HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 09-04Meridian City Council Meeting September 4, 2001
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 4, 2001, by Mayor Robert D. Corrie.
Members Present: Mayor Robert Corrie, Tammy de Weerd, Cherie McCandless,
and Keith Bird.
Members Absent: Ron Anderson.
Others present: David Bowman, Gary D. Smith, Shari Stiles, Daunt Whitman and Will Berg.
Corrie: Okay. Again, I apologize for the delay, but I will open the Regular City Council Meeting for Tuesday, September the 4th, at 7:00 p.m., and have the Roll Call, please, Mr.
Clerk.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Tammy de Weerd O Ron Anderson
X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird
X Mayor Robert Corrie
Corrie: Okay a quorum is now present. I thank you all for your patience this evening and I also want to welcome Cub Scout Troop -- I believe it's 174 here in Meridian. So welcome
aboard, guys. We hope we have a good meeting for you.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of August 14, 2001 City Council Workshop:
B. Tabled from August 21, 2001: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-018 Request for the continuation of a three-year CUP granted in January 1997 for modular
buildings in an L-O zone for the Meridian Assembly of God by Meridian Assembly of God – 1830 North Linder Road:
C. Tabled from August 21, 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: Table until September 18, 2001 Meeting
D. Tabled from August 21, 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 175.91acres
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:
E. Tabled from August 21, 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:
F. Tabled from August 21, 2001: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for 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:
G. Tabled from August 21, 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:
H. Tabled from August 21, 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:
I. Tabled from August 21, 2001: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PFP 01-001 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of 4 building lots on 4.94 acres in a
proposed I-L zone for proposed Seven Gates Industrial Subdivision by Dakota Company – southwest corner of Commercial and Machine Avenue, east of Nola Road:
J. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval with Conditions: CUP 01-010 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a free-standing coffee hut with drive-thru in a proposed
C-G zone for proposed Moxie Java by TJBJ, Inc. – 1975 East Fairview:
K. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval with Conditions: VAR 01-008 Request for a variance for the reduction of two required parking spaces for Moxie Java by TJBJ,
Inc. – 1975 East Fairview:
L. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 01-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 18 building lots and 2 other lots on 11.57 acres in R-4 and C-N zones for
proposed Cherry Crossing by Albertson’s, Inc. – northwest corner of North Linder Road and West Cherry Lane:
M. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-016 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for single-family and drug store with drive-thru, fuel pumps, office/retail
and fast food in R-4 and proposed C-N zones for proposed Cherry Crossing by Albertson’s Inc. – northwest corner of North Linder Road and West Cherry Lane:
N. Development Agreement: AZ 01-007 Request for annexation and zoning of 4 acres from R-1 to C-C for proposed Hark’s Corner by Van Hees Properties – 119 South Linder Road:
O. Development Agreement: AZ 01-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 28.59 acres from RUT to R-8 for proposed Macaile Meadows Subdivision by Hillview Land Development, LLC – south
of Fairview and west of Cloverdale Roads:
P. Street Light Agreement with Steiner Development, LLC for Wilkins Ranch Subdivision:
Q. Approve Bills:
Corrie: Okay. Council, we have the -- Item No. 2 is the adoption of the agenda and so do I hear any changes that need to be made from the Council?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we -- or we need to pull -- under Consent Agenda, C, D, and E and I'd like to move that to 4C, 4D and 4E. Items F, G, and H I would like to be tabled to September
18, 2001. We'd like to add Item 4B, which is the discussion of the contract with John Luthy for C-C planning for the city and also Item No. 18, which we do open for Public Hearing.
They'd like that continued on. Also with your permission the Council would like to -- after we get through with 4E we'd like to move to Item 10 and then at the
end of the same come up and pick up five, six, seven, eight, and nine at the end, because they are resolutions and agreements and that way we can get to our Public Hearing to get to
the people, seeing how we are running a half hour late and if the rest of the Council agree with that, I'd move we adopt the agenda as stated.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded for the adoption of the agenda with changes. Any further discussion? Then all those in favor of that motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Okay. The way I understand it, then, you want to have item four -- all those items done before we go to Item No. 10?
Bird: Yes 4C, 4D, and 4E.
Corrie: Okay. All right. I'll entertain a motion for the Consent Agenda with the changes.
McCandless: I will move.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made. Do I hear a second?
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded for the Consent Agenda as admitted.
Further discussion? All in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 4. Department Reports:
A. Public Works Department – Gary Smith
1. Well No. 22 Pumping Facilities Project – Bid Results:
Corrie: Item A would be Public Works. Gary Smith.
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council members. Two items this evening. First item is a report to you on bid results for Well No. 22, Pumping Facilities Project. Bids were opened on
August 30th. We had four bidders, Irminger Construction, Riverside, Incorporated from Parma, and J.C. Constructors in Meridian and GUHO Corporation from Eagle. Low bidder was Irminger
Construction from Boise. Their bid is $237,175. Second bidder was Riverside at $238,899. Irminger has built Pump Houses 17, 18, 19 and they are currently constructing Pump House
No. 21 for us. And that's the one near the Watertower site. The Public Works Department would recommend to the Council
that they award the contract for Well No. 22 Pumping Facilities to Irminger Construction in the amount of $237,175 and authorize Mayor Corrie to sign and the City Clerk to attest.
Do you have any questions?
Corrie: Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we award the contract to Well No. 22 Pumping Facilities Project to Irminger Construction in the amount of $237,175 and authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk
to attest.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and second to approved the recommendation of the Council from the Public Works on the Well No. 22 Pumping Facilities. Any further discussion? Hearing
none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Central Valley Corporate Park – Irrigation Water Assessments:
Smith: Thank you Mayor, thank you Council. The next item I have concerns Central Valley Corporate Park and a request by the developers, Bob Nahas, one of the representatives, for a
refund of water assessment fees that were paid for irrigation purposes. Previously in March of this year the Council approved an irrigation assessment refund of $8,500 to Mr. Nahas.
That was for his project that he did himself. A letter that is attached to the memo that I sent to Mayor Corrie, a copy of a letter that I sent to Bob Nahas of the R.T. Nahas Company,
at the bottom of that table in the letter you can see the R.T. Nahas $8,500 was for one address and that's the Micron buildings that are built out there -- the buildings that Micron
is presently occupying. There were three other projects that we found after you acted on the first request where monies had been paid by different property developers, including Nahas,
on another piece of property. The sum of all the monies that have been paid to the city for irrigation assessments is the $27,508 total. The motion that was made and approved by the
Council in March approved the refund of the $8,500 to Nahas after the irrigation well that they are proposing to construct was constructed, the pump system was installed, and the piping
and it was connected to the pressurized irrigation system and they disconnected from the city water system. So this request would be in addition to what you had previously approved
and our recommendation would be that the request for refund would be subject to the same conditions that were placed on the previous request. I have not heard from Mr. Nahas as to where
he is on this project, other than he petitioned me to do additional research after the last approval by the Council and that's the last that I have heard from him until I sent this letter
to him and I haven't heard
from him since then even, so I assume that they are still going forward with this project. The funds would be refunded to the applicants that paid the funds. Rather than all the funds
being refunded to Nahas, they would go back to the individual property developers. Do you have any questions that I can try and answer?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Gary, we wouldn't be approving -- we have already approved the 8,500. We would only be approving $19,008 this time; right?
Smith: Yes. Correct.
Bird: That's all I have.
Corrie: Any other questions? Okay. Hearing none, entertain a motion on
request for --
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we give back a refund, upon completion of the irrigation wells and pump system and connection to the pressure irrigation water at Central Valley Corporate Park to
R.T. Nahas at 800 South Industrial Way for $4,224, Home Depot at 1100 South Progress Avenue for $7,744, United Heritage at 707 United Heritage Court East for $7,040, for a total of $19,008
when everything has been done as stated in the agreement.
Corrie: Okay. Do I hear a second to the motion?
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: All right. Motion has been made and second to approve the total amount of $19,008 for the three locations of refunds on the water and with the $8,500 from Nahas already being
approved. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Smith: Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council.
3. Mayor 1 – Agreement with John Luthy:
Corrie: Council, before B, the contract to be heard with John Luthy in a proposal for the planning of goals and strategic planning for the City of Meridian Council, do you have any
questions on that proposal? Are you ready to make a motion?
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept the proposal from John Luthy for the goals and strategic planning for the City of Meridian in the amount not to exceed $24,000.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and second to approve the contract with John Luthy for the proposal or not to exceed $24,000. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those
in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: From the Consent Agenda we have pulled Items 3C, D, and E, which is the Bridgetower Crossing and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the annexation, the Preliminary Plat,
also CUP. Mr. Nichols, do you want to tell us what you --
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, we have a memo from me dated August 20, 2001, on these findings on all three annexations and zoning. The Preliminary Plat and the Conditional
Use Permit application detailed some of the things that needed to be changed in the proposed findings. They were not potential changes to the findings that I didn't want to just submit
or revise findings without highlighting what those issues were. A copy of the memo has been provided to Becky Bowcutt on behalf of the applicant. Some of the items are just merely
clarifying in terms of some typos and those are the easy ones to change, but I wanted to see what the differences were. I would say probably the biggest issues are with regard to the
seller, is there an issue as to -- issue on the White Drain. Ms. Bowcutt informs us that those things change and the board has taken action and she's requested a letter, but we don't
have that letter that shows what that action was. Then I think, secondly, and probably the bigger issue is on the -- as you will recall when we asked him to annex the large parcel,
even though their proposal for development was less than the whole parcel, and that was partly because of consideration of the White Drain project for the Sewer Department. The potential
build out is 692 lots if I understand it correctly, for the entire parcel that's being annexed. The current plat is for fewer lots and so the finding needs to reflect the annexation
of some -- could be upward of 692 lots in that area. Subject to further plat submittals and Conditional Use or planning developments in those areas not covered by the current Preliminary
Plat that you use and that's -- the other issues are primarily clean-up and I need direction from you to make sure that I have those accurate, because this is not a run-of-the-mill project
to make sure we have it right.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: De Weerd.
De Weerd: Shari and I -- I think when we first discussed the findings for this development. A number of additional issues that are not addressed in this memo were discussed. Such
as the additional condition that you're going to have to replace or agreed on in the north corridor, planning all the way, and I think there were some pathway issues and I do not recall
what the third one was. Have those issues been researched and verbiage looked at or are all those still pending staff recommendation?
Stiles: Council and Council Woman de Weerd. I know they were discussed. There
were three items. One was the extraordinary impact fees from Ada County Highway District. Another was the overlay project and how they were going to put wording in there. And then
the third was the pathway project. What happened with the pathway project, we did recommend that they provide that pathway. However, in discussions with the parks director he indicated
he did not want them to build the pathway.
De Weerd: Well, I think that probably happened after our discussion and we
wanted them to build the pathway. So that definitely conflicted with what council
and the director wanted, so that does need to be worked out. But I do know in
those findings that they were directed more towards transportation in the north
corridor planning area and currently going to be more than just transportation, it's
going to have a lot of infrastructure included in it as well and that needs to be reflected in the findings. So I don't think we are at that point where we can vote on it.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I'm glad to put into the findings whatever your decision is. I need some specifics in terms of the interplay between these findings and
this current effort to overlay plan for that north ten or 12 square miles. I believe we put in the findings that subject to -- I mean they ended up charging to whatever agreement they
worked out with ACHD in term of being able to build infrastructure early, rather than later, and enter into some sort of agreement with ACHD with regard to the repayment portion. You
know, there has been discussion at those meetings about developers going ahead and dedicating the right of way to ACHD, but deferring their recoupment of the cost of the arterial right
of way dedication until such time as the impact fees are developed or offsets or different issues. So I guess my point is I would be glad to put in whatever your decision was, but
I need to know what that is, because I don't want to -- I don't want to guess on those issues.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Ms. De Weerd.
De Weerd: I know that Mr. Nichols had this conversation and I did pass some suggested verbiage onto the attorney that would be seated in his place, so I don't know what happened to
that, but the issue was that trans -- I think it covered transportation issues adequately, but it was just the other infrastructure issues that are being discussed as part of that north
corridor planning area that were not noticed -- specifically noted in those findings. I will try and see if I kept a copy of what I gave, but I don't know if I did.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Council Woman de Weerd, was that on the record where it would be in the minutes?
De Weerd: I don't recall if I specifically read it into the record or not. Staff was just supposed to work with that recommendation and come up with verbiage to bring that --
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I don’t recall that being part of the motion that we passed on. I'd like to see the tape of that to see what was said. I don't recall that even being part of the motion that
we went over. Maybe it went over my head. That's what we need to look at is what is stated on the tape, because we are expecting the attorney and we are giving him notes afterwards
to put into the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law and if they weren't stated publicly, then I don't think that we can expect it to be in there.
Berg: The Council on August 8th did go into items to be corrected, so we can get those in it.
Bird: On the motion or what? What did the motion state at the Public Hearing?
That's what I want to know.
Berg: On the 8th there were suggestions for changes in the findings, but they weren't approved. They were tabled until the 21st of August.
Corrie: Were they brought up the 21st then? We should have a record of that.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Members of the Council, I know we deferred these findings on the 21st and then I'm reasonably sure we didn't have any further discussion on those issues and it could have been
that we assume or that Councilwoman de Weerd assumed that it's one of the things we were working on, but we were waiting for the minutes, we had the minutes, reviewed them, to make sure
some of the things and some of it was we were simply not given. Ms. Bowcutt got a copy of this memo that detailed the different issues and we wanted to make sure she had that and had
an opportunity to comment on it, so I would say we can go back and look at those minutes of the 8th and --
De Weerd: And the original motion.
Nichols: And the original motion and we will double-check those all against the whole thing and make sure we get any proposed language changes to the applicant ahead of time.
Corrie: Okay. We will table C, D, and E until the 18th so we can review those
minutes. Any other discussion? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion on the C, D, and E to be discussed on the 18th of August -- or September.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we table until September the 18, 2001, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval AZ 01-003, the request for annexation and zoning of 371.42 acres from
RUT to R-4 and C-G zones by Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development Company, 2420 Ustick Road.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and second to direct this C, D, and E to set an agenda back after the attorney's review on the 18th of September. Any further discussion? Hearing none,
all those in favor of that motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Will, will you see that we get that on -- I believe that was all that we had.
Item 10. Tabled from August 21, 2001: AP 01-00 Request to Appeal a stop work order for Walt Morrow by Walt Morrow – 2340 West Franklin Road:
Corrie: So we will move to Item No. 10 on the agenda tabled from August 21, 2001. Request for appeal a stop work order for Walt Morrow by Walt Morrow, 2340 W. Franklin Rd. Walt
is here and Daunt is here. Okay. We had a discussion on that, Daunt, and we'd have you come up and try to figure out what happened and what, so we need to know where you're going,
so --
Whitman: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. I had the question posed to me by Mr. Morrow what it would take for him to build an accessory building, for him to build a loafing shed
on his residential -- on his property next to his residence and I viewed it similar to someone building a storage building on their property in a subdivision. I apparently should have
checked with zoning to confirm the zoning, because it is a non-conforming use. The residence is a non-conforming use. Apparently we can't consider it an accessory building. Walt explained
to me what his intention was, that he was trying to store some old vehicles that he is collecting and restoring and wanted to get them out of the weather, wanted to use part of the building
as a loafing shed. It basically slipped through the cracks on my part as far as there was no -- it wasn't viewed as a commercial project, so it didn't go through the channels that a
commercial project would in getting the Fire Department and the Wastewater Department and Public Works involved in doing the full commercial review and as it was permitted it was not
permitted as a commercial building, it was permitted as a residential accessory building.
Corrie: So what is it? Residential zoning or is it commercial or --
Whitman: Well, it is an industrial zone, but I guess I have no reason to believe it isn't going to be used to store trucks and he says a loafing shed until such time as he wanted to
convert the -- and apparently do a subdivision that would include commercial buildings and then to be used as commercial space.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: This was approved a couple years ago, so it's -- you know, a lot has changed as far as policy, procedure, and ordinance. At that time was that the established procedure that
you go through in approving it and you normally don't check the zoning?
Whitman: It was an oversight on my part not to check the zoning. It was being done in conjunction with the residence and I just didn't -- I didn't think to check the zoning to -- I
wasn't realizing that Walt was living in an industrial zone.
De Weerd: Well -- and we are not here to berate him for that. I am concerned and I think that the intent of delaying it to this meeting was more that it get the necessary safety checks
and those kind of reviews that our buildings normally go through, seeing that they are up to code and those kind of safety issues, and at this point I think that's all we can focus on.
You know, we can't go all over the place on what should and shouldn't -- or what didn't happen, but as far as we are concerned at this point is, you know, the safety requirements and
if those reviews have not been made, you know, when are they going to be made.
Whitman: Well, as far as structurally, the building -- it's not questioned whether it's going to be built properly or not. It's an engineered steel building. If it concerns fire
protection --
De Weerd: Water source.
Whitman: I guess viewing it similar to an agricultural building out in the county, I don't think the county has ever required permit for agricultural buildings. Of course if it's going
to be used as a loafing shed -- that's why we enter into those concerns is my understanding.
De Weerd: But it is in the city, so I mean --
Whitman: I mean -- I'm using as an example. I don’t believe our Fire Department does review agricultural buildings in the county -- the storing of the vehicles is not a hazardous use
in just storing -- using it more or less as a garage, similar type use.
De Weerd: I just have one last question and that is what is the procedure in the review? Do you stamp those? Does each department after they review the drawings do they stamp that
they have been approved by that department?
Whitman: The Fire Department will stamp and return plans to me. The Wastewater Treatment sends me a memo. The Water Department sends me a memo. Public Works will stamp approved and,
there again, in a typical commercial project we would require them to submit the plans and they would be distributed to the different departments and in our preliminary discussion about
it, my determination was that it wasn't a commercial project, so I just required two sets of plans, one that we retained and one that they get back that had the stamp approval on it.
Corrie: Daunt, if anybody else in the city limits wanted to build this building would they have to go through a different procedure than what we went through here?
Whitman: Today? Yes. Well, I'm saying, yes, today they would, because I can learn from a mistake, but if I get an application for a detached garage and subdivision, it doesn't get
any additional review from any other department. If it meets the setbacks, it can be done as an accessory building.
Corrie: I guess one of the things -- Mr. Anderson is not here tonight. He was worried about the liability of the city with the Fire Department not checking. I guess that's a legal
question to ask our attorney. Are we still -- Mr. Nichols, are we still on the hook if we don't follow up on --
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I think we got to remember the issue on plan review is to make sure that the perspective building codes are met in connection with a building
and its use. So if this particular building meets all of the applicable codes for its continued use, then I don’t think we have a liability. One of the things that
Councilman Anderson was looking at was what if the use changes to something that involves hot work, welding, cutting -- because that was an issue just down the road from this site of
Mr. Dugan's place of business and one of the things that came up in the testimony in that particular land use application was that the building there was originally permitted as a shop
or garage and now it's more turned into a repair shop where there is hot working going on. So the fire protection code that would be in place for merely storing things, versus using
a grinder and a cutting torch and those things would be different.
Whitman: And that was part of our discussion with Mr. Morrow was that at some point he did intend that building to be used commercially and at that point, you know, a permit for tenant
improvements would be obtained and he would have to go through all the steps for a commercial application and approval at that time.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I haven't seen the plans. There is no tenant improvement, no sheetrock, no flammable material within the building, it's just a steel and block building still? There wasn't any
sheetrock --
Whitman: There was one wall that would be sheet rocked to separate the area where the dirt floor is from the concrete floor.
Bird: And all the setbacks -- it's not within five feet of any of his other buildings, so you have to worry about fire leaping or anything like that?
Whitman: There is plenty of separation.
Bird: The ordinary electrical, just lights and --
Whitman: Yes.
Bird: Stuff like that? No 220 going in?
Whitman: No.
Corrie: So if he decides to change this, then he would have to come and make the change at that point.
Whitman: In order for him to change it to use it as tenant space he would have to go through the process of getting a Certificate of Zoning compliance and go through the entire process
of commercial review.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Any comments from staff?
Whitman: Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Daunt. Anything you want to add to this or take away or --
Morrow: For the record I'm Walt Morrow, 2340 W. Franklin Rd. Essentially everything that Daunt said is just a review on the fact that the process went through. There is a dividing
wall. It's an area separation wall that's required to be put in there with respect to the interpretation of the fire code. It is not again, a building that is for commercial use or
commercial leasing and it's a building that's designed for my own specific use to continue the stuff that's already there. It's not an expansion of any usage. So everything that Daunt
has indicated when discussions went on and the procedure was followed. It was the same procedure as the prior four building permits that were issued at that property from 1981 on, so
-- from two other building inspectors. So are there any other questions?
De Weerd: I think the whole thing was this is not your typical Accessory Use building, so, you know, that's why I had further questions.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Walt. Any other discussion, Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. This was a request for appeal of a stop work order, so it would be the decision of the Council whether this work order will continue to be held or be released.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I just have one question for the attorney. So the issue that was raised at the last meeting by Councilman Anderson was did it meet fire code and you brought up in this testimony
that with the use as intended versus commercial there are different standards. Is that what I understand?
Nichols: Councilwoman de Weerd, Mayor, and members of the Council. That's correct. I mean you have, for example, residential fire codes at this point, unless you exceed a certain
square footage, you don't have to have sprinklers in the building. A garage typically doesn't have to have sprinklers. But if you have a certain use going on in that building, such
as Mr. Dugan proposed for his property, then you do have commercial fire codes that have to be met. So it's not just the size of the building, it's partly dependent upon the use.
Corrie: I guess, Mr. Nichols, I'm a little confused. There is business conducted out there, but that doesn't have anything to do with this building; right?
Nichols: It's my understanding that what Mr. Morrow was going to put into that building was he was going to store some old vehicles. The north end of the building
would have a dirt floor and it would be used as a loafing shed for steers. Animals. Well, I guess it would be calves, wouldn't it. Calves and the -- I think maybe there was an office
type place in the building, if I recall correctly. I may be wrong on that. So if there is not going to be any hot work there, he's not going to be welding, he's just going to store
the vehicles in there and have the calves on the north end, I don't
-- and I think there may have been some testimony about using it for product storage for his business, but, again, those would not be activities that would involve,
you know, arc welders and acetylene torches and those sorts of things that would change the use or -- in summary, it's a non-conforming use and you're not
supposed to expand it. What he's saying is he's not expanding it, he's just bringing
it indoors. So he's converting an outside storage area to inside. That's what he indicated to the Council, as I recall.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'd like Mr. Morrow to come back up here, I've got a couple of questions I want to get clarified here real fast. In your existing business at this location do you do any welding,
cutting, or anything within any of your sheds?
Morrow: No. All that's done for me by Tolsma Welding.
Bird: Okay.
Morrow: At his site.
Bird: Do you store paint or have any flammable material at any of your products out there, other than the normal garage that we have in our garages for our cars and stuff like that?
Morrow: No. The paints that we have are all spray cans of paint.
Bird: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If there are no more questions, I would move that we pull this appeal to stop work order and let the building go on at 2340 W. Franklin Rd.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and second. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Walt, thank you.
Item 11. Public Hearing: CUP 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:
Corrie: Item No. 11. Public Hearing. 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 W. Overland Rd. Open the Public Hearing and -- what's that? Staff comments.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, where were you going to put items five through eight?
Corrie: Last.
Stiles: Oh. Toward the end?
Corrie: Yes.
Stiles: Okay.
Corrie: We stopped these people 30 minutes late, so we thought we would get them out of here if they have some other things to do. So we are on Public Hearing, No. 11, request for
Conditional Use Permit 01-025.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for a piece of property that was previously approved as the Overland Mini Storage. They had come in with a Conditional Use Permit and a plat
as part of their annexation. I will need to have the applicant clarify -- I have two different site plans. One of them -- in fact, they are both dated the same date, there is no revision
date on it, but the initial annexation did require some landscaping along the Nine Mile Creek and I realize they can't put any trees in the Sewer Easement, but they would need to provide
some additional landscaping along that creek, as was approved with the initial application. I just wanted to clarify -- I don't know if you have two separate applications or two separate
site plans, but I do and they are both dated the same date, so I don't know what it is they are proposing there. The use as proposed, if there is a Conditional Use Permit, they could
do it in the location that they proposed along the Nine Mile Creek, but it would be the only application that would be permitted. If they were going to split that property off they
would need to go through the
subdivision process and take care of it that way. It's located directly north of Sportsman Point Subdivision. In this area here is property owned by the church, Treasure Valley Baptist
Church. They have also purchased this portion here and the City has approved an office for a roofing contractor in this location. The City has the sewer running down Nine Mile Creek
in the pipe. This is looking at the existing Nine Mile Creek. We would like it to be preserved for aesthetic nature. It could be a little more aesthetic than is shown here, but further
north along where the Treasure Valley Baptist Church is they have planted trees within that easement, I believe, and we would like that to be continued along here. One of the site plans
that was submitted showed the asphalt going right up to the edge of the easement and we do want to see some type of landscaping in there. This is the -- one of the plans that was submitted
-- as you can see there was no landscaping, it goes immediately up to the edge of Nine Mile drain. They would propose that they have up to 96 children and as a condition of the Conditional
Use Permit, since it is considered one parcel, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that they put in the landscaping along the entire frontage of Overland Road. So if that
can be clarified by the applicant and we would recommend approval with all staff and agency conditions and if it's not within those conditions to add the requirement for landscaping
along Nine Mile Drain.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Shari, I have two as well. That one was in our original package and then the second one was date stamped July 16th. So I think the one with the trees along that east side,
that is the new revised plan. That's the newer version.
Stiles: I don’t believe Gary will allow any planting of trees within his easement.
De Weerd: Well, Gary, you're not popular with the environmentalists, are you?
Stiles: But, however, they do have area there that they could beautify it and add some type of landscaping that would be acceptable to the Public Works Department. So I guess if the
record would reflect it's the one that's date stamped July 16th.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Shari, how wide of a buffer landscape area would you like along there?
Stiles: I believe what was approved as part of the initial annexation was five feet
from the easement.
Bird: And that's what you're staying to is the five feet?
Stiles: Yes.
Bird: Okay.
Corrie: Okay. As this is a Public Hearing, is the developer here tonight representing the day care center? Raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth tonight in testimony?
Slade: Yes.
Corrie: Okay. Give your name.
Slade: Shanalee Slade.
Corrie: Address?
Slade: 3380 North Summerfield Way.
Corrie: Thank you.
Slade: As far as I know the easement -- there will be no problems with any of the landscaping. I know the developers are wanting to get this project approved and as far as the looks
and the landscaping on the outside of the building, they are willing to put in whatever is needed.
Corrie: Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: And that includes along the whole frontage of Overland Road? They have no problem with that?
Slade: No problem. I know they are talking about they have to put in a sidewalk in also along the front of the road.
Bird: Okay.
Corrie: Okay. Any other comments? Questions? All right. Thank you. Anyone else wish to issue testimony tonight? Okay. Hearing none.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Gary, do you -- I know we don't want trees on the easement, but do you allow shrubberies and stuff like that, not too deep growing roots?
Smith: Yes. That's correct, Councilman Bird.
Bird: Okay. Thank you.
Corrie: Any other questions? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close Public Hearing.
Bird: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to close the public hearing on the request for Conditional Use Permit in Item No. 11. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Public Hearing is closed. Comments? Discussion?
De Weerd: I have none.
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. I'll entertain a motion on the request for the Conditional Use Permit.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: De Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a day care center for approximately 100 children in the C-G zone for The Learning Garden Day Care Center
to include all staff comments with notation about the five foot buffer on the east side to have shrubbery and to fully landscape Overland and to have the attorney do complete Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and second to approve the request for Conditional Use Permit and have the attorney draw up Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Further discussion?
Okay. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 12. Public Hearing: 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:
Item 13. Public Hearing: 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:
Item 14. Public Hearing: 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:
Corrie: Item No.’s 12, 13 and 14, open all the Public Hearings, all three interests here for the Preliminary Plat, variance to delete one of the requirements and also to delete the
35-foot buffer. So your testimony that you will give here tonight will be for all three if you so desire, they will all be taken into consideration. So at this time I will open the
Public Hearing. How many people here are to give testimony in that public hearing tonight? Okay. If you'd raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you? And then when you get up here you'll give your name and -- okay. Open the Public Hearing. Shari? Gary?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the property south of Presidential Drive. It was previously approved as part of the Family Center Conditional Use Permit for a planned development
for the shopping center. As part of their initial plan they showed I believe three building lots and they are desirous of subdividing this property so they could either sell off the
lots individually or to a developer as four separate building lots. The variance that they have requested is the requirement -- one of them is for the requirement in our landscape ordinance
that requires any of these required buffers to be within a common lot. They would like to have those shown as easements on the plat and staff does not take issue with that request,
but would like to have all of the landscaping completed prior to any occupancies being given for any of the buildings on the property to maintain consistency of that landscape treatment.
The other variance that they are requesting is that the 25 foot wide buffer that's now required in our landscape ordinance adjacent to residential use remain at the 20 foot width that
was approved a part of the initial Conditional Use Permit. And the recommendations from Planning and Zoning Commission I'd just like to note on page two of the recommendation where
it states -- the last sentence: A variance application has been submitted to allow a Landscape Easement, instead of common lot and the Commission
has approved the variance. The Planning and Zoning Commission is not responsible for approval of variances, so it should read that they have recommended approval of the variance.
Bird: The Commission has recognized the variance?
Stiles: Yes.
Bird: Recommended, not approved?
Stiles: Recommended approval or recommended. I'm not sure. Maybe the applicant could explain more what Item No. 10 is. It states the Planning and Zoning Commission requests that
the sidewalk along Eagle be detached from the road to create a parkway and then connected to the existing sidewalk location at the edge of the plat.
Bird: Just a second. We are missing pages. I know I can't count, but I did get from two to six. We are missing three, four and five. That's my fault for not noticing the -- Will,
would you run us off a copy of three, four and five? Do you have one there? Do you have three, four and five, Will?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council.
Corrie: Yes.
Stiles: Did you find that page, page four?
Corrie: No.
Stiles: Well, in the first sentence it says that the Planning and Zoning Commission requests the sidewalks be detached and then the last sentence says the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends to not require detached sidewalks. But I certainly hope that they don’t mean not to have detached sidewalks on Eagle Road, because there would be no purpose to have a sidewalk
at all if it's not dis-attached.
Bird: That's correct.
Corrie: Shari, is there also on that Pine Street that has been given?
Bird: The right of way?
Corrie: The right of way.
Stiles: I believe it has, their portion of it. And construction is beginning now for the -- they are going to complete the construction of that roadway to the eastern most boundary
of this subdivision.
Corrie: Okay.
Stiles: I can't imagine if they wanted maybe a seven foot sidewalk here. Again, that's not what staff would recommend is an attached sidewalk. That may already be included in Ada
County Highway District's design for Pine Street, but Eagle Road most definitely should not be an attached sidewalk.
Corrie: I wouldn't think so. Okay.
Bird: Do you want to state that No. 10 how you want it to read, Shari? Now that we have got one to follow along with.
Stiles: I would say the sidewalks along Eagle shall be detached from the road to create a parkway and then connected to the existing sidewalk location at the edge of the plat.
Corrie: So where Eagle would be it's the word shall?
Stiles: Yes. Taking out the first part and removing the final sentence.
Bird: Just remove that final sentence; right?
Stiles: Yes.
Corrie: Okay.
Stiles: And I believe that any tiling of any ditches has already been accomplished with the prior development. I'm not aware of any ditches that are located here. But with that we
would recommend approval with the changes requested.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Shari, are we attaching to the sidewalk along the new Pine Street?
Stiles: I'm not aware of what their designs are for that. They may be asking for attached seven foot wide, but they don't have any jurisdiction over Eagle Road and I'm sure the transportation
department doesn't want an attached sidewalk on Eagle Road.
Bird: Okay. We will ask the applicant what they plan to do on that.
Stiles: Okay.
Corrie: There is a school on up the road there. Okay. Any other questions from staff? Okay. Developer. I'll give you a chance to answer some of these questions.
Paulson: Thank you. I'm John Paulson of Dakota Company, 380 East Park Center Boulevard, Suite 100, Boise, Idaho. As Shari indicated, this is a resubmittal of a plan and replat that
was approved a year ago. The difference is a year ago it was approved with three lots, it is now being requested to be divided into four lots. The request for the landscaping changes
is due this year because the Landscape Ordinance has now been set in place and the variances that are being requested are to allow this subdivision to be in compliance with the original
Conditional Use Permit that was approved to the overall project and remain contiguous and in the same light as the main center. All of the landscaping on the project will meet the requirements
and meet the landscaping that is already in place for the overall center. There are some questions regarding the sidewalk and I may ask my assistant Tom Bowens, who was involved in
the project and the approval last year and has been involved in the plan approval that's been going through with ITD to step forward and answer those questions, but you have to swear
him.
Corrie: If you could give me your name and address and then I will swear you in.
Bowens: Tom Bowens, Dakota Company, 380 East Park Center Boulevard in Boise.
Corrie: So you swear that the testimony you give is the truth?
Bowens: I do.
Corrie: Thank you.
Bowens: Point of clarification. Last time in the original Conditional Use Permit for the shopping center we were required to do five foot sidewalks attached on Eagle Road and Fairview
Avenue and that's exactly what is there today. When we did the Wal-Mart portion of the project we were required to do seven foot attached sidewalks on Fairview Avenue, which is exactly
what we did. On this subdivision plat the drawings that are completed to date have been approved by -- or are in the process of final approval by ITD on Eagle Road frontage are showing
seven foot attached to the curb sidewalk, which would be exactly the same as what we did over on Wal-Mart's portion of the project. So we go from seven foot on Eagle Road, cross Presidential,
five foot attached sidewalks, all the way around to Fairview back to seven foot attached sidewalks. That's what ITD would prefer, a seven foot attached sidewalk on Eagle Road and that's
what we have drawn and propose to do. As far as Pine Street goes, those drawings are also complete. They show a five foot attached sidewalk on Pine Street the full length of our frontage,
600 and some feet. So that's the sidewalk issue. We would propose to continue with the seven foot attached sidewalk along Eagle Road. That's what we have drawn. I might mention I
heard some good news late this afternoon that we may be back on -- not on schedule, but back on track to do the Pine Street Eagle Road intersection with ITD's approval hopefully late
this afternoon and be ready to get started here in the next week or so. It's been an ongoing battle for approvals with ITD on the intersection design more on the other side of the Blue
Cross side than our side, there has been a lot of arm twisting going on. I think we are pretty darn close now. The other
intersection, obviously, has started and will be wrapped up by the end of October, so -- answer any questions on the sidewalks?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Tom, on the Wal-Mart, how long ago did we -- that has been a year ago --
Bowens: A year and a half ago.
Bird: A year and a half ago we approved that and the city wanted a seven --
Bowens: Seven foot. That's what was approved.
Bird: Was it the city or was it ACHD or --
Bowens: No. Originally we were going to go with the five-foot sidewalks, the City asked for the seven foot attached, and that's what we built.
Bird: The City asked for the seven foot?
Bowens: That's correct. We originally proposed the five-foot to be contiguous -- continuous with what we had already done on the other side, but we opted for the seven.
Bird: You're not unattached along Fairview there in front of Shop-Ko and that? That's five foot attached?
Bowens: Five attached. Yes.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Ms. de Weerd.
De Weerd: You know, with all your good news that you brought, I hate to throw a wrench in things, because I for one would not go walk on that sidewalk and I have seen a few brave souls
that would, but, you know, we are going to have a school there, you know, a connection to a school at some point and we just can't keep continuing to do things the way we did them, because
we did them that way. We need to start making wiser decisions and I think that a detached sidewalk along that fast moving traffic is the only way to go and, you know, I know you're
to a certain point through the process, but, you know, if I have any say about it we are not going to have another attached sidewalk on roads that are that busy. So that's my two cents
worth.
Corrie: Okay. Anything else? Okay.
Paulson: I might add just as a point of clarification, on Items 13 and 14 on the second page where it says surrounding properties, the east and west properties are just interchanged.
It's on the staff letter from David McKinnon, second page of his stamp letter, just for the record.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else like to issue testimony on Items 12, 13, and 14? Yes, sir.
Corbell: Robert Corbell. 3653 East Presidential Drive.
Corrie: Do you swear to tell the truth in this testimony this evening?
Corbell: I do. I don't have so much testimony to give as I have questions. There was a drawing up there earlier that showed three small lots on the front -- that one there -- and
then one on the east side, which would be -- which would abut the subdivision. Is that the proposal that they are making? Is that the proposed change they are requesting?
Stiles: Yes.
Corbell: And do they have a potential -- these are just lots, right? They are going to redraw the lots and this is the way it's going to look? We don't know what kind of buildings
are going in there, the size of the buildings, or anything like that at this point? Now are we -- are all of these buildings going to be treated -- or be subject to the same restrictions
as the rest of the development? My concern is when Dakota Development came in with this whole development in the beginning, they were going to make it all contiguous and all look the
same, it all presented the same appearance, it was all very attractive and now we were here a year ago for it to be subdivided into three lots, now they want to chop it up into four
lots. My concern is that it's not going to -- that they just stated that it would make it easier for them to sell them off. If they sell them off they lose control, it no longer looks
like one nice attractive development, we have a hodgepodge, we have people coming in and putting up whatever they want where they want.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to testify? You want to answer the question for them about the sell off on the three or four lots?
Paulson: The subdivision is to accommodate the potential users going on that site. Any building that's proposed or any use proposed would still have to go through the normal Conditional
Use Permit approval and building and the plan approval and we also agree with contiguity with the building and compliance with the standards.
Corrie: Okay. Any other testimony? Okay. Council, questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: And I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Then with that I will entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on the Preliminary/Final Plat No. 01-002, request variance Nos. 01-010 and 01-011.
Bird: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to close the Public Hearing on Items 12, 13 and 14. Any other discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Council, discussion?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I do. I just have a statement on the sidewalk and I agree with Tammy. I drive that at least twice a day, if not more. I know we have got detached across the street from them.
I like the detached. I don't like people walking right beside the busy part of that. I think the difference between Fairview and the Eagle Road part of it, on the north end you do
have some turn-off lanes there, but you don't have -- it isn't a complete right-hand turn lane like we have got coming up -- going north on Eagle. But I also understand that other Council,
myself, which I am sorry for that we didn't make sure that these were detached for the -- the other part of it, I hate to say it not look continuous along there, but I would -- and I
am sure maybe ACHD and them guys from -- after meeting with them, they like the five foot or seven foot attached sidewalk. don’t ask me why. And I'm sure they would want it along Pine.
So even though the sidewalk is an issue, it isn't -- it isn't an issue with me this time, because we have allowed it on the rest of the shopping center and we should have started right
at the start if we wanted to have detached sidewalks.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Ms. de Weerd.
De Weerd: So what did you just say?
Bird: I said I don’t mind attached sidewalks on this part. I wish we had --
De Weerd: Attached.
Bird: Attached. I wish they were detached, but we have already allowed it on this shopping center and it would be -- it would look continuous with the shopping center design right
now.
Corrie: Any other comments. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion on Item No. 12, request for Preliminary and Final Plat approval.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the request for a Preliminary Plat -- Preliminary/Final Plat for a building lot on 10.98 acres, plus or minus, in a proposed I-L zone for
proposed Presidential Subdivision by Dakota Company to include all staff comments, to also note the corrections discussed by our Planning and Zoning Administrator, that landscape be
required prior to occupancy of the entire site and that the Eagle Road sidewalk be detached and so on page four, item ten, that the last sentence be deleted and in the first sentence
shall be added after along Eagle and to include the notation on the Planning and Zoning recommendation approval.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and second to approval a Preliminary Plat and Final Plat approval. Staff comments? And of the corrections as stated. Any further comment?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: As I understand by the motion you are demanding a detached sidewalk right?
De Weerd: In essence, yes.
Bird: Okay.
Corrie: Is everybody clear on that one. Mr. Berg, Roll Call vote, please.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Roll Call vote.
Roll Call: De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye; Anderson, absent
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Before we go any further does council want to clarify what width that detached sidewalk should have to be?
De Weerd: Five foot. The rest of the sidewalk along Eagle Road is five foot, isn't it? It's seven on Fairview. Seven on Fairview, five on Eagle. Part of it.
Corrie: Five foot detached. Okay. Item No. 13, request for a variance to delete the requirement of subdivision street buffers to be on a common lot maintained by business owners.
De Weerd: I have no further --
Corrie: Any further discussion? Okay. I'll entertain a motion on that request for that variance 01-010.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I move that we approve the request for variance to delete the requirements for subdivision street buffers to be on a common lot maintained by business - owners association
in an I-L zone for the Presidential Subdivision by the Dakota Company.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and second to approve the variance to delete the requirement of the subdivision street buffers to be on a common lot maintained by business - owners
association. Any further discussion? Hearing none, a Roll Call vote. Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council. Roll Call vote.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; Anderson, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Item No. 14, request for a variance to delete the requirement of 35 foot buffer width for the entryway corridors and maintain existing 20 foot buffer width and to delete the
requirement of the 25 foot buffer between Intensity Class I and Class IV. Any discussion?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: I have none.
Corrie: Entertain a motion on Item No. 14.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the variance to delete the requirement of a 35-foot buffer width for entryway corridors and maintain existing 20 foot buffer width and to delete requirement
for the 25 foot buffer between Intensity Class I and IV and maintain the 20 foot width for Presidential Subdivision by Dakota Development and have the attorney draw up the proper papers.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: A motion has been made and second to approve the variance request 01-011 and for the attorney to draw up the papers. Further discussion? Mr. Berg, Roll Call vote.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Roll call vote.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; De Weerd, aye; Bird, aye; Anderson, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 15. Public Hearing: RZ 01-006 Request for Rezone from I-L to L-O zones for proposed Elixir Subdivision by Elixir Industries – 521 North Eagle Road:
Item 16. Public Hearing: 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:
Item 17. Public Hearing: VAR 01-012 Request for a Variance to the Landscape Ordinance for Elixir Properties Subdivision by Paul Clayton – 521 North Eagle Road:
Corrie: Item No.’s 15, 16, 17 is a Public Hearing requesting rezone from I-L to L-O zone for Elixir Subdivision by Elixir Industries. Item No. 16 requests a Preliminary Plat approval
of three building lots and one other lot of 15.49 acres and also request a variance to the Landscape Ordinance for Elixir Properties Subdivision by Paul Clayton. At this time I will
open the Public Hearing. Staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, Council, this is for a property that's currently occupied by -- I believe Warm Springs Spa is still there and is just north of the railroad tracks on the west side
of Eagle Road. The property to the north is also owned by Elixir Industries. They are requesting rezone to allow the Primary Health to build a building at this location. They would
be required to provide appropriate entryway landscaping along Eagle Road,
landscaping along Commercial Court. The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended that as requested by the applicant that Commercial Court remain a private road. Staff does not
agree with that recommendation and believes that it should become a public street at this time. There are two existing buildings on the site and, of course, this is still vacant here.
The primary -- let's see if I can find the site here. They didn't submit elevations. They were not submitting for a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant is also requesting the variance
to our landscape ordinance that requires a 25 -- 20 to 25 foot landscape buffer between conflicting zones or non-compatible zones and I believe that they have recommended they -- the
Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of the five foot buffer with a four foot masonry wall and the applicant is here tonight so he can further explain where that wall
would be and where the proposed plantings would be. So those are the major issues. If I could show you from the aerial -- let's see. You can get a better look at the site. The railroad
tracks and the Evans Drain on the south side of the tracks there. There would be also a buffer strip adjacent to the railroad corridor. As you can see from the aerial this is an existing
subdivision. This is Franklin Road. No, it's not. That is the railroad tracks. Nola Road. Commercial comes through here and then comes in and has kind of a T at the end of the existing
subdivision. This was intended to line up and eventually connect the Nola Road to Eagle Road and that is the reason why we are recommending that that be a public street. Other than
that we would recommend approval with staff and agency conditions.
Corrie: Okay. Is the applicant represented here tonight?
Clayton: My name is Paul Clayton. I'm at 501 North Eagle Road in Meridian.
Corrie: 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?
Clayton: I do. In reference to the landscaping on the north side, I'm on the south side of the road, the same as lot three. They are putting in the road right now and while they are
constructing the road we have found out that they are putting in enough to put -- not number three, number two. Pardon me. Right above the building there -- is where they -- I talked
to Mr. McKinnon, that's where he wanted some trees along that front there and there would be about a seven to eight foot space there between the new road and the existing blacktop where
they could plant trees and we could -- because of the -- that way that's showing there the park is not like it is, it's -- that big building is 55,000 square feet and at the time we
built it in 1968 the parking requirements -- they are not shown on there like they are -- required a parking that -- required the parking like now. But that slip across the front there
could be put -- easily be put in, but it's going to be about seven or eight between the finished road and the blacktop there now where the trees could to be put in. We have no objection
to anything that was within reason, naturally, and we don’t want to cause any commotion. However, there are some signs that -- on Eagle Road that we have to take care of if too many
trees were to block out the signs, we wouldn't be able to advertise the businesses that are there. On that space between the buildings there -- if we could get that thing back again
that was there. That little
building on the bottom there, the 20,000 foot building, from that -- on the north side of that building is a 25 foot planter in existence right now and then there is parking and the
turn around, which is another 37 feet. So we can put a planter there, we would need a four-foot high wall with a five-foot planter, which would definitely be a separation between those
two areas. We acquired that property in 1967 and built the first building there in 1968. And we would like to maintain it as a private road also until such time as it would be able
to finish and meet the street to the west of us. At this particular time we do not own the last 50 feet of that property where the street would have to be put in. It's owned by somebody
else. It's owned by Thomas Wright. However, to have him put up the money to finish the road to that point he's not agreeable with. So that came into existence in a very odd way. Back
in 1972 the railroad wanted to run a spur around the property and come down Pine Street where Pine Street is going to be now and that was abandoned and before we could get the property
back Tom Wright had claimed it. But we had the last 50 feet of that property that was ours originally. The railroad abandoned this project. Now rather -- there is no problem with
water or anything like that. There is four wells on the property. Three of them are still active. They are not hooked up to anything at the moment, but they are still active wells.
So we can irrigate them here -- we can irrigate with the trees with the water from one of the wells. It's an abandoned railroad spur on the south side right next to the railroad and
I checked with the railroad and they said that if the trees are put there, they are going to have to be held back so the branches don't hang over the right of way. So it's going to
consume a lot more land than we had originally anticipated by putting the trees in. However, we will put the trees in and we are going to have to put some kind of a tree that doesn't
have a big spread, because if you get 15 feet of land, that's a lot of land to give away. So there are trees that we put in there that wouldn't be as great a spread as some of the other
trees that we could use. We need some kind of a juniper or something of that nature that grows tall and slim, so you wouldn't have to have an overhang on the railroad. The main reason
to keep it a private road is because we don’t own the last 50 feet and ACHD, I talked to Ms. Newton there about it, she said within a two-year period, if it was a feasible thing, we
could make it -- and the road being built to ACHD standards right now, so there would be no future problem with the road.
Corrie: Okay. Any questions?
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Clayton, when you talked to ACHD were they willing to take that road or did they want to take that and make it into a public road?
Clayton: Not at this moment. When I was there -- I talked to Ms. Newton and there was another lady there, but I don’t know her name, and they told me that if the situation was improved
over the next two year period it would become a dedicated road and become a public road. But they also in their letter had no objection to it being a private road for the next two years.
Bird: Thank you.
Clayton: And I have a copy of that if you want to see it.
Corrie: Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thank you, Paul.
Clayton: Thank you.
Corrie: Is there anyone from the public that would like to discuss -- yes, sir. Do you promise in regard to the testimony you will give tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you?
Miller: Yes, I do. My name is Brad Miller with Ronald W. Van Auker, Incorporated. I'm here tonight representing McCall properties, which owns ten acres on the south side of that street
contiguous to the Elixir property and the McCall property people have asked him to request that the city council make that a public road. I'd like to see it a public road at this time.
So right about where the marker is they own that property and the east -- Tom Wright owns the four and a half acres right there and down. Tom owns between the road and the railroad
tracks by four and a half acres. And then McCall property owns just to the -- right there, yes. That ten acres there. But they are supportive of the project, but we would like to
see it be a public road.
Corrie: And anyone else? Ms. Bowcutt. Do you promise and affirm that the testimony you give tonight will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you?
Bowcutt: I do. Becky Bowcutt, 12715 West Edna Court, Boise. I'm here this evening on behalf of Gem Tone, Inc. That's the company that Mr. Wright owns. We would like to go on the
record and state that we are in support of the project. However, we also agree with Mr. Van Auker's representative that that should be a public street. These undeveloped parcels are
not any different than other undeveloped properties that we see when we develop partials and we go in, we provide sub streets, etc. The problem with -- when one builds a private road,
they may say we asked for a building to meet ACHD standard, but a lot of documentation and testing is required to go back and try to get those dedicated a couple years down the road,
plus standards change over time. So if their intent is that this may be public and they are going to build at the public standards, we believe it should be a publicly dedicated street.
Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Anyone else? Okay. Paul, you have one last shot at it. You're the developer. Any questions that have come up?
Clayton: The issue of the road being public or private is being built and tested and I’ll the testing materials are being recorded, so that in the future if the road wants to become
a public road it has become a public road and everything will be in order, but at the moment, because of the fact that we don't own the land at the end and build the thing clear through
-- another thing, too, that I didn't bring up before, ACHD is going to widen Franklin Road. When this road was first put in people would go around the end down there. We even built
a trench and they filled the trench up themselves so they could get around and we had more traffic on that road there than they had on Franklin and the traffic on Franklin now is terrible.
And so if that becomes a public road you will have people racing up and down that little street like you can't believe, because that would be a good thoroughfare to go clear over the
Lanark Street. Because of that why we don't want to make it a private road until all of the property owners and perhaps Mr. Wright can put up his share of the money to put the road
in and finish it up. That's another 50 feet. It's not a cheap project to finish that road. If you want to know the facts, that road is costing near $160,000. Thank you.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions from Council? Okay.
Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on 15, 16, and 17.
McCandless: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to close the Public Hearing on Items 15, 16 and 17, Elixir Subdivision. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Discussion, Council?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess I would have a question for either Shari or the attorney. On the piece of road that is not owned by Mr. Clayton. He would not be required to put that in, would
he?
Corrie: Which one wants to go first? Shari?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council and Councilwoman de Weerd. The applicant would be required to construct the public road to and through their property, just as we do with the sewer and
water. So I believe this is the end -- is that right, Paul? Mr. Clayton?
Clayton: The sewer -- everything is in. We put everything in. All the utilities are in.
Stiles: We would extend it to the point where it's adjacent to their property. I believe they also own the other side here, so they would have to build a full street section. I don't
-- I think Ada County Highway District would require them to build it as part of this particular plat, but when they come in for development of this other partial they would be required
to finish off those improvements. It should also be noted that in the recommendation it doesn't indicate anything about a sidewalk along Commercial Street. Commercial Court. So we
are going to have to come up with some standards if that's not being proposed to actually meet Ada County Highway District standards. They don't have any comments in regard to private
streets.
Corrie: Paul, no more testimony. Sorry. We have closed the Public Hearing, Paul. Council, any questions? Tammy did that answer your question?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I did have one for Shari. Shari, if it remains a private road then you don't have to put a sidewalk on it?
Stiles: We don’t have any standards for a private street.
Bird: Okay.
Stiles: Except as part of a planned development.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Motion for the request for rezone, Item 15.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Ms. McCandless.
McCandless: I move that we approve the request for rezone from I-L to L-O zone for proposed Elixir Subdivision by Elixir Industries at 521 North Eagle Road.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and second to approve the request for a rezone from I-L to L-O zone, proposed Elixir Subdivision by Elixir Industries. Any further discussion? Roll Call
vote, Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council. Roll Call vote.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; De Weerd, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: No. 16 is a request for Preliminary Plat approval of three building lots and one other lot on 15.49 acres in a proposed I-L and L-O zones for Elixir Subdivision.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move we approve the request for Preliminary Plat approval of three building lots and one other lot on 15.49 acres in the proposed I-L and L-O zones for Elixir Subdivision
to note on page three, Item No. 6, to remove the recommendation that it remain a private road and that it should be required to be a public road and ask the attorney to draw up Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law and to include all staff comments.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat with the change in Item No. 6 to delete the Planning and Zoning recommendation for the road to remain a private
road and insert required to be a public road. Staff comments? Any further discussion? Hearing none, Roll Call, Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council, Roll Call Vote.
Roll Call: De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye; Anderson, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Request for variance to the Landscape Ordinance for Elixir Properties Subdivision by Paul Clayton. Any discussion on the request for the variance?
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess no one's twisted my hand and having read staff recommendations I feel comfortable with what their recommendation is.
Corrie: Okay. Any other comments? Okay. I'll entertain a motion and the request for variance. Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. I move that we approve the request for a variance to the Landscape Ordinance with the staff comments to -- for our recommendation to reflect the comments of staff
and David McKinnon's memorandum dated August 31st.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for Landscape Ordinance with staff comments, no recommendations. Any further discussion? Mr. Berg, Roll Call
vote, please.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council, Roll Call Vote.
Roll Call: De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye; Anderson, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 18. Public Hearing: AZ 01-010 Request for annexation and zoning of .99 acres from R1 to C-G zones for Podiatry Building by Smith Brighton, LLC – 1065 East Fairview Avenue:
Corrie: Item No. 18 has been requested be removed to the later date of October 2, 2001. At this time is there anyone here from the public who would like to issue testimony on this
Podiatry Building at this time? Okay. I will open the Public Hearing and then I will continue the Public Hearing until October 2, 2001. I will entertain a motion to that effect.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we continue the Public Hearing to October 2, 2001, for annexation and zoning of .99 acres from R1 to C-G zones for Podiatry Building by Smith Brighton, LLC, 1065 East
Fairview Avenue.
Corrie: Motion has been made to continue the Public Hearing item. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 19. 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:
Corrie: Item No. 19 is a 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. Staff comments on the Conditional Use Permit statute?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I hope this is the new plan. Is that right? They have fixed their little problem with the Irrigation Easement, I think, and come up with a new plan
and staff would recommend approval with all staff and agency conditions.
Corrie: Okay. Is the applicant here tonight for approval of the plans? Let the record show that Mr. Bill Driscoll raises his hand and said that he approves. Okay. Council, questions?
Discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. I'll entertain a motion for Conditional Use Permit.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Ms. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I think we shouldn't let Mr. Driscoll off the hook that easily.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the Conditional Use Permit for the expansion of the Chamber office and visitor center in a C-G zone from for Meridian Chamber of Commerce by Meridian
Chamber of Commerce, 215 East Franklin Road.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to approve the Conditional Use Permit on Item 9, CUP 01-017. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: And also, Bill, I mentioned to you earlier that the inspectors of the city are willing to donate their time to this project for you. As I mentioned, ACHD, you will have to
discuss that with them. Council, there was a request also about the Building Permit fees.
Bird: I was going to make a motion right there.
Corrie: Okay. Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we, as a city, donate -- and you just verified that the inspectors are going to donate their -- all the fees -- let's waive all the fees that pertain to the City of
Meridian towards the Chamber of Commerce building.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and second for the city to donate the fees from the city to the Chamber of Commerce. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 20. 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 University of Phoenix (office) by Rocky Mountain Management
& Development, LLC – 3080 Gentry Way:
Corrie: The Item No. 20 is a request for Conditional Use Permit to offer classes for a Master's and Bachelor's Degree in a C-G zone for the University of Phoenix office by Rocky Mountain
Management & Development, LLC, 3080 Gentry Way. Staff comments.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, the University of Phoenix would like to open up for business in the existing Eagle Professional Center on Eagle Road. Because that does require Conditional
Use in a C-G zone they have come and we have done everything we could to help them along in that endeavor. We certainly welcome them into the City of Meridian and they have indicated
verbally tonight that once they get this building they will start -- their ad will start indicating they are coming to Meridian, not Boise.
Corrie: Very good. Okay. Has the applicant seen all the conditions on the Conditional Use Permit? Do you wish to add anything to that? Just state your name and --
Simmons: I'm Danny Sullivan with Rocky Mountain Management & Development.
Corrie: Thank you. And you did have -- seen all the comments in the Conditional Use Permit per the minutes?
Simmons: We did.
Corrie: Okay. Is there discussion on the request for the Conditional Use Permit for the University of Phoenix office?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. I’ll entertain a motion to the Conditional Use Permit request.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the Conditional Use Permit to offer classes for Master's and Bachelor's Degrees in a C-G zone for the University of Phoenix office at 3080 Gentry Way and
for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and decision and order.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit for the University of Phoenix office and have the attorney draw up the Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law for approval. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 21. FP 01-014 Request for Final Plat approval of 6 building lots on 1.66 acres in an R-4 zone for The Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 10 by Steiner Development, Inc. – west and north
of West Harbor Point Drive, North Miranda Avenue and West Teter Street:
Corrie: Item No. 21 is a request for final plat approval of six building lots on 1.66 acres in an R-4 zone for The Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 10 by Steiner Development, Inc. West and
north of West Harbor Point Drive, North Miranda Avenue and West Teter Street. Okay. Are there staff comments on the request for final plat?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, Council, I need just a minute to ask Gary about one of these comments. The staff comment indicated that Plat Note No. 10 be removed and I believe those facilities
are already in place, so I don't think that can be removed. We would recommend approval of this subdivision. It was previously the Lake at Cherry Lane No. 9 and as you are probably
aware, they have added an additional lot and added some area to some of the other lots that incorporated some of the golf course that was traded in a land swap. Staff would recommend
approval with all staff and agency conditions, with the exception of Item No. 5 of the memo dated August 29, 2001, and under site-specific requirements.
Corrie: Okay. Any comments from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: I'd ask the question. I don’t think there is anyone here from The Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 10 Subdivision. Seeing none. Okay. Any discussion? Entertain a motion, then,
on the request for the final plat approval.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Ms. McCandless.
McCandless: I move that we approve the request for Final Plat approval of six building lots on 1.66 acres in an R-4 zone for The Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 10 by Steiner Development,
Inc. West and north of West Harbor Point Drive, North Miranda Avenue and West Teter Street and to incorporate the staff recommendation that would delete No. 5, removing the plat, Note
No. 10, from the face of the plat.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion made and second.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Just so I can clarify, Staff recommendation was that Plat Note No. 10 be removed. That was in the report. Shari's comment was that she thinks that that easement is already
there and, therefore, Plat Note No. 10 has to stay in. Councilwoman McCandless are you agreeing that the Note No. 10 stays on the plat?
McCandless: Yes. I didn't say it quite right, but that's what I meant.
Corrie: Okay. Roll Call vote, Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council, Roll Call Vote.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Bird, aye; De Weerd, abstain; Anderson, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSTAINED, ONE ABSENT
Item 22. Discussion of possible Mill Levy Election: Resolution No. : Setting election to raise tax levy rate for FY 2003/2004:
Corrie: Discussion. Possible Mill Levy Election. Setting election to raise tax levy rate for Fiscal Year 2003/2004. We had the resolution in front of us, which shows the -- well,
Mr. Berg.
Berg: Excuse me. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, we have resolution. Item No. 8 calls out proclaiming a general election and then this resolution would tag onto that general election
to have a Mill Levy Election also.
Bird: Is that the first --
Berg: There might be a legal thing, but I think we should call for a general election and then if we tag this one onto it, then it's already established. That's just my personal preference.
I'm not an attorney.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols, your recommendation on that?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, not being a Florida lawyer and not an election law expert, however, I think the Clerk's point is well taken and I think that 2 should be
taken up after Item No. 8.
Item 5. Tabled from August 28, 2001: Ordinance No. : Mayors Wages:
Corrie: Okay. Item No. 6 is an ordinance -- I'm sorry. No. 5 is tabled from August 28th ordinance number -- what is that ordinance number for the Mayor's wages. 01-925. Do you
have that ordinance?
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Ordinance No. 01-925, an ordinance of the City of Meridian, Idaho, repealing Subsection A-1 of Section 4 of Chapter 8 of Title 1,
Meridian City Code to increase the Mayor's salary to 55,000 dollars per year and providing an effective date.
Corrie: Okay. Would anyone like to have the entire ordinance read in its entirety? Hearing none, Council, any discussion? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion on Ordinance No. 01-925.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 01-925 establishing the increase to the Mayor's salary to 55,000 per year and providing an effective date.
Corrie: That effective date, I believe, is January 1, 2002.
McCandless: 2002.
Bird: Extension of the rules? Are you going to suspend the rules?
McCandless: With suspension of the rules.
Corrie: Is there a second?
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and second. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
Corrie: Opposed no? Did I hear just two ayes or --
Bird: Two ayes. I abstain. I abstain. I'll vote aye.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and second and all approved ayes. Motion is carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 6. Ordinance No. : AZ 01-007 Request for annexation and zoning of 4 acres from R-1 to C-C for proposed Hark’s Corner by Van Hees Properties – 119 South
Linder Road:
Corrie: Okay. Ordinance No. 6, request for annexation and zoning of four acres from R-1 to C-C for proposed Hark's Corner by Van Hees Properties, 119 South Linder Road. Ordinance
No. 01-926? 926. Would you read that by Title only please. The attorney says we need a Roll Call, so let's go back to No. 5, Ordinance 01-925. Roll Call vote. Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I'm sorry I didn't catch that. Roll Call vote.
Roll Call: McCandless, aye; De Weerd, aye; Bird, aye; Anderson is absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 6. Ordinance No. : AZ 01-007 Request for annexation and zoning of 4 acres from R-1 to C-C for proposed Hark’s Corner by Van Hees Properties – 119 South
Linder Road:
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Before I get too far into this, we need No. 6, right, Ordinance No. 01-926, request for annexation and zoning, if you would read by Title only, Mr. Clerk.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Ordinance No. 01-926. An Ordinance finding that certain land to be known as Hark's Corner, the location of which lies contiguous
or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho and finding that the owner has made a request for annexation in writing to the Council, that said
land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated Community Business District C-C and declaring that said land, by proper legal description, as described below, be a part
of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith; and directing the City Engineer to add said
property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho; and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified
copy of the Ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor, and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to
Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215.
Corrie: Okay. Is there anyone who would like to have Ordinance No. 01-926 read in its entirety? Let the record show there is none. Any discussion on the Ordinance? Hearing none, I'll
entertain a motion on Ordinance No. 01-926.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approved Ordinance No. 01-926, the request for annexation and zoning for four acres from R-1 to C-C for proposed Hark's Corner by Van Hees Properties, 119 South Linder
Road, with suspension of rules.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to approve Ordinance No. 01-926 with suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Roll Call vote, please.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Roll Call vote.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; McCandless, aye; De Weerd, aye; and Ron Anderson is absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 7. Ordinance No. : AZ 01-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 28.59 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Macaile Meadows Subdivision by Hillview
Land Development, LLC – south of Fairview and west of Cloverdale Roads:
Corrie: No. 7 is Ordinance No. 01-927, request for annexation and zoning of 28.59 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Macaile Meadows Subdivision by Hillview Land Development,
LLC, south of Fairview and west of Cloverdale Roads.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Before you have the Clerk read that by Title, I note that there is a revised page which was just provided today, on page two of -- on page three of the proposed Ordinance,
the last line in Section Five in the previous draft referred to planned unit development and Conditional Use Permit process and that was an error. It should say under the single-family
residential development process.
Corrie: Does all the Council have that?
Nichols: It was provided today.
Corrie: Okay. Entertain a motion on Ordinance No. 01-927 as --
Bird: Have him read it.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: He hasn't read it.
Corrie: Oh, you haven't read it?
Bird: The Clerk hasn't read it.
Corrie: Oh. Okay. Oh, I see what you're saying. Yes. Okay. City Clerk please read by Title only.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Ordinance No. 01-927. An Ordinance finding that certain land to be known as Macaile Meadows Subdivision, the location of which
lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho and finding that the owner has made a request for annexation in writing to the Council,
that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated Medium Density Residential District R-8 and declaring that said land, by proper legal description, as described
below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith; and directing the City Engineer
to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho; and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the Ordinance and map of the areas
to be annexed with the Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor, and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215.
Corrie: Okay. We have heard the reading of Ordinance No. 01-927, Title only. Anyone from the audience who would like to have it read in its entirety? Hearing none, I’ll entertain
a motion on Ordinance No. 01-927.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Ms. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 01-927, request for annexation and zoning of Macaile Meadows Subdivision to note the change dated September 4th on page three as a replacement
and with suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and second to approve Ordinance No. 01-927 with suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Roll Call vote, Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council, Roll Call Vote.
Roll Call: De Weerd, aye; Bird, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson is absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 8. Resolution No. : Proclaiming a general city election for Tuesday, November 6, 2001 and designating polling places:
Corrie: Okay. Item No. 8 is Resolution No. 01-368. Okay. Proclaiming a general city election for Tuesday, November 6, 2001, and designating polling places. If the Clerk will read
the Resolution No. 368 by Title only, please.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and members of the Council. Ordinance No. 01-368, a resolution of the City of Meridian proclaiming a general city election to be held on Tuesday, November
6, 2001, designating the polling places and times and ordering the City Clerk to give notice of such election and providing an effective date.
Corrie: Okay. Is there anyone from the audience who would like to have the resolution read in its entirety? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on Resolution No. 368.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve Resolution No. 01-368 proclaiming a general city election for Tuesday, November 6, 2001, and designating the polling places as listed.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and second to approve Resolution No. 368.
Further discussion? Roll Call vote, Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council, Roll Call Vote.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; McCandless, aye; De Weerd, aye; Anderson is absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 22. Discussion of possible Mill Levy Election: Resolution No. : Setting election to raise tax levy rate for FY 2003/2004:
Corrie: The next one would be a resolution for discussion of possible Mill Levy Election in the resolution, setting election to raise tax levy rate for Fiscal Year 2002/2004. So we'll
open for discussion.
De Weerd: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Anybody else have any discussion on it?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. I'll entertain a -- so that would be 01-369. If you will read that by Title only, Mr. Berg.
Berg: Resolution No. 01-369, a resolution proclaiming a city election to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2001, designating the polling places and times and ordering the City Clerk to
give notice of such election.
Corrie: Anyone from the public like to have it read in its entirety? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on Resolution No. 01-369.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve Resolution No. 01-369, a resolution proclaiming a city election to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2001, designating the polling places and times and ordering
the Clerk to give notice of such election and this election is for the increase of our -- to the budget of 2003/2004 budget year by the amount of not to exceed .004.
Corrie: Okay. Is there a second to the motion?
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and second to approve Resolution No. 369. Any further discussion? Hearing none, a Roll Call vote, Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council, Roll Call Vote.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; McCandless, aye; De Weerd, aye; Anderson, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 9. Development Agreement: AZ 00-009 Request for annexation and zoning of 101.4 acres from RT to R-4 zones for proposed Autumn Faire
Subdivision by Gem Star Properties, LLC – southwest corner of Black Cat and Ustick Roads:
Corrie: Item No. 9 Development Agreement -- well, let me find the right page. Okay. Development Agreement 00-009, request for annexation and zoning of 101.4 acres from RT to R-4 zones
for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision by Gem Star Properties.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, if I may.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, this is just a clean-up item and it's not for a whole 101.4 acres, it's for two parcels that are approximately I think a total of about two
acres in size on the corner of Ustick and Black Cat and it's a clean-up from the Autumn Faire annexation. This parcel -- the one owned by the Langley farms, a family-owned partnership
owned by Dean and Julie Langley, individually. And the key point is that it defers requirement to hook up city sewer and water until they either develop the property or they request
the connection or they sell it. So there is an agreement that can be recorded which binds the property to those conditions.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Then what we are passing on right now is just Dean and Julia's own land that they own there, which is four or five acres or something like that? Or is it that big? I don’t remember.
Nichols: I believe it's about two acres. There was one acre that was part of the annexation and zoning for the Autumn Faire that wasn't included in the plat, but there was an acre
that's annexed that's right behind their -- or beside their parcel, I don't remember which, and then the piece that their house is on.
Bird: Okay. So it's not the 101.4 acres? That's what I'm -- Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the request for annexation and zoning of property owned by Dean and Julia Langley at the corner of Ten Mile and -- the southwest corner of Ten Mile and
Black Cat, approximately --
McCandless: Was that Ustick --
Bird: Oh, Ustick and Black Cat. I'm sorry. Approximately two acres. And for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest the development agreement.
Corrie: Motion has been made and second for Item No. 9, request for annexation and zoning of development agreement. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg, Roll Call vote,
please.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Roll Call vote.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson is absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Okay. With that I believe that covers the approved agenda. Okay.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: One question. Have we got an update on the Main Street -- how that's coming along? The 1st and Main Street changes.
Corrie: To be perfectly honest with you I don't know. I will find out tomorrow and -- Gary, do you know? Has she said anything more about it? It's just not changed from anything
else?
Smith: No, Mr. Mayor, I haven't heard anything.
Corrie: Okay. We do need to vote on that, however. We haven't voted on it, whether we make that change or not.
Bird: Do we need that in a formal resolution or what?
Corrie: We need it as a -- I think it's an ordinance.
De Weerd: I thought it has already been approved.
Corrie: We can't find it anywhere in the attorney's office or anywhere else. It was just discussed. We went back through all the minutes and we don't have an ordinance or a resolution
on it. We went back -- clear back through and didn't find anything on it. We discussed it a couple three times how we wanted to do it and we
never did get the ordinance. So we need an ordinance, I imagine. Correct, Bill?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I don't know. Since it's a street name change I would expect probably an ordinance would be required.
Corrie: Could you check that for us and maybe -- and we'd like to have it discussed in a meeting and then we can --
Nichols: I will.
Corrie: Okay. Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I move that we adjourn.
Bird: I second it.
Corrie: Motion made and second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. We will adjourn at 9:20. Thank you.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:20 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE APPROVED
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK