, not two to 12, on all interior buildings of Phase One. Roof pitch shall be a minimum of three to 12 on Phase Two. That was Steve's understanding
of the motion made by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Also on page seven of the findings, paragraph 44, the Planning and Zoning Commission did not adopt the Green Hill Estates Homeowners
Association letter and it should be deleted from the recommendation. Council should certainly read that letter and consider it during the deliberations on this project, but it has
some conflicting information in it and should not be included in the recommendation. This is showing photographs from the existing Woodbridge development with their pathway. This is
the site plan that has been submitted for construction of the storage unit and the office commercial pad, which they have indicated some precise uses that they may anticipate in the
future. As they have indicated on their plan, they show it as being proposed mixed uses. They are showing office, medical, dental, and optical clinic possibility, car wash, and some
kind of facility dealing with truck or moving rental, I would -- I would say that would probably be some type of U-Haul or Ryder truck facility that they are considering. They can elaborate
on that in their presentation. The existing home that is on the property would be converted to use upon construction of Phase One as a caretaker's residence and office. They would be
constructing a solid wall of buildings on the eastern boundary. They would have a planting strip beyond that, in accordance with city ordinance. The fencing -- they can correct me if
I'm wrong on this -- would be on the western boundary of that planting strip. Also they would have landscaping on the perimeter to the south and would continue that pathway and construct
the pathway for the Five Mile Creek. They have submitted a revised landscape plan based on those recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission. And it appears that this newly
submitted plan would be in compliance with those recommendations. This would show the view of the east -- the east elevation of the building. This would be the west elevation of the
building, which is to say this is what would be viewed from -- well, I'm not -- that's not correct. I'm sorry. This would be the east elevation from -- looking from the Green Hill
Estates Subdivision. And this would be the view from the west. The south elevation they are showing the ribbed metal wall panels. I'm not sure what you'd like to be looking at as
you listen to the presentation. I guess the applicant may want a certain slide up as they make their presentation.
Bird: Council have any questions for staff?
Anderson: I have none.
Bird: Okay. Applicant? Before you start, Kent, we have received two letters that we would like to enter into the record. Both of them received today and I don't know if the applicant
has had a chance to look at them. One from Derick O'Neill
and one from Robin Paulson. So I will enter them into the record. Have you had a chance to see them?
Brown: Yes. Yes, I have.
Bird: Name, please.
Brown: Kent Brown. Business address, 1800 West Overland, Boise, Idaho.
Bird: Would you raise your hand, tell the whole truth and the whole truth, is that what -- we started this -- we started this sometime –
De Weerd: We really did and he's forgotten.
Bird: I forgot. I'm sorry.
Brown: Okay.
Bird: Do you promise and affirm that the testimony you give tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you?
Brown: I do.
Bird: Thank you, Kent.
Brown: That's a new twist for sure. Briefly as quickly as possible. We met initially with the Green Hill Homeowners Association, talked about our project, and made some modifications
to the original plan and got that prior to our hearing with the P&Z, our initial hearing. We had also met once -- actually twice before the hearing with the Woodbridge people. And
trying to be a good neighbor. Ron Osborne lives -- I'm just going to point it out. You can see the pool. He lives adjacent to this property and after the Woodbridge project went in
he bought the property to create a buffer between him and the development. And as a part of buying it made a pact with his wife that the south portion would not be developed for a lengthy
period of time and then he came to us and approached us and asked us for applicable uses that would allow him to still live in the neighborhood with the neighbors that are there and
yet would meet your requirement. And as we discussed it, the storage unit complex to us seemed like a good fit there. They are a quiet neighbor. And so that's how we approached our
neighbors when we discussed the items with them. We initially had a smaller building along our easterly boundary and Mr. Paulson, Robin's husband, asked us, you know, if possible, to
make it so that he couldn't see any of the property. So we reversed the pitch of the roof so that the highest part of the building is against them. It just so happens that where they
are at we have to cut the side a little bit, but they would still have a 14 foot tall building on their side. Most of the rest of the homeowners in there would have a 22 foot. After
our first hearing with the
Planning and Zoning Commission, they asked us to meet once more with the Green Hill Neighborhood Association and with Woodbridge builder team and we did that. In the presentation with
the Green Hill neighbors, they asked some questions about having some shrubs, as well as trees along that rear property line. We agreed to do that. That was, as you can see in their
comment, Mr. Paulson was still very much against it, but for the most part Ron's been up and down the neighborhood and most of the neighbors were not opposed to it. In fact, one of
the neighbors wanted it to happen right away, instead of having Ron wait the period of time, and Ron said he would lose everything he has, because his wife would take it if he did that.
So it's not really an option to develop that latter portion and so our intent, really, is to develop the portion next to Franklin Road now in Phase One and wait for the remainder. Listening
to some of the things that Shari talked about makes it a little confusing. What we agreed to do -- and you have a site plan that we submitted and is in your packet, that Phase One would
have the one and a half to 12 pitch roofs. This would have three and a half to 12 pitch roofs. We would put on our westerly end of the building from our initial discussion with Woodbridge,
we never proposed any garage doors on that end of the building. The condition that's in there from them were acceptable with as having a minimum of three foot high -- we are looking
at putting along that end. As you look at the plan -- and this is what took place as a part of the hearing with Planning and Zoning, there is a six foot planter along the whole end,
so as you look at the west end of that building, against the building there will be a planter with trees and shrubs or shrubs against that building. It will have an architectural look
to it, because of the type of building materials that we are looking at, combination of metal and block to give it a more residential look. We are proposing no open storage, other than
the covered storage that would be in this building and how this ended up being modified, we agreed not to have a building any closer than 90 feet from the Woodbridge property line and
we also agreed to put a five foot high berm on that portion of that building and it's impossible to put a berm in until the building gets built, so that's -- and we would like to have
that requirement to have that berm put in when we build that particular building. In our meeting some of the things that we weren't really clear on, in looking through the slides Shari
showed you an asphalt path, that asphalt path is in this portion of the Woodbridge property. It goes up to their clubhouse that's back here and loops around. They have no asphalt path.
They are proposing along the sewer easement a gravel path that they say is approved with their project. We would like to take on our drawing where it shows asphalt and match what the
Woodbridge is doing and that is also the same location that the sewer gravel road is and so the two would be in combination with the walking path and also serve as a service road for
the sewer. And we would like to continue what Woodbridge is doing within that location. The other modification that we would like to make, in talking with Steve Siddoway we would like
to put perma bark behind the back of our building. He says it's not allowed in the landscape buffers and that that would require some approval from you. What we were looking at is that
this is at the back of the one acre lots and we are proposing to put trees and shrubs up here close against the property line here
where we cut the building and then against the building in this location and it really isn't a place that anybody is going to be and why put something in there that creates a greater
maintenance problem. In one of our neighborhood meetings they discussed the bark going around and so, therefore, we would like to put perma bark back there. The other request that we
have had in all of the hearings that has never been included in a motion is we have never proposed to put trees and shrubs between the Osbornes and their pasture at this time. They
really don't need to be screened. Our phase line is up here and they would like to put those trees and shrubs in when we do the second phase. But our intent has been all along that
we will install all the landscaping in the entire development, minus this piece when we do the first phase. We will put in the storm drains facility. We will complete the path initially.
The only landscaping that would not go in is the berm that's on this end of the building. Other than that, the entire landscaping would go in. We also, for the record, discussed the
planning and zoning. There is an existing metal building up here in this corner and that metal building he's currently renting. We would like to continue to use that building. And
in your site plan that you have that was submitted, it's in there and we would like to use it. For the record, it does extend ten feet into that landscape buffered area, but it's an
existing structure already in there and we would like to leave it as is and have people be able to rent that as space and there really isn't a need for it to be tore down. There is already
-- along its easterly boundary is trees already screened that -- existing trees are there. We would have to go in and cut some of them down so that we can pipe the irrigation ditch along
the Green Hill side, but we feel that this is a nice development with nice materials. Our proposal is to put a three rail white vinyl fence all the way around our entire project, so
up against the Green Hill neighbors' side there would be three rail fence and then the landscaping and then the back of our building we would have a three rail fence on this side with
our landscaping and then a chain link fence up next to our asphalt and the three rail fence would come down here and here at this time. You can't really fence across the flood plan,
it creates kind of a dam. The Woodbridge people have a solid wood fence on their side. The other item that I had to discuss was the -- we proposed a temporary fence or a temporary fence
between Phase One and Phase Two with trees and shrubs that would screen the end of the building from the Woodbridge development and we were able -- in our last hearing -- we had two
hearings before Planning and Zoning and in our last hearing before the Planning and Zoning that basically was the only item that we couldn't come to a compromise with the Woodbridge
people, which we had taken care of the Green Hills concerns and we were able to come to compromises on all the other basic items. That was one of the items. And the Commission went
along with us in our request to have that be a temporary fence, a temporary landscaping, and the letter that you got from the Woodbridge people is asking for that to be solid and long
term permanent. As we have gone around and looked at other storage unit facilities with the amount of landscaping that we are putting in and so forth, this is a lot nicer than Meridian
has anywhere else in town and it is one of the nicest
developments in the valley, it would be with the way that we feel that we are proposing it. Are there any questions?
Bird: Council, any questions for Mr. Brown?
Anderson: Mr. President.
Bird: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I had one. On that drawing that you have there, how do you propose keeping people off that walking path and going to the back? Is there a gate there or -- hold your drawing
up.
Brown: If you look at the drawing that was proposed and what we are looking at there is what we proposed at that meeting and Planing and Zoning asked us to submit this drawing to you
that met all of our compromises. And the Woodbridge people wanted a solid building at this end that was not 90 feet away from the property line with a five foot berm. That building
will create the wall that we will need to keep people from having access into our storage unit and then we have a chain link fence at this point and then on the inside against the asphalt.
Then the pathway connects here, comes down, and then would continue along the Five Mile. It only cuts across our southwest corner of our property and the building creates our buffer
-- basically people -- if you will, we almost have an acre park here that we are creating with a storage unit facility that is at the south end of our project and then we have a fence
that will we keep people out in that one location.
Anderson: And what's back of that building? Is it all metal or --
Brown: Yes.
Anderson: And what's the guarantee, that there is going to be landscaping and grass and stuff back there?
Brown: We are going to landscape initially, but we would not landscape where the berm would go and it's a block on the backside of that building and then a metal roof.
De Weerd: Until the building is built?
Brown: Until the building is built basically they would have access -- he's going to have a fence to keep his horses in this portion of it and the phase line is back up here and we
are putting a fence at that location, which we are planning to put a three rail vinyl fence until there is a security problem, which is a long ways across for someone to go. Is that
a problem?
Anderson: Well, a three rail vinyl fence has never been real secure in my opinion, but --
Brown: Right. We are not viewing --
Anderson: We are not viewing -- we are not viewing that that is going to be a security problem. If it is, then we would have to fence that with another material. But then at this point
we are not proposing any barbed wire on anything that we are proposing, it's just chain link. And we are proposing to take care of security with cameras and so forth. And as we have
talked to the people in the industry they -- and, you know, the police can maybe clarify that, but they tell us that it's not people breaking in that's a problem, it is the people that
-- if they want to burglarize something in the storage unit, they rent a space and then just spend a long time in there. You don't have any proposed caretaker house or anything?
Brown: There is an existing house that's on the site on Franklin Road.
Anderson: Is that what you plan on using that for?
Brown: Yes. We would remodel that. It has a daylight basement on the backside that would be the office. We would try to remodel the building, take off that old lath siding that you
probably put on, Ron, years ago and put something more that would match the architecture of the building and color scheme. Try to update it.
Bird: Any other questions for Mr. Brown? Thank you. Anybody else from the public that would like to testify? Raise your hand. Do you promise and affirm that the testimony you give tonight
is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you?
Beecham: I do.
Bird: Thank you. Name, please.
Beecham: My name is Scott Beecham, I'm here representing Woodbridge Community LLC. The address is 168 North 9th Street, Boise. I'd like to begin by thanking not only staff, but also
the applicant. As Kent mentioned, we met many times and they were very generous with their time, as well with their efforts in coming up with a project that was as compatible as possible
with the surrounding uses. I would like to identify quickly the three areas of concern that we had. Also make a couple of points of clarification. First of all, in the recommendation
there seemed to be conflicting or overlapping recommendations. That is, the general recommendations would be or should be superceded by some of the recommendations towards the end that
are covered by the Woodbridge covenants. Those are not anything that are critical, I just wanted to make the Council aware that there may be some overlapping recommendations there. The
second issue is the clarification, which I understand is probably addressed by
Steve Siddoway's letter to the Council, but I have not had a chance to see that. That is that the berm against the back of the southern most building is five feet in height, not five
feet in width, which was represented on the last drawing that I saw. The third and I guess the most critical point for us is in regards to internal landscaping. It may seem like an
usual request, but our thought process in this is that by nature we can see this land use as being compatible and we are not supportive of the re-zone in the neighboring property. We
thought that with some modifications to that site plan it could be compatible and would be compatible. As Kent said and we agree it is a quiet neighbor. It can be compatible in many
ways, but it's very hard to make a mini storage project visually compatible. With internal landscaping, a tree canopy growing up, you first have it on the south end of the property,
which would block the first series of buildings. Unfortunately, the Woodbridge property is a bit higher and you get a view down onto this property, at least on the southern half of
it, so that internal landscaping, the tree canopy, that would grow up and block the roof line of the northern buildings on, we -- again, we agreed on many items. This is the one item
that we did not agree on. We continue to feel it's very important, if you can imagine that the industrial nature of a mini storage project adjacent to a nice, new residential community
makes it very hard for marketing efforts on our part. Finally, I guess that notes clarification. There is reference in -- I guess Kent is correct in saying that we do show a gravel
path today on the Five Mile Creek pathway. We are into the city with final plat -- or a preliminary plat application for Phase Two right now, which we addressed that. That may or may
not end up being gravel. I think the applicant's intent is match what we do and so I don't see that there is a problem there, but my assumption is to see an asphalt pathway there if
it is to the future a greenbelt. Then, again, on the open space on the southern end of the property, I think it's a great benefit to Woodbridge, obviously, and we made a large Concession
in allowing that, but it's also a huge benefit to the City of Meridian. You got a greenbelt corridor going through there. Five Mile Creek. If it were just sandwiched between mini storage
units and a fence, I don't think it would be much of an amenity to the city. So, again, I guess I applaud the applicant for doing that and I think it is a critical element of the design,
making it compatible in this area. With that I would stand for any questions.
Bird: Council, any questions?
Anderson: Are these drawings you have up here, this exhibit, to be in the city, is that something you did or they did?
Beecham: Yes. Yes, it is, Mr. President, Council Members. What we did with the applicant's permission or allowance is did a study to show that we could incorporate that internal landscaping,
while maintaining the same square footage -- building square footage that they requested in their original application. That's what this study represents. Also in the letter that I
submitted today there is a very rudimentary sketch on the back page that shows generally what a bird's eye perspective of what the benefit of that internal landscaping would be.
Anderson: So this isn't the exterior finish that they have agreed on or is it?
Beecham: Actually, it is very close. They agreed to achieve more of a residential character using a variety of building materials, not just the standard metal siding. If you're -- excuse
me. If you're referring to the elevations of the sections, the site plan simply shows 20 by 180 foot landscaping island internal. Is doesn't need to be 20 feet, I would say a minimum
of ten feet, though. Again, I think it would be a great benefit to Woodbridge, because it is slightly below our property and the homes do look down on this property. Again, our reasoning
for trying to make it more compatible with the residential is at the time of the application, the future land use map showed this as a -- meeting a residential land use. We thought
that was inappropriate land use. However, we respect the applicant's right to change his land use. We feel that if this is approved, that it should be made compatible, however.
Bird: Any other questions, Council?
De Weerd: No. But that is your drawing, not the applicant's drawing?
Beecham: That's correct.
De Weerd: But it's quite similar and still has that -- the end landscape island on the west side.
Beecham: Absolutely.
De Weerd: Couldn't really see in your drawing. I imagined it.
Brown: I will pull it out.
De Weerd: Now is this the plat that the city has right now?
Brown: Yes. You can see the small landscape island there on the west side and the landscaping and stuff on the east side against the Green Hill Subdivision and the five foot side berm
that's on the back side of the building on landscaping, which was required by the -- this was required for us to provide to you and you should all have a copy in your –
Bird: Anymore questions? Fine. Thank you. Anybody else like to testify from the public? Do you promise or affirm that the testimony you give tonight is the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you?
Osborne: I do.
Bird: Name, please.
Osborne: Ron Osborne. 373 Thornwood Drive, Meridian. Member of the Green Hill Estates Subdivision and applicant. Mr. President, Council members, I want to share with you just a couple
items in requesting your approval tonight of this process. And in the Planning and Zoning, the last comments were made after their approval and passing on by two of the Council members
were that the Osbornes have bent over backwards to accommodate the Woodbridge Subdivision people and the Green Hill Estate people and I think that's a true statement. One, I live there.
They are neighbors, the Green Hill side especially, their kids play with my kids and we are planning on being there for awhile. The other thing, too, as I committed early on when we
retained Briggs Engineering, that I wanted the development to be a quality development. Many of the mini storage units around aren't such. As a result, we did make a number of concessions
to alleviate the concerns of both subdivisions. In doing so, the one in particular that was addressed by the Woodbridge here is we gave a substantial amount of ground at the south end
of the project, nearly an acre, that primarily is for the benefit of Woodbridge and -- let's be serious about it. Okay? They are the ones that are going to benefit from it. And, yeah,
it is nice, we are going to put walks along there in the future. In doing so, though, we wanted a temporary tree and bush -- small tree and bush along the end of the -- the south end
of the first phase, not a permanent large tree, large root development as they were requesting. One of the reasons is if that was ever need to be torn out, either for Phase Two or whatever,
it's expensive and a hassle and messy. I did at one point offer to consider that to them if they'd put the money up front for the eventual removal, but did not take me up on that. Also
both to Mr. Folsom and to Woodbridge and public records in Planning and Zoning, one of the concerns come out I did offer to sell the place to any of them and I had no takers. The second
phase, which buffers them by about five acres, the Woodbridge people, will not be developed for a number of years, minimum seven, ten on the outside. So the Woodbridge people, actually,
before any of those buildings ever go in there, the initial phase landscaping will go around the entire unit, will have very large trees and bushes developed at that point that should
address and block most concerns. Any question?
Bird: Any questions, Council?
De Weerd: Mr. President.
Bird: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Now you mentioned that in your Phase One, now the drawing that Scott showed -- showed if you used the permanent trees that would just remain there and you wouldn't tear them
out.
Osborne: That's correct. And in their drawings I have to keep reminding people they are not developing our project. I appreciate they do good artwork, but --
De Weerd: Yes, but I love a visual and that did provide that, so -- but you're saying, then, the second phase part you'll keep in pasture. When you re-zone that, that would be a non-conforming
use.
Osborne: The plan is that the second phase wouldn't be developed for seven to ten years.
De Weerd: Right. But it's still -- pasture wouldn't be permitted. When you re-zone, it you're re-zoning it commercial; right?
Bird: Shari, would you like to answer that?
Stiles: President Bird, Council, I would just like a clarification of how many animals are on that property.
Osborne; Currently four, if you don't count the dogs and cats. Four horses.
Stiles: And just for clarification, Tammy's right -- Mrs. de Weerd is right, that that is a non-conforming use and the way our ordinance reads is that you cannot increase that or have
additional animals on that property during that time, you would be restricted to -- and we should include it in a development agreement, to restrict the number of animals you're permitted
to have there that you couldn't come up with goats and pigs and more horses and -- you will be limited, you're aware of that?
Anderson: The good thing is that it will limit your wife.
Osborne: Personal advantage. Is there a question?
De Weerd: Then that stays?
Stiles: They can grandfather that.
Osborne: At the time of approval.
Stiles: But I think as far as grandfathering it, we should put that limit as far as the four horses to make sure that in between now and the time that you annex it it didn't become
15 horses or --
De Weerd: And then you mentioned on the east side where your property line goes, that that portion -- and then the bermed area is the only landscaping that you would not put in?
Osborne: That's correct.
De Weerd: So you would have landscaping in that area that's closest to the Woodbridge, even when you don't have that phase developed?
Osborne: That's correct.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Osborne.
Osborne: Mr. President?
Bird: Yes.
Osborne: Council members, if I may, the momma horse may be expecting, so --
Bird: So you have got five horses.
Osborne: I need to make sure that we have that number nailed down, if we could, in an agreement or something.
Bird: Okay.
Osborne: Thank you.
Bird: Thank you. Kent, a rebuttal?
Brown: We have always felt that the distance that we are from even the closest house and the area that most of our development butts up to, that the biggest part of the area that we
butt up to in the Woodbridge development is their common area. They have a series of cottonwood trees that are here. They have also planted cottonwood trees along this end of it. In
the landscape plan that's proposed here we are also proposing a poplar or a cottonwood type of a tree, something that would be fast growing, with those buildings, that would be most
effective and the closest to our project. And so for that reason we have always felt that there really wasn't a need for a permanent landscaping there when, in our proposal, we have
got trees on both sides here, we have got two rows of trees and in my investigation of looking at other storage unit facilities, they basically take two options: One, they landscape
the heck out of them when they don't change the architecture of the buildings or they change the architecture of the buildings and try and put a little bit of landscaping in where they
can. In this project that we are proposing, we are putting lots of landscaping up front, way in advance, that has the possibility of having full maturity before the first house -- the
first storage unit and Phase Two gets built -- I mean ten years of growth is a lot of growth, because down the freeway and you look at those willow trees against Waldon Pond Subdivision
there next to Cloverdale, those are huge trees and that's only six to seven years worth of growth that many of those trees have
grown and the poplar tree, if that's the one that we are able to put there on the south end, they grow at a faster rate than a willow tree, and so we have never felt that there was the
need to break up the center of that development, because we are putting that portion as a landscaping and the only portion we are not is the landscaping that we go on the berm.
Bird: Okay.
De Weerd: Unfortunately, with the poplar, it also dies at an earlier rate, too.
Brown: Poplars -- the five poplar trees that I'm most associated with are in my yard and one is 75 years old and my house is 25 years old and I look at the aerial photo and the tree
was there when my house was built and the only problem I have got with it is it's going underneath my crawl space and there is a root this big going underneath my crawl space. But other
than that, the tree is still healthy and there isn't any problem. The poplar trees that are existing along the Five Mile are very large, too, and have been there for sometime, too,
as trees do now, have problems. I mean different trees.
Bird: Any questions, Council? Thank you, Kent. Council, any questions of the staff, applicant, or anything before we -- before I entertain a motion to close the public hearings?
Council, if there is no more testimony, I would sure entertain a motion to close the public hearings for the annexation and zoning of 9.79 acres from RUP to C-G, Franklin Mini Storage.
McCandless: I would move.
Anderson: Second.
Bird: Okay. Move and Second. Close the public hearing for the request for annexation and zoning of 9.79 acres. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Okay. Also I close -- I'd entertain a motion to close the public hearing for the request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a storage unit on 9.79 acres with
one office commercial pad for the Franklin Mini Storage by Ron Osborne, 1975 E. Franklin Road.
Anderson: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: Moved and second that we close the public hearing. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Okay. Council, what's your pleasure on the request for annexation of zoning?
Anderson: Mr. President.
Bird: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess just a comment. When I first looked at it I mean I -- my first inclination was with Green Hills Estate Subdivision and the Woodbridge, that this wasn't a very compatible
use, but when I look closely at the detail and look at the extent of landscaping and architectural improvements that the applicant has provided with this project, it puts a new light
on it for me. And when I read the number of letters that were in opposition and saw the list of people that was in opposition at Planning and Zoning and see that they are not here tonight,
and that a lot of that opposition has gone away, that kind of tells me that the developer has done a lot of work to address their concerns and can definitely appreciate that. Anytime
Kent's involved on one of those projects -- but other than that, it looks like they have satisfied most of my concerns and I wouldn't have any problem with this project.
Bird: Any other discussion, Council? Okay. Hearing none, I would entertain a motion.
Anderson: Mr. President.
Bird: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion, then, that we approve the request for annexation and zoning for 9.79 acres from RUT to a C-G zone for Franklin Mini Storage by Ron Osborne at 1975 E.
Franklin Road.
McCandless: Second.
Anderson: Subject to staff comments and ask the city attorney to draw up the appropriate Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Bird: Agree? Second.
McCandless: Second. Still second.
Bird: Okay. Been made and second to approve the request of the annex and zoning -- annexation and zoning of 9.79 acres from RUT to C-G for Franklin Mini Storage by Ron Osborne, with
staff comments and for the attorney to draw up
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Any discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, please, Mr. Clerk.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President. Members of the Council, roll call vote.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 8. Public Hearing: CUP 01-024 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a storage unit on 9.79 acres with one office/commercial pad for Franklin Mini Storage
by Ron Osborne – 1975 East Franklin Road:
Bird: Okay. Item No. 8, Conditional Use Permit for the Franklin Mini Storage by Ron Obsorne, 1979 E. Franklin Road. Any discussion, Council? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion.
Anderson: Mr. President.
Bird: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve the request for Conditional Use Permit for construction of a storage unit on 9.79 acres, one office and commercial pad for Franklin Mini
Storage by Ron Osborne at 1935 E. Franklin Road and ask the city attorney to draw up the appropriate Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and appropriate staff comments.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: Any discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. President.
Bird: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: A couple of issues were brought up with perma bark. The pathway matching Woodbridge's, the tempering fence and landscape on the back side of the Phase One and the timing
of the berm, what are your recommendations on those issues in the motion?
Anderson: I guess on the perma bark I think that makes more sense to me in that particular area. It would be less maintenance. On the pathway I'd like to see that asphalt. On the
berm issue -- trying to remember. I think the applicant's requesting that that not be put in until the building's built and I think that makes
sense, because they've got a building there to go up against that. So I'm okay with that. And what was the last issue? Fence?
De Weerd: Temporary fencing and landscaping on the back side of Phase One.
Anderson: And I'm okay with the temporary fence and landscaping.
McCandless: Second agree?
Bird: Second agrees? Okay. Any other discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Clerk, please.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President. Members of the Council, roll call vote.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 9. Public Hearing: Consideration of amendment to the FY01 fiscal year budget by appropriating additional monies received by the City of Meridian:
Bird: Okay. Council. Next item, Item No. 9. Consideration of amendment to the Fiscal Year 01 budget by appropriating additional monies received by the City of Meridian. You have
got your item there. I will open the public hearing. Staff comment? She left. I thought that was Wil's project, then. No. Just kidding. As you can see, this is -- this was to change
our deal, because of taking in of some additional monies received by the City of Meridian. Any questions, comments by anybody?
Anderson: Is this the additional funds from the game sharing? Is that what this was?
Bird: I believe so. No, it isn't. It's the expenditures -- isn't this it? Yes. This is it. That's what I thought.
De Weerd: Mr. President.
Bird: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Shari, did these include the numbers that you needed to get with Stacy about on anything in your budget? Did you talk with Stacy about it, your budge for this year?
Stiles: Was there something in particular that I was supposed to talk to her about?
De Weerd: Well, I thought you might be not seeing within that budgeted amount in some of your consulting areas.
Stiles: She told me as long as my overall operating expenses were under budget that I would be fine.
De Weerd: Okay.
Stiles: That they would do an end-of-year adjustment on those items. If you wanted to give me more money --
De Weerd: Well, I didn't mean to --
Stiles: If you want to let me carry over all that extra, that would be great.
Anderson: Go back to what you were doing.
Bird: This is the published item. This is what the -- this is what the public hearing is open for is what's been published as the item. Is there anybody from the public like to testify?
Hearing none, Council, anymore open discussion? If not, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing regarding the amendment to the Fiscal Year 01 appropriating additional
money.
McCandless: I move.
Anderson: Second.
Bird: Okay. Been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 10. Ordinance No. : Amending the 2000/2001 Fiscal Year Budget:
Bird: Okay. Okay. Now, Council, Item No. 10 is the Ordinance regarding this and what's the Ordinance number, Mr. Clerk?
Berg: Mr. President, Ordinance No. 01-929.
Bird: 01-929?
Berg: Yes.
Bird: And, Mr. Clerk, would you read the Ordinance by title only?
Berg: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 01-929. An Ordinance of the City of Meridian, Idaho, amending Ordinance No.888, the Appropriation Ordinance for
the Fiscal Year beginning October 1st, 2000, and ending September 30th, 2001, appropriating additional monies that are to be received by the City of Meridian, Idaho, in the sum of $235,610
and providing an effective date.
Bird: Okay. Anybody in the audience would like to hear the Ordinance read in its entirety? Hearing none, Council, what's your pleasure on the Ordinance? Any discussion?
Anderson: No.
De Weerd: None.
Bird: If not, I would entertain a motion.
Anderson: Mr. President.
Bird: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve Ordinance No. 01-929 amending the 2000-2001 Fiscal Year Budget by the amount of $235,610 with suspension of the rules.
De Weerd: Second.
Bird: Okay. Been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance No. 01-929 with suspension of rules. Roll call vote, please, Mr. Clerk.
Berg: Mr. President. Members of the Council, roll call vote.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 11. FP 01-015 Request for Final Plat approval of 23 building lots and 5 other lots on 8.15 acres in an R-4 zone for Staten Park Subdivision by D’Alessio Building Development –
south of West Ustick Road and north Black Cat Road:
Bird: Thank you, Council. Council, Item No. 11, request for final plat approval of 23 building lots and five other lots on 8.15 acres in an R-4 zone for Staten Park Subdivision by
D'Alessio Building Development, south of West Ustick Road and north of Black Cat Road. Staff, any comments?
Stiles: President Bird, Council, we hadn't heard from the D'Alessio brothers. I mean I don't know if they have gone back to Brooklyn or what. I left a message on their phone and haven't
had a response, so I'm just afraid they may be tied up.
Bird: Do you recommend, then, just --
Stiles: Table it.
Bird: Table it for a couple weeks? Okay. Council, is that fair with you?
De Weerd: Mr. President.
Bird: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we table the request for final plat for Staten Park Subdivision to October 2nd, 2001.
Anderson: Second.
Bird: Okay. It's been made and second that we table the Staten Park Subdivision final plat until October 2nd, 2001. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 12. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
Bird: Item No. 12. Water and sewer delinquencies. This is to inform you in writing, if you so choose, that you have the right to a pre-determination hearing at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, September
18th, 2001, before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and to defend the claim made by this city that your water, sewer, and trash bill is delinquent.
You may retain counsel. This service will be discontinued on September 19th, 2001, or September 26th, 2001, unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to
contest his or her water, sewer, or trash delinquency? They are hereby informed that they may appeal or have the decision of the city reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court
pursuant to Idaho State Code. Even though they appeal, their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn-off list is $51,452.92. Any questions or anything, Council?
Anderson: No.
Bird: Okay. I need a motion to --
Anderson: Mr. President.
Bird: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I make a motion that we approve the water, sewer, and trash delinquency turn-off schedule.
Bird: And for the schedule of the 19th and the 26th.
Anderson: For 9/19/01 to 9/26/01.
Bird: Okay. Do I hear a second?
McCandless: Second.
Bird: Okay. Moved and seconded that we approve the delinquency for water, sewer turn-off to be done on September 19th, 2001, or September 26, 2001. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 13. Executive Session 67-2345 (b) –
Bird: Council, is there anybody in the audience that needs to see us for anything? Okay. Okay. Well, we are glad to hear that. We are glad to see you turn out. Do you want to go into
Executive Session?
De Weerd: Mr. President.
Bird: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we go into Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345 (b).
Bird: Okay. Do I hear a second?
Anderson: Second.
Bird: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Executive Session.
Bird: Council, I'd entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session.
McCandless: So moved.
De Weerd: Second.
Bird: Okay. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Okay. Let it be shown that nothing was decided in the Executive Session.
De Weerd: Mr. President.
Bird: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we adjourn.
Bird: Do I hear a second?
McCandless: Second.
Bird: Moved and seconded that we adjourn. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Let it be shown that we are out of here at 9:59.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:59 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE APPROVED
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK