HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 04-17Meridian City Council Meeting April 17, 2001
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday April 17, 2001 by President Keith Bird.
Members present: Keith Bird, Ron Anderson, Cherie McCandless.
Members absent: Tammy De Weerd, Mayor Robert Corrie.
Others present: Gary Smith, Bill Nichols, Shari Stiles, Brad Watson, Ken Bowers, Dave Bowman.
Bird: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. We’ll get the council meeting started for April 17,2001. I’d like to welcome you here. Mr. Clerk read the roll call please.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
O Tammy de Weerd X Ron Anderson
X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird
O Mayor Robert Corrie
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Bird: Council the first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Do we have any changes or anything we need to add or delete?
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: I’ll go ahead (inaudible) We do have an addition under departments report by Gary Smith. He’ll have an item No.3 which is the Woodbridge subdivision street light agreement. Item
G on the consent agenda they would like to have that pulled to 5g on the regular agenda so we can talk about some phasing plans. If that’s ok council. PQ and R has been asked – we need
to move them to 5P, 5Q, and 5R because we’ve had a request from the developer to table them until the next meeting which I believe would be May 3rd . May 1, I’m sorry. Ok Council any
other items or changes or nothing?
Anderson: Don’t see any.
Bird: Ok.
Anderson: I would make a motion then that we approve the agenda.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: It’s been moved and second to approve the agenda with the changes. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Minutes of February 20, 2001, Regular City Council Meeting:
B. Minutes of February 27, 2001, Regular City Council Meeting:
C. Minutes of March 6, 2001, Regular City Council Meeting:
D. Minutes of March 20, 2001, Special City Council Meeting:
E. Minutes of March 20, 2001, Regular City Council Meeting:
Minutes of March 27, 2001, Regular City Council Meeting:
G. Tabled from February 20, 2001: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 99-039 Request for Conditional Use Permit for planned unit development including continuing care retirement
community, single- and multi-family residential and office and retail use by Touchmark Living Centers – Joseph A. Billig – east of St. Luke's between Franklin Road and Interstate 84
(need to approve Development Agreement and annexation ordinance before approving CUP Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law):
H. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Denial: AZ-00-021 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 70.72 acres to R-8 for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L Voigt Development
– northeast corner of Ustick and Meridian Roads:
I. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Denial: PP-00-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 214 single-family lots, 4 future office lots and 23 common lots on 69.79
acres for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development – northeast corner of Ustick and Meridian Roads:
J. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Denial: AZ 00-027 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.97 acres from RT to R-4 by Hubble Engineering for proposed
Inglenook Subdivision – east side of Locust Grove and north of Victory Road:
K. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Denial: PP 00-028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval 21 building lots and 3 other lots on 5.97 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by Hubble
Engineering for proposed Inglenook Subdivision – east side of Locust Grove and north of Victory Road:
L. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-001 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an office building for O’Neill Homes in an L-O zone by Toothman-Orton
Engineering Company / Johnson Design – Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road at 385 South Locust Grove Road:
M. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 01-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 78 acres from R-1 to C-C and C-G by Larson Architects for proposed Silverstone
Corporate Center – southeast corner of Overland Road and Eagle Road:
N. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 01-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots and 1 other lot on 78 acres in proposed C-C and C-G zones
for proposed Silverstone Corporate Center by Larson Architects – southeast corner of Overland Road and Eagle Road:
O. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a commercial planned unit development and floodway approval in proposed
C-C and C-G zones for proposed Silverstone Corporate Center by Larson Architects – southeast corner of Overland Road and Eagle Road
P. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 01-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.764 acres from RT to R-40 and C-G for proposed Locust Grove Place by B
& A Engineers – west side of Locust Grove Road, south of Fairview Avenue:
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 01-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 2 other lots on 11.764 acres in a proposed R-40 and
C-G zone for proposed Locust Grove Place by B
& A Engineers – west side of Locust Grove Road, south of Fairview Avenue:
R. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 180-unit apartment complex and a planned development in a proposed
R-40 and C-G zone for proposed Locust Grove Place by B & A Engineers – west side of Locust Grove Road, south of Fairview Avenue:
Bird: Opposed? Ok. Now I would entertain a motion for the consent agenda with the changes as noted.
Anderson: Mr. President.
Bird: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion we approve the modified consent agenda.
Bird: Do I hear a second?
McCandless: I’ll second.
Bird: Ok. It’s been moved and second to approve the modified consent agenda. All In favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Department Reports:
A City Engineer – Gary Smith:
WWTP Digester Drain Line Project Contract Award:
Bird: Ok. It passes. Item No.4 department reports, city engineer Gary Smith.
(inaudible discussion)
Smith: Thank you Mr. President, council members. First item that we have is the wastewater treatment plant digester drain line project. Award of contract, I think you have in your packet
a letter of explanation from Brad Watson concerning this project. This project was to construct an emergency over flow pipeline from the new digester back into the plant process piping.
This was to eliminate some spillage. Since the project was estimated to be less than 25,000 dollars we
solicited some quotations from contractors. Four were received. The lowest quote was from J C Constructors at 16,500 dollars to do that work. Star Construction was 23,887; Erminger
25,560; and Stevenson Construction at 27,230. J C Constructors recently completed the headworks expansion at the plant and the septage receiving station, did a great job. So, our recommendation
to you would be to award this contract for the wastewater treatment plant digester drain line to J C Constructors in the amount of 16,500 dollars to authorize the Mayor to sign, the
City Clerk to attest.
Bird: Any questions Council?
Anderson: I have none.
Bird: If not, I’d entertain a motion.
McCandless: Mr. President.
Bird: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I move that we approve the, or award the contract to JC Constructors in the amount of 16,500 dollars for the Clerk to sign and the Mayor to attest.
Anderson: Or, the other way around.
McCandless: The other way around.
Anderson: I’ll second.
Bird: It’s been moved and second to accept the wastewater treatment plant digester drain line to JC Constructors in the amount of 16,500 and authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk
to attest. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
2. Coors Distributing Company emergency permit to hook up to the City Sewer – 3225 Commercial Court:
Bird: It’s all passed. Thank you. Ok.
Smith: Thank you. The second item I have is a request from Coors Distributing Company at 3225 Commercial Court to connect to sewer and water. This property is presently outside the city
limits and it’s a larger connection than I felt probably authorized me to approve based on our ordinance requirements so I’m bringing it to you tonight. They are having septic tank trouble.
I’ve talked to Mr. George Wisebeck about it several times. He has sent this letter in which you
have in your packet requesting the connection. He’s also agreeing to entering into agreement for annexation of the property. He would connect to sewer and water.
Bird: Mr. Anderson?
Anderson: I had one question Gary. When I read George Wisebeck’s letter to you he indicated it’s our intention to complete the annexation process but I didn’t see any time frame in
there. The word immediately or something like that I guess come to mind that they would start that application process I guess. Is he clear on that?
Smith: I think I mentioned that to George when I talked to him that it would need to start with the application for the connection. We ca certainly clarify that with him. He’s here this
evening.
Anderson: Ok.
Smith: Yeah, you’re right Councilman Anderson. We need to be sure that this starts and that it’s followed through on.
Bird: Would you like Mr. Wisebeck to –
Anderson: If he’s here.
Bird: George do you want to come forward.
Wisebeck: Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman is correct. I have the application for annexation. We have not completed it because I need to have some engineering studies done. We have
that in our process. As you’re aware we’re a subsidiary of our parent company, Coors Company. Being that you deal with corporations I think you understand there’s somewhat of a time
delay but we definitely have it in process and plan to complete that ASAP.
Anderson: Ok. Thank you.
Bird: Would you state your name please before you leave?
Wisebeck: George Wisebeck. I’m the manger of the Coors Distributorship.
Bird: Thank you George. Any other questions?
Anderson: I have none.
Bird: Ok. Council, what would be your privilege on this one?
Anderson: Mr. President. I would make a motion then that we go ahead and authorize the hookup to the city sewer and allow the public works director to go ahead and take care of that
process for us.
Bird: Do I hear a second?
McCandless: Second.
Bird: Ok. Motion has been made and second to accept the permit to hook up to Coors Distributing at 3225 Commercial Court. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
3. Woodbridge Subdivision Streetlight Agreement:
Bird: Passed.
Smith: Mr. President.
Bird: Mr. Smith.
Smith: On that item would that involve our city attorney preparing that, -- he’s shaking his head in the affirmative – ok thank you.
Bird: Yes sir. Ok. The third –
Shaun Nichol: Mr. President.
Bird: Just a second.
Shaun Nichol: Can I ask for a clarification on the second item. (inaudible)
Bird: Yeah. Go ahead.
B. Nichols: Mr. President, members of Council. Mr. Nichol, are you asking about the Inglenook application? The request for reconsideration was received and you know the process is that
one of the Council members that voted with the majority has to move to reconsider it. The way to do that is one of those people would have to move to place it on the regular agenda and
then move to reconsider. It’s my understanding that neither of the council members who voted with the majority were inclined to move it to the regular agenda to reconsider it. That’s
why it was left on the consent agenda.
Shaun Nichol: (inaudible)
Bird: If you’re going to talk come up here so we can get you on.
Shaun Nichol: I apologize for being out of order President and Council. For the record, Shaun Nichol, Hubble Engineering 701 Allen street in Meridian suite 102. Because we have one of
the Council members absent that did make the motion and could possibly make another motion to reconsider, could we request a tabling of our findings of fact to the next meeting and bring
that reconsideration request back in front at that time?
Nichols: Mr. Nichol, I believe it’s too late. The consent agenda has been approved but again, it would have had to be one of the people that was present here that voted for the majority
and they didn’t move to reconsider it. I would say it’s too late to table.
Shaun Nichol: Ok.
Nichols: With regard to Mr. Arnold and Sundance subdivision it’s the same response. Those that voted with the majority to deny the application, neither wish to move it off the consent
agenda and put it on the regular agenda to reconsider.
Arnold: May I make a statement?
Nichols: That’s up to the president not up to me.
Bird: I’ll let you make a statement. Get up there.
Arnold: Had I known – for the record, Steve Arnold Briggs Engineering. I’m here representing the client. I guess things moved a little bit faster. Had I known before that we had one
absent Commissioner that voted to deny our application, we would have, before the motion was made. It was made pretty quick tonight, recommended that this item be pulled. I understand
that procedurally I’m 10, 15 minutes late. I’m just asking that maybe we step back a little bit and defer this item for a week to two weeks, or two weeks to the next Council hearing
when we have a full Council.
Bird: Mr. Arnold, that problem is to pull it, they have to have a second. There was three that was voted with the majority –
Arnold: I understand.
Bird: -- neither one of the two that are here that voted with the majority wanted to so regardless of how the one that is absent would have been, they would have still needed a second.
Evidently the feeling tonight from the majority voters on that denial was that they did not want to move it.
Arnold: I understand procedurally and had I been a little bit more obstinate and stood up and recommended before it was voted on, maybe I’m 15 minutes too late and a dollar or two short
but I’m just requesting that the Council defer the findings of fact.
Bird: It’s already down the road.
Arnold: Thank you for hearing me.
Bird: Thank you. Mr. Smith, I believe you’ve got another –
Smith: Thank you Mr. President. The last item I have is the approval of a street light maintenance Agreement for Woodbridge subdivision. These streetlights are – lamps are not standard
to what we normally enter into for agreement with Idaho Power. So in that regard we have had streetlight agreements with past subdivision where they’ve used specialty streetlights. This
agreement is prepared along those same lines so that the Homeowners Association is responsible for the maintenance of those lights. The city will pay the power.
Bird: Council, any questions of Mr. Smith?
Anderson: Gary, I had one. Are they required to like maintain a couple of extra poles in case a car runs into one and damages it or something? I mean a few years down the road whoever
manufactures that might be out of business or whatever. Does our agreement require anything like that?
Smith: I don’t recall seeing that in there Councilman Anderson.
Bird: We didn’t.
Smith: It’s kind of, it’s an agreement where the Homeowners Association is responsible for those lights. I don’t know whether they would take it upon themselves to maintain a pole or
two extra in supply or not.
Anderson: I know that’s a problem with those specialty poles. I mean, they’re a fad for a few years and then they’re gone and you can’t get them anymore. That ought to be something
that we consider in future agreements I guess is maybe asking them to buy a couple of extras because inevitably a couple of them are going to get damaged –
Smith: Right.
Anderson: -- throughout the years.
Smith: Right.
Bird: Any other questions?
Anderson: I have none.
Bird: Ok. Council what’s your pleasure?
Anderson: Mr. President.
Bird: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion then that we approve the streetlight agreement for Woodbridge subdivision.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: Ok. It’s been moved and second to approve the streetlight agreement with Woodbridge subdivision for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Discussion? Hearing none, all in
favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
Bird: Ok. Item
Smith: Thank you.
G. Tabled from April 17, 2001: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 99-039 Request for Conditional Use Permit for planned unit development including continuing care retirement
community, single- and multi-family residential and office and retail use by Touchmark Living Centers – Joseph A. Billig – east of St. Luke's between Franklin Road and Interstate 84
(need to approve Development Agreement and annexation ordinance before approving CUP Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law):
Bird: Thank you Mr. Smith. Ok. First on the regular agenda is item 5G which was moved from the consent Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for the Touchmark Living Centers conditional
use permit. I think Mr. Smith, did you have something on the phasing or something we needed to discuss on this?
Smith: Thank you Mr. President. Council members. I reviewed the phasing plan that was submitted to us along with a narrative description of the different phases. There are 5 different
phases described. From my review from the standpoint of sewer and water and access I didn’t have any particular problems
with how they were proposing to phase it. They did make the amendment as Councilman Anderson requested last council meeting to provide the connecting street and this development and
Mount View subdivision as part of phase one. After reviewing this with Shari a little bit, both she and I had a question as to the terminology for the completeness of the different aspects
of these phases. They set forth 4 different stages of completion of the improvements. One is labeled as an R, which is a requirement that is bonded prior to building permits, completed
prior to occupancy. In reviewing the narrative on the phasing I could find only 2 places where that existed. They were both streets and they’re in phase 5 and one street that would built
in as part of phase 2. A majority of the items are listed as prerequisite items to be completed prior to receipt of building permits. There’s also some low priority items which are defined
as needing bonding to permit occupancy. Shari and I were having a difficulty with the low priority items in that those are the streets or the streets are one of the low priority items.
So, by definition that would mean that those streets would only need to be bonded prior to occupancy, they wouldn’t need to be completed. And Shari had some concerns about the landscaping
in that same manner. That the low priority designation for landscaping along Franklin Road and along the interstate would mean that they only needed to be bonded would not need to be
completed prior to occupancy. They are showing the connection of the sewer and the water to the existing facilities in the area are adjacent to this project and the looping of the sewer
and water. The biggest loop is that first phase that connects to the water line in Franklin Road, connects to the water line at St. Luke’s property, extends those both into the project,
loops them around. So, I guess we’re looking for a little direction from you as to what you think the stage of completion should be prior to occupancy. In asking that question with the
understanding that a majority of the roadways in this development are private roads. Although street A that shows up on your phasing plan is a public road into that round about number
2 and street B which would connect Montvue is also a public road. The life safety issues with construction are in agreement with what our policy has been with developments in that the
sewer and the water are constructed, the fire hydrants will need to be active for the water for fire protection and the road base will have to be in place that will support an emergency
vehicle fire truck. So, that’s in accordance with our present policy but I think the finishing off of the surface of the streets, the landscaping (inaudible) and some fencing along the
Ridinbough Canal. I guess those are the questions that we have that. I don’t think there’s a problem as far as the phasing goes. The plan that they’ve submitted it’s just the completeness
of the phasing before permitting, building permits and or occupancies are issued.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to ask Mr. Bradbury , Steve from Touch Mark to come up and address the – we also had a letter from some Montvue residents on some concerns. I believe you’ve
seen the letter haven’t you Steve?
Bradbury: I have.
Bird: Ok if you will state your name and –
Bradbury: Sure. My name is Steve Bradbury. I am at 225 north 9th Boise, representing the applicant, Touch Mark. You want me to – Where do you want me to start?
Bird: Do you want to answer the phasing for --
Bradbury: Sure.
Bird: -- the Council and then we’ll address the letter from –
Bradbury: I guess the Touch Marks position – Let me start out that what was submitted is Touch Mark’s proposal. Here’s what we think we ought to try to do. If the Council thinks and
I think Gary hasn’t necessarily expressed an open opinion but certainly by drawing it to your attention we can at least imply that maybe he thinks it ought to be handled differently
which is fine. If the Council believes that there ought to be certain of these element s constructed at certain times or completed at certain times, and bonding at other times that’s
fine. I think Touch Mark is going to try to get along with whatever the Council is interested in seeing done. What Touch Mark is interested in avoiding is being required to bond for
or construct improvements in you know immediately that are in future phase areas. Let me try to say it differently. What Touch Mark wants to avoid doing is constructing improvements
during phase one which should more appropriately be constructed and or bonded in future phases. That’s the primary issue that I think Touch Mark wants to avoid. In other words, what
we’d like to ask is that the City not require Touch Mark to build something now that would be in the phase 5 or phase 4 or phase 3 areas or phase 2 areas. But, if the Council is inclined
to suggest that for example landscaping, required landscaping buffers and streets be bonded prior to building permits and completed prior to occupancy. I don’t think you’re going to
get a big argument form Touch Mark on that. If that’s where you’d like to see it go. Fencing I guess I put into the same category. If the City would like to see fencing bonded prior
to permits and completed prior to occupancy, I think that’s fine too. As I said our primary concern is to try to identify on a phase by phase bases which things need to be built in that
phase and then if it’s timing on bonding and completion that’s fine. I don’t think that we have real problems with that. Did you want me to –
Bird: I’d like you to address, I personally would like you to address the letter that we received from –
Bradbury: Sure. From Mr. McCreedy?
Bird: Yes. Have you seen it?
Bradbury: Yes I have. I saw that earlier today. I guess I have 2 thoughts about the letter. Number one I think that much of what they’re asking about are issues that I think were more
appropriately dealt with during the conditional use process. We’ve had our Public Hearings. We’ve addressed the issues with respect to at least conceptually the entire project and specifically
this phase phase one. It seems to me that to go back and revisit those issues is re plowing the same ground again. Second, I think it’s important for us to remember that we’re talking
about, we’re only talking about a specific site plan and specific approval for one of 5 different phases. The area immediately adjacent to the Montvue subdivision is in phase 2 if I’m
remembering that correctly. I don’t have my drawing here in front of me. Touch Mark is going to be required to come back to the Council and obtain a conditional use permit, a specific
conditional use permit for anything that happens is phase 2. So, it seems to me the residents of Montvue subdivision are going to have an opportunity to address the issues specific to
their boundary with this project during the phase 2 conditional use permit process. So, if there are specific buffering issues that need to be addressed at that point in time. That’s
when I think it ought to be done. I think in other words I think we may be a little bit premature addressing those issues now. Did I get to the answer?
Bird: You did for me.
Bradbury: Ok.
Bird: Thank you.
Corrie: I think what I read from the letter from Mr. McCreedy is that they were worried about some of the dust because that construction road that you are going to build runs right along
the side of their property. –
Bradbury: Right.
Corrie: But I see as one of the things you talked about here is an oiled access road so I’m assuming that you’re going to try to control the dust on that With the oil.
Bradbury: Exactly and I should have pointed that out. I mean the intention and Shari informs me that oil is not the politically correct term for that now. We’re supposed to use something
like dust abatement process or something. But, yes the intention is to minimize the conflict that may be caused by dust on that road by putting some sort of an effective dust abatement
material on there. Whatever that stuff is. I don’t know what it is. We certainly don’t object – it shows in our phasing plan as far as what we’re doing. If the Council wants to require
that that road be, the dust be kept off of it down on that road that’s fine. As you know, that road is being presently used by St. Luke’s as a construction access. It would be Touch
Marks intention to continue to use that road during the first phase construction and then ultimately of course they’ll have their interior roads and be
able to move it over. The very next phase, phase 2 that road is going to go away because that’s where the next phase is at least presently scheduled to go. I guess what Touch Mark would
like to be able to do is continue to utilize that construction road and if we need to get some effective dust control measures we certainly will.
Corrie: The other question I had Steve is in your phase 2 and 3 they talk about construction of street base for phase 2 cul de sacs and things like that. Construction of street base
– Are we talking about a completed street that has pit ron road mix and asphalt on it or are we just talking about a base that consist of pitron or what are we talking about?
Bradbury: Well, my expectation would be that on a phase by phase basis we’re going to construct the road from bottom up. You know, the utilities and then the base and then I guess the
asphalt on top of that. If the phasing plan doesn’t make that – and it may simply be just the problem with what Gary’s talking about the timing of it. If in fact what we need to do is
we need to get the asphalt on there and have the road completed prior to occupancy that’s what Touch Mark will do. So, if there’s – unfortunately I don’t have as close a working knowledge
of the precise plan that you have in front you having not being the author of it. But, certainly if there are any clarifications that need to be made now is the time and we’re happy
to do it.
Bird: Any other questions? Thank you Steve. Mr. Mayor I’ve got a question for Mr. Smith. Gary did Steve answer some of your concerns and what would you recommend? That the asphalt be
down on the roads where the –
Smith: Mr. President, Mayor and Council. It’s been my experience in dealing with subdivision, residential subdivisions that everything works better for the builders when the asphalt
is down. Excuse me, not the builders, but the occupants have to have the asphalt down. We have had subdivisions that have proceeded with building permits with just a road base that’ll
support a fire truck with temporary street signs. With sewer and water piping installed under the road base and fire hydrants active. That has happened in some instances. However we
found that when it does happen that way the subdivider has to have real tight control on the building on the lots and coordinating the final street construction. It’s more difficult
because the two operations sometimes bump heads. The trucks bringing building supplies for buildings will cross work being done by the street contractor and cause some problems. So it
takes really close coordination by the developer when they do that. We found a lot of d3evelopers will now finish the streets before they’ll start pulling building permits. But I think
that at the very least that the streets need to be finished before the occupancy starts taking place on the buildings. We definitely require that in residential subdivisions that are
platted.
Bird: (inaudible) the occupancy definitely before you get to occupancy you’d have to have your streets in.
Smith: Yes. We do need fences up to control building debris prior to building permit issuance. The issue with the landscaping being completed prior to occupancy, unless there’s a problem
with weather for example and can’t be done, we really try hard to get that done ahead of occupancy also.
Anderson: I had a question on that Gary. I mean since this is being done in phases, it would make since to me that you’ d do the landscaping in the phase that you’re working on. I mean
we’re talking about the phase 3 or whatever it is. I mean that’s clear out – that’s phase 2. I guess a lot of that’s out along the interstate. It looks like part of phase one would be
too. I could see doing the landscaping in the phase that you’re working on but not doing landscaping in the phases because there’s a good chance you’ll destroy it while you’re trying
to do the construction just like you talked about in building the roads.
Smith: Right. Phase 1 has got most of the landscaping along the interstate. There’s a short section, well short section maybe a third of it phase 2 along the interstate. Franklin Road
is a little different. It’s really split up amongst the phases in short sections as the phases are developing. I did have a question on landscaping on the west side of street A, the
northwest corner. They don’t show any landscaping proposed for that strip along there. Whether it was just an oversight or what, but I think there needs to be some landscaping up there
in the phase 2.
Anderson: So, does that make sense to you Gary? Do the landscaping in the phases that you’re developing and then not the others?
Smith: I think along, well, I should probably let Shari answer that. I think her concern is to maybe get it done all along I-84 as part of the first phase. But on Franklin it’s split
up enough that it would probably be more appropriate to be done as the phases are done. Shari agrees with that.
Bird: We probably wouldn’t damage any in phase 2 along the I-84 quarter any way because that’s, if you put that in with phase 1it’s a small portion. You shouldn’t be back up in there
with construction vehicles.
Smith: I don’t know what the operation would be but I wouldn’t think so. You know we don’t have a landscaping plan yet so we don’t know exactly what that landscaping is going to look
like either.
Bird: Mr. Mayor with your permission we’ve got an engineer from the deal. Would you like to speak?
Unknown Speaker: Yes, I would.
Bird: Come forward.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Briggs: Mayor and Council, my name is Dean Briggs, Briggs Engineering and I’m also representing Touch Mark in the engineering side of things. To speak to, let’s talk the landscaping
first. One of the reasons that we moved the phasing around a little bit is to accommodate the major irrigation line that has to be piped back there. That section we’re missing, there’s
a big berm that goes there. We have a whole in the berm until we can get pipe through there and then we can finish that landscaping off. So, that’s one issue. The only other thing that
I was hearing in the comments. I think the paving is as far as I can see is correct for those areas that we’re actually building. I think that what we’re trying to do is in phase 1 we’re
getting back to some units that are on the far east side. So, all of that area from Franklin up across the face of the major building and over to those areas would be paved before occupancy.
We do have some peripheral areas that we wouldn’t want to pave before occupancy in phase 1 right off the bat but we’ll want to as we do the continuation of the construction. The construction
is going to be kind of phased a little bit also. The main building takes about a year and a half to build. The cottages takes 90 to 120 days. We’ve got a little bit of an internal phasing.
The other thing to remember is this is not a subdivision. The contractor for all of the development whether it be the sewer, water, streets, landscaping and the buildings themselves
are the owner. They have a full time construction manager. He’s already on site and he will coordinate every bit of that construction whether it be infrastructure or the structures themselves.
So, it’s a little bit of a different colored horse so to speak. Any other questions?
Bird: Council, any questions for ?
Anderson: You mentioned that you wouldn’t want to pave some of those peripheral sections until you were getting ready to occupy, why is that?
Briggs: Well, we’re planning on doing, say like the sewer construction. We’re going from over by St. Luke’s well across to get those units. As soon as he finishes that he’s going to
bring the water and then power and telephone down that particular line so that we can start building on those first residential units. Then they’re going to jump back and do some of
the other areas. So, it’s kind of a staged process. Some of those things aren’t going to be done at the same time. It’s just a scheduling issue. We’ve got a project that takes over a
year and a half to get everything done. But to get the first cottage units up and ready to occupy, it will probably only take about 6 to 8 months. So, there’s almost a ten month period
where we’re still going to be working on the project but we’ll have enough finished so that we can show those cottage units and use those for selling purposes and you have to have an
occupant permit to do that.
Anderson: I guess what I’m concerned about is any of the actual framing on the building that starts to take place and not having paved roads to get access for emergency vehicles and
stuff like that in there.
Briggs: Well, there’s two – emergency vehicles would be accommodated through putting all the base down, we’re actually extending that construction road all the way to the east. It will
be an all weather road. It will be, we’re calling it oiled, which is, actually what it will be is an oiled road and that is sufficient for the vehicles to get there for fire control.
Then as we come up through from Franklin through the ACHD controlled roads those would be built and would not be finished until occupancy. But you’re right they would be framing using
a gravel road rather than a paved road.
Anderson: I guess working in the emergency services business I’ve seen enough times where a framer falls off a roof. He’s got a back injury. You have to get an ambulance down a construction
road that’s washed out because it’s been raining and there’s ruts in it because you’ve had heavy equipment driving on it. I mean that’s my concern is using a gravel road or one that
just has pitrun on it. I guess I would rather see the paved streets in as much as possible before you get too far into that construction part. Like Gary said then it avoids crawling
all over the top of one another and trying to move vehicles from all the framers and concrete guys and everybody else that'’ in there once you start that building versus when you’re
building the roads.
Briggs: Right.
Anderson: It just makes more sense to me. It’s a cleaner operation. Realize what you’re trying to do with your phasing but it –
Briggs: It’s truly a timing issue. If we have to wait until that time to get any sort of framing up outside of building the roads first and then putting sewer and water outside the roadways.
I’m sure the City doesn’t want that either. It’s a timing issue. We won’t be into this season’s selling product. As long as this project is gone on, that’s going to be hard for these
fellows to take. They have purchased most of this ground at this point.
Anderson: What portions of the road are proposing paving in phase, is it all of street A up to around about 2 and street B and that’s it?
Briggs: No. In phase one A, we’re doing all of A up to the round about –
Anderson: The first or second round about?
Briggs: The second. Then the southern half of the loop that goes right in front of the main building and then that portion of the east road that goes down to the cul de sacs. That’s
what is planned.
Anderson: That would all be paved?
Briggs: Not before framing but just before occupancy.
Anderson: When do you anticipate the first occupancy?
Briggs: I think the schedule at this point would be sometime in October.
Anderson: Of this year?
Briggs: Yes.
Bird: Any other questions?
Anderson: No further questions.
Bird: Thank you.
Briggs: Thanks.
Bird: Council have you got any other questions? Any discussion?
Anderson: Any further comments from you Gary after hearing what the engineer from Briggs had to say?
Smith: Mr. President, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council. I would like to get a clarification on the designation of LP low priority for those streets. I think what Dean is saying is different
than what the designation or the definition of the LP designation is in the narrative for this phasing plan. It looks to me as though that becomes more of an R requirement where it’ll
be completed prior to occupancy.
Briggs: I think we’re offering that as a portion of the discussion each other have on phone conversations but didn’t get a chance to do face to face. I think it’s in everybody’s best
interest to get those streets paved before occupancy for those areas we’re going to occupy.
***End of Side One***
Briggs: Is that clear?
Smith: If we’re going to go that route then I’d like to have it on the phasing plan that it would show –
Briggs: Correct.
Smith: -- more clearly, because the way this phasing plan is it’s not definitive enough I guess to me to show the paving on those areas where you’re going to be occupying.
Briggs: Right. That is a modification of the plan that you’ve got in front of you given the tenor of the discussion or my assumption of the end result of the discussions.
Anderson: I guess I’m just a little bit unclear from looking at the phasing plan. I’m kind of like Gary. I’d like to maybe see you guys sit down together and spell it out a little
more clear for us lay people exactly what it is that the LP means and which things you’re going to do first.
Briggs: I think outside of that one issue, I think we’re in pretty good shape. That and which landscaping is critical and which landscaping isn’t because there’s a lot of landscaping.
We figured it was the boulevard and those things facing the major arterials.
Anderson: It’s usually these little issues like this that jump up and bite us later on.
Briggs: Yeah.
Anderson: I would feel better if you could sit down and get a little bit more specific about what things they want you to landscape right now and what things they would like To have
paved at this point.
Briggs: Yeah. I’d like to do that too. But I’d like to do it without delaying the project any further.
Anderson: Believe me this Touch Mark’s been our council agenda every month for the last year so I don’t think we’re delaying it that I’m aware of from the lack of putting it on our
agenda.
Briggs: No. There’s been other issues but the phasing plan has been on the agenda for a couple of months.
Bird: Thanks Dean.
Briggs: Thanks.
Bird: Council, we could throw out the approval of the CUP with the stipulation that the phasing and the landscaping be approved between Briggs engineering and the public works Department.
That should not –
Anderson: The landscaping and paving?
Bird: Yes. That shouldn’t hold up their project. If they can work it out. They’re the professionals. I’m like you Ron, they get talking about stuff and I’m lost. I would feel comfortable
as a Councilman with that being said in the motion and I know our public works department would see that it was done right. I just throw that out --
Anderson: I don’t see them nodding their heads.
Bird: -- for something –
Briggs: We can do that. Sure.
Bird: Do you feel comfortable with that Gary?
Smith: Yes sir.
Bird: Ok. I do too. Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mayo, members of the Council. What I would suggest then is that you approve in concept the phasing plan as submitted with the requirement that public works and the engineer
for the developer work out the specific issues with regard to additional definitions which street sections have to be improved before occupancy permits and which landscaping portions
have to be done or bonded for before occupancy permits. If you do it that way they at least know that their phasing plan is ok,. They can begin starting that process and then I would
expect within the next week or two they’ll have all the detail down about what they have to do and what portion. Then we can go ahead and finish the development agreement, finish the
addendum to the development agreement with the phasing plan in it and have that done.
Anderson: I’ll second it.
Unknown Speaker: You can’t do that.
Anderson: Oh all right.
Unknown Speaker: May I address the Council?
Bird: Council that’s up to you guys. This is not a public hearing but I’ll leave it up to –
Corrie: Yeah I don’t even know where you are but what is the reason for this?
Bird: Who are you representing?
Unknown Speaker: I’m with Montvue subdivision.
Anderson: I personally don’t want to turn this into a public hearing. I think I’m pretty cognizant of what the issues are in Montvue –
Unidentified Speaker: Well, I just wanted to – I took some pictures outside my back door. Okay? I just wanted you guys to see what I see every single day. I’ve got a parking lot of cars
back there, people can walk by. There’s suppose to be a berm there. There is a berm however you know people can still see me when they’re walking –
Bird: Just a second. This isn’t for Touch Mark? It isn’t their cars or anything out there? Who is all these cars parked out there? Is it from St. Luke’s construction?
Unidentified Speaker: St. Luke’s construction, yes. If Touch Mark is planning on continuing to use that construction road, you know are they going to park cars there too?
Bird: Well that’s something that I guess. They have to have a place to park their construction but it’s a long walk from where they’re parking there to where thay’re starting their first
phase.
Unidentified Speaker: Yes. And how long is that construction –
Bird: I can’t believe they –
Unidentified Speaker: --going to be there?
Bird: I beg your pardon?
Unidentified Speaker: How long are they going to keep that construction road open?
Bird: I would guess until they –
Anderson: Through phase 1 and –
Bird: -- phase 1. Then the permanent road will be in. That would be my guess that the construction road. Well, actually that construction road as it goes now to the St’ Luke’s won’t
go back to phase 1. There’ll have to be another road put in I believe. That one that’s existing they can come off there for a ways but then they’ve got to shoot to the southeast to
get back to where their phase 1 is as I recall out there. I would think St. Luke’s should be winding up their construction. It looks like their construction’s about done out there.
Unknown Speaker: I would think so. I know they came through, somebody came through today and finally oiled the road after our letter got sent to them.
Bird: Well, it did. The dust abatement will be taken care of by Touch Mark. That’s becoming a very touchy subject with construction. This is not a Public Hearing.
Unknown Speaker: Okay.
Bird: Thank you.
Anderson: You’ve got one Councilman had to make a phone call. You’re not going to be able to do too much until he gets back.
Bird: Sorry for the delay. I can brief you on (inaudible).
Corrie: Well, I need him here. I’m going to introduce Stacy.
Bird: Okay.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: Okay. Counsel, I’ll finish out this one and then give it over to the Mayor so it gets done right. What’s you – Any more discussion? If not I’ll entertain a motion on the Findings
of Facts and Conclusions of Law for the CUP 99-039.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Nichols: Mr. President, Mayor, members of Council. Let’s address specifically the phasing plan –
Bird: Okay.
Nichols: -- so that we can put it in the addendum to the development agreement and get all that stuff done. Then we’ll do the CUP concurrently with the annexation ordinance.
Anderson: Mr. President.
Bird: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve the phasing plan as presented with a contingency that the engineer get with our public works staff and our Planning and Zoning Director
and work out the specific requirements on which areas need to be landscaped and which roads need to be paved at this point and subject upon an agreement between our public works and
Planning
and Zoning on what those areas would be. That those things be done prior to occupancy permits being issued.
Corrie: Second.
Bird: Okay. It’s been moved second any more discussion? Hearing none, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Mr. Mayor you can have it.
Corrie: Thank you. Sorry I’m late today. I ran into a little problem. My son broke his shoulder Thursday and then tonight he fell down the stairs again. I told him a 40-year-old person
shouldn’t be doing that. I would like to take just a little bit of time and I’d like to introduce Stacy Kilchenman to the Council. She’s going to be our new Finance Director. I’ve asked
her to come here tonight and being late, I’m sorry Stacy. Stacy will be our new finance director she will be coming on board April 30th. Is that right Stacy? As you know , we got some
of the staff over here and this is the Council. People you’ll be working with quite diligently from April 30th to eternity I suppose. Welcome aboard Stacy. If you can make time to come
in. We’ll see what we need to do and get some information for you and whatever for your office. Thank you for coming tonight. I apologize for not being here to introduce you first. Thank
you for coming tonight.
Kilchenman: Nice to meet you.
Bird: Nice to meet you.
Corrie: Okay. I believe we are down to Item 5. Is that correct?
Item 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
Bird: Yes 5P, 5Q, and 5R
Corrie: P, Q, and R to be addressed on Item No. 5 of the Consent Agenda. I believe that was asked to be tabled correct?
Bird: Yes. Mr. Mayor
Anderson: Mr. Mayor
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I have a question of procedurally wise. We did not approve these findings for the CUP. So, do we need to table those or do we need to take action on those at this point?
Nichols: I would table those Councilman Anderson.
Anderson: Okay. Mr. Mayor
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: In light of that then I would make a motion that we table the Findings of Facts for the CUP or PUD for Touch Mark Living Centers until May 1st.
Corrie: All right.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and seconded to table the CUP Findings of Facts until May 1st. Any further discussions? All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Okay. Now then I guess we’re ready for P, Q and R.
P. Tabled from April 17, 2001: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 01-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.764 acres from RT to R-40 and C-G for proposed
Locust Grove Place by B & A Engineers – west side of Locust Grove Road, south of Fairview Avenue:
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we table the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of the Locust Grove Place by B & A to May 1,2001.
McCandless: I’ll second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made to table Item P for the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for the request for annexation and zoning is that correct?
Bird: Yes.
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Q. Tabled from April 17, 2001: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 01-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 2 other lots on 11.764
acres in a proposed R-40 and C-G zone for proposed Locust Grove Place by B & A Engineers – west side of Locust Grove Road, south of Fairview Avenue:
Bird: Mr. Mayor
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we move the facts and conclusion law for approval on the preliminary plat of seven building lots and two other lots on 11.64 acres in the proposed R-40 zone. Proposed
by Locust Grove Place by B & A Engineers to May 1, 2001.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: The motion’s been made and seconded to table Item No. Q request for Preliminary Plat to May 1, 2001. Any further discussion?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
R. Tabled from April 17, 2001: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 01-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 180-unit apartment complex and a planned
development in a proposed R-40 and C-G zone for proposed Locust Grove Place by B & A Engineers – west side of Locust Grove Road, south of Fairview Avenue:
Bird: Mr. Mayor
Corrie: Mr. Bird
Bird: I move that we move the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 01-003 request for Conditional Use Permit for 180 unit
apartment complex, a planned development in a proposed R-40an C-G zone for the proposed Locust Grove Place by B7 A Engineers to May1, 2001.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion’s been made and second to move Item R to 5-1 of 2001 which is the Conditional Use Permit. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion
say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Corrie: Did you mention to the public that items 11 and 12 will be tabled?
Bird: No I did not. Corrie: By request? Okay.
Bird: I’m sorry Mayor.
Corrie: At this time I will inform the public that item No. 11 and 12 that’s the Cedar Springs request for annexation and zoning and request for preliminary plat has been requested
by the applicant to table that until June 5, 2001. That’s June the 5th of this year. I would imagine the Council will approve that request. The Public Hearing will be continued until
that time on that date. Have some things that they’re not quite ready for I guess Council. That’s June the 5th at 6:30.
Unidentified Speaker: We don’t get another notice then?
Corrie: There will be a notice – Do we have a notice in the paper or anything?
Berg: Not a continuation.
Corrie: That will be a continuation of tonight. You bet ya. Thank you.
Item 6. Tabled from March 20, 2001: FP 01-003: Request for Final Plat approval of 31 building lots, 1 other lot, and 1 City lot on 8.04 acres in an R-4 zone for Tumble Creek Subdivision
No. 6 by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc – south of Ustick Road, east of Linder Road:
Corrie: Item No. 6 has been tabled from March the 20th . This request for Final Plat approval of 31 building lots and one other lot and one City lot on 8.04 acres. They are for zone
for Tumblecreek Subdivision No. 6. by Pinnacle Engineers Inc. south of Ustick Road east of Linder Road. At this time staff comments first on the final plat request.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council. We did have our comments prepared and a response received back from the applicant dated April 13th. They are able to comply with the ordinance requirements
and we would recommend approval with staff and agency conditions.
Corrie: Okay. Developer, is he here tonight? Any comments on the Final Plat.
Boyle: Clint Boyle Pinnacle Engineers 1255 west Executive Drive in Boise Idaho. Just ditto Shari’s comments. We agree to comply with the staff comments from Shari dated April 11th .
We just ask for your approval of this final plat.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Council, any other questions or discussions?
Bird: I have none Mayor.
Corrie: Ok. I’d entertain a motion then on the request for the Final Plat in item No. 6.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve the final plat to approve 31 building lots and 1 other lot and 1 City lot on 8.04 acres in an R-4 zone for Tumblecreek Subdivision No.
6 by Pinnacle Engineers and instruct the City Attorney to draw up the appropriate Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law decision of order.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: The motion’s been made and second to approve the final plat request and have the attorney draw up the proper orders. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call Mr. Berg.
Roll-call: McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye.
Berg: De Weerd’s absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 7. Tabled from March 20, 2001: FP 01-004: Request for Final Plat approval of 48 building lots and 5 other lots on 10.19 acres in an R-8 zone for Wilkins Ranch Village Subdivision
by Steiner Development, LLC – east of North Black Cat and south of West Ustick :
Corrie: Item No. 7 has been tabled from March the 20th. This is a request for final plat approval of 48 building lots and 5 other lots on 10.19 acres in an R8 zone for Wilkins Ranch
Village Subdivision by Steiner Corporation. At this time staff comments for the request for final plat.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council. You have our comments dated April 11, 2001. They were emailed to the applicant on that date but for some reason they were not received by Briggs
Engineering. We did get a response today from Steve Arnold at Briggs Engineering. It appears that there’s really only one item that remains, the landscape plan we feel can be worked
out. However there is an existing irrigation pipe shown, I don’t know if you have any of your maps here. It shows the Rutledge drain adjacent to some of the lots on the southeast corner
of the property. It needed to be clarified and still needs to be clarified what is shown there. It looks like one of the easements that – the easement for Rutledge just kind of ends.
If that is an easement for the Rutledge drain and that portion of the Rutledge is not piped some of those lots in there may not meet the minimum square footage requirements that was
approved with this conditional use permit. So, if the applicant or his representative could explain further that one issue. That’s’ the only remaining item. If that item could be resolved
we’d recommend approval with staff and agency conditions.
Corrie: Ok. Thank you. Questions for staff?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson
Anderson: Just procedurally Shari, I had a question in my mind because we got the comments back from the engineer that said they didn’t receive them until today. Then we saw your email
that says they were sent on the 11th. Is there a process in place or something that we could do to insure that once you email, that you confirm that that was received by the applicant?
Either a phone call or something I mean so we don’t get in that kind of position that we turned a project or something else from somebody just because their email wasn’t operating or
it didn’t go through?
Stiles: We have had some problems with Briggs Engineering with their email system. Typically when we send an email, it comes back when they open it and it say it was read but we don’t
always get that from Briggs. So, it didn’t click that maybe they didn’t actually get it. Apparently unless they get their system straightened out, I think Gary and his staff had the
same problem today trying to email something to Richard Cook. We’ll have to until they get that straightened out call them to make sure that they actually got the email.
Anderson: That’s what I was thinking is maybe just a little PS at the bottom that if you receive please give us a phone call and then if you don’t get a phone call from them that automatically
in a day or 2 you call them.
Stiles: Well, the email works pretty well because it will say that they’ve read it. It’ll show right up on our email in Outlook that it’s been read.
Corrie: Some of those system just says it’s been received like when I get something form the City of Meridian it just says it has been received. It says this is not an acknowledgement
that this has been read by the recipient and that type stuff. IT just means that it got delivered to the server.
Stiles: We may have to follow up with some and actually fax it to them as well.
Corrie: Is the engineer or Engineering here tonight?
Bird: He left.
Corrie: They were but –
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Ok. Well, --
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Ok. Well, we need some answers by the applicant or we can’t –
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Pardon?
Unknown Speaker: Which project are you on?
Bird: Wilkins.
Anderson: Wilkins Ranch.
Corrie: Wilkins Ranch. Is that you?
Unknown speaker: Just a moment.
(inaudible discussion amongst Council)
Briggs: Dean Briggs, Briggs engineering.
(Inaudible discussion)
Briggs: I guess the landscaping and the existing irrigation pipe was a couple of questions –
Corrie: Would you like to hear it again?
Briggs: Yeah it’s hard to answer.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, Dean, the Rutledge lateral there, has that been piped all adjacent to this project?
Briggs: It’s been piped on this project.
Stiles: We just had a little question about how that easement is shown. It kind of just ends. The Rutledge Lateral easement just ends.
Briggs: Right. It is piped from the point, well, if you took a line at the centerline of that easement and as that centerline hit the easterly boundary. It’s piped from that point along
the easterly and northerly boundaries. From that point south it’s on the school district property. I believe that their sight plan shows that to not be piped but I’m not sure.
Stiles: We haven’t seen a site plan on it that I’m aware of but what our concern is if the pipe is not tiled then some of these lots in this subdivision will not meet the minimum square
footage requirements because they have to meet those minimum square footage requirements exclusive of any easements for drainage or irrigation if they’re left open. It’s probably, do
you see where it ends there, that easement ends?
Briggs: Yes. That’s about where it’s piped.
Stiles: It’s piped to about there?
Briggs: Yes.
Corrie: From there this way.
Stiles: Oh ok.
Briggs: It’s about the midline of lot 12.
Stiles: So, the comment was that unless that meets the minimum square footage exclusive of that easement since it’s piped in that location, then it may
not meet the minimum square footage. Maybe it will but that was what our comment was.
Briggs: Ok.
Stiles: If you could just calculate that. Are they going to allow an encroachment into that easement to go to where your lot lines are shown?
Briggs: Yes. What they have told us is wherever you piped it the easement goes down to 30 feet instead of 60.
Stiles: But what about where it doesn’t, where it’s not piped? Are they going to allow encroachment where it’s not piped?
Briggs: That’s a good question. I haven’t been in that loop so I can’t answer that.
Stiles: Ok. It’s something that can be worked out I know.
Briggs: Yeah. I don’t think it really effects the square footage of 11 but it would for 12.
Stiles: Yeah. You mean easily meet it on 11, on 12 it might be a little close.
Briggs: My guess is that if that were an issue the developer would probably pipe it for that 30 feet or whatever it is.
Stiles: Ok. Thanks.
Corrie: Then there was landscaping –
Stiles: We’ve worked that out. They apparently had another plan that was submitted separate from what we got in our application. So, Tom Souths doing the landscaping plan so I’m confident
that will meet our ordinance requirements.
Corrie: Ok. Council, any questions of Mr. Briggs?
Bird: I have none. (inaudible)
Corrie: Thank you. Any other questions, comments, or discussions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Ok. Hearing none I’ll entertain a motion on the request for final plat on the Wilkins Ranch subdivision 01-04.
Bird: Mr. Mayor
Corrie: Mr. Bird?
Bird: I move that we approve the request for final plat approval of 48 building lots and 5other lots on 10.19 acres in R8 zone for Wilkins Ranch Village subdivision by Steiner development
LLC east of north Black Cat and south of west Ustick Road with staff comments and for the attorney to draw up the proper Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and second to approve request for final plat on item No. 7 FP 01-004. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg, roll call vote please.
Roll-call vote
McCandless: aye
Anderson: aye
Bird: aye
Berg: De Weerd’s absent
Corrie: All ayes one absent, vote’s approved.
Item 8. Tabled from April 3, 2001: FP 01-002 Final Plat approval of 82 + 2 existing single-family dwelling lots and 6 other lots on 43.33 acres for Observation Pointe Subdivision by
Victory 41, LLC – north of Victory Road and east of Meridian Road:
Corrie: Item No. 8 is tabled from April 3rd, final plat 01-002. That’s the approval of 82 plus 2 existing single family dwelling lots and 6 other lots on 43.33 acres for Observation
Pointe subdivision by Victory 41 LLC north of Victory Road and east of Meridian Road. At this time, I’ll ask staff to comment on the final plat request.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council. You have our comments. We have received a response to the comments from Mike Kaven. They’re proposing a change to the most recently submitted
plat application that would bring the Kennedy Lateral and what was formerly shown as unplatted back into the plat according to Mr. Kaven’s letter. Proposing a non-build agreement until
they are actually able to sewer that property. We would agree with that proposed change under his site-specific comment No.1. Under item No. 2 we could agree to that change in the wording.
It talks about a sanitary restriction until the Black Cat
Trunk is extended. Mr. Kaven is asking that the sanitary restrictions will remain until the City lifts that sanitary restriction should another possibility be approved by Council. On
item No. 3 I don’t know if Will determined if that addendum had been approved, I don’t know if that –
(inaudible discussion)
Stiles: The proposed addendum submitted by Mr. Kaven to the development agreement.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I put that together. I don’t believe it’s formally been adopted by the Council. I put it together as a means of trying to resolve that issue
on that, I believe it was on the 20-foot landscape wasn’t it?
Stiles: Do you recall what that issue was about the 20-foot landscape strip adjacent to the gravel pit next to them. That was a requirement of the annexation and zoning and also the
plat. What Mr. Kaven had come back with was a suggestion that as each lot is built upon that individual lots would be required to put 2 trees on each lot. That was what his proposal
was and that that would be required prior to occupancy on any of those lots. We had asked that the 20 trees be placed within that 20 foot landscape easement prior to obtaining building
permits and logistically it is a problem trying to get the pressurized irrigation to each individual lot prior to maybe even selling the lots. We would have preferred it all to be done
at once so that there was some kind of uniformity and also that we wouldn’t have to bird dog each individual lot and go and make sure 2 trees were planted on each lot as they were built.
But I would have no objection to doing that if we can call upon Mr. Kaven to be the one that goes after the builders and makes sure that’s accomplished so we’re not having to deal with
individual builders on each lot. I think, he’s shaking his head in the affirmative that he would be willing to do that.
Corrie: We’ll get it on record rather than shaking heads.
Stiles: Under item No. 9 there has been a landscape plan that was submitted by Tom South for Observation Pointe. They’ve been working with Steve Siddoway. We would agree that the landscape
plan, I’m not sure that I would word it that way. An approved landscape plan has been submitted. Mr. Kaven also wanted to clarify since one of our comments was that the existing homes
would have to be removed from service. The domestic wells and or septic systems would have to be removed in that would have to connect to sewer and water. Mr. Kaven would like that clarified
that the home located on lot 2 block 2 shall retain it’s use of the domestic well and septic system for domestic purposes until such time as City services are available to the site.
Corrie: Is that the home that is the little one along Victory Road?
Stiles: Yes.
Bird: Yeah. I thought we’d agreed upon that.
Stiles: Mr. Kaven just wanted to clarify that. Otherwise we’re just would recommend that the remaining comments remain as written and approve it with staff and agency conditions with
the exception of the suggested changes by M. Kaven in his letter. There’s no date on it, but it’s stamped received from the City Clerk’s office April 13, 2001.
Corrie: Shari, one question. On number 9, what’s the difference in how you worded that versus how he worded it? You’re just saying it’s an approved landscape plan and he’s saying it’s
a plan that’s acceptable. What’s the difference between approved and acceptable there?
Stiles: Because the landscape plan submitted with the final plat is not necessarily the one that was finally worked out to be approved with Steve Siddoway.
Corrie: So, --
Stiles: What was originally –
Corrie: -- referencing final plat doesn’t work is that what you’re saying?
Stiles: I guess what I’m saying is I don’t know that the landscape plan submitted with the final plat and the one that was finally approved are the same plan.
Corrie: Ok.
Stiles: But there has been a plan approved, I just am not sure of the date.
(inaudible discussion)
Bird: Shari, excuse me Mr. Mayor. Down below on the domestic wells and septic, now the lot 2 block 2 I understand. That’s the lower one. How about the lot 4 block 5? Is that the original;
is that the Peterson home?
Stiles: Yes.
Bird: Ok. That’s what I thought it was but I just wanted to clarify that.
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Who’s that Steve Sideway guy?
(inaudible discussion)
Corrie: Yeah. I’ll bet it was.
(inaudible discussion)
Stiles: I can guarantee that the landscape plan will meet or exceed our current ordinance requirement.
Corrie: Ok. Any other staff comments? Okay. I guess Mr. Kaven or somebody want to get up –
Stiles: (inaudible)
Kaven: Mayor, City Council. I think we’ve –
Corrie: Name please.
Kaven: -- Mike Kaven Rural Fork Western Corporation applicant. You know I think we’ve come to agreement on all these issues here. The battles been between ACHD and what they’re requiring
Until they recommend something so I came with unplatted and then Shari says no we want it on a plat so I think we’ve worked that out with staff. We’ll deal with ACHD and figure out what
they’re doing. I think we’re fine with the recommendation.
Corrie: So, you’re going to go after the builders on the trees if they don’t.
Kaven: Yeah. Just to give you some idea how I’ve developed, I’ll probably build 85 percent of the homes in this subdivision myself. It’s not going to be a wham slam out them in. We take
very tight control. That’s not only for our own protection but that’s for the people that live in our subdivision protection. So, typically for me to develop the 40 acres will take me
as many as 3 to 4 times as long as some of these other developments because of the type of homes that we put in the subdivision. We will maintain tight control and make sure those trees
get in there. I’ll be before you sometime in the future and if I get denied because I didn’t put 20 trees I’ll be shot. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Anderson: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you Mike. Any other discussion? Hearing none, if you’re ready I’ll entertain a motion for the final plat on item No. 8.
Bird: Mr. Mayor
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the final plat. Approval of 82 plus 2 existing single family dwelling lots and 6 other lots on 43.33 acres for Observation Pointe Subdivision by Victory
41 LLC north of Victory Road and east of Meridian Road and want to show the staff and applicant’s comments and for the Attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and
Decision of Order.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
Anderson: I’ll second.
Corrie: Ok. The motion’s been made and seconded to approve the final plat on FP0102 in Observation Pointe subdivision with staff comments and the attorney to draw up the proper form.
Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson
Anderson: Just maybe Keith could clarify in his motion for me on 9 if he wanted. Shari’s comments or the developer’s comments?
Bird: It was the Shari’s comments with the landscape that has been accepted is not the one with the final plat that’s accepted.
Anderson: Thank you.
Bird: Shari’s comments.
Corrie: Ok. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor members of Council. Roll call vote
Roll-call: McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye.
Berg: De Weerd’s absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 9. Continued Public Hearing from April 3, 2001: PP 01-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 building lots and 2 other lots on 20.26 acres in an
R-8 zone by J-U-B Engineers for proposed Murdoch Subdivision No. 2 – west of Locust Grove Road, south of Franklin Road:
Corrie: Item No. 9 is a continuation of a Public Hearing from April 3rd. This is a request for Preliminary Plat approval for 11 building lots and 2 other lots on 20.26 acres in an
R-8 zone by J U B Engineers for proposed Murdoch Subdivision No. 2 west of Locust Grove Road and south of Franklin Road. At this time I will continue the Public Hearing and have staff
kind of bring us up to date on this first.
The Council needs it.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Members of Council. The applicant ha requested a continuance of this last time because the variance had not been heard and it was up for tonight just as a point
of order. Should we be dealing with a Public Hearing on a variance prior to acting on the plat or how should we do that?
Corrie: Mr. Attorney, I’ll let you give us the official word on that.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor members of the Council. It probably would be appropriate to just go ahead and move the variance hearing ahead of the hearing on the Preliminary Plat so you can address
the variance issue first. The variance would have to be granted in order for the preliminary plat to fit because of this thousand-foot block length requirement.
Corrie: Okay. Since I did open the continued Public Hearing I will continue it to follow Item No. 10 which is a Public Hearing. I suppose that’s around the rules of order –
Bird: That’s fine. Go for it.
Item 10. Public Hearing: VAR 01-004 Request for Variance of the 1,000-foot block length for Murdoch Subdivision No. 2 by Howell-Murdoch Development Corporation – west of Locust Grove
Road, south of Franklin Road:
Corrie: Okay. I open the Public Hearing on request for a variance of the one thousand-foot block length of Murdoch Subdivision No. 2 by Howell-Murdoch Development Corporation west
of Locust Grove Road and south of Franklin Road. As we have the Public Hearing now open staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and members of Council. This is a request for a variance to the maximum 1,000-foot block length requirement that we have in our Ordinance. A variance was also granted
for the subdivision to the west of this property because of the existence of the police academy the state law enforcement facilities there. In this subdivision of course you’re aware
that the new police
station site takes up the majority of the southern boundary of the property. We would like to have some kind of connection with the adjacent property as it’s all undeveloped at this
point. Another question that we had was about the access and if the Council wants to consider and approve the variance to the block length we would ask that they be limited to the one
access on Locust Grove Drive as shown on their plan. The 30-foot driveway that would be shared by lots 10 and 11 and also lots 4 of block 3 and 9 of block 2 not be allowed any access
as they have proposed on their plat, no access to Locust Grove Road. The other connection that they have is to Adkins Way to the north. That will go through Medimont subdivision.
Corrie: Shari, does Adkins Drive go through?
Stiles: It will with this subdivision.
Corrie: Okay. It’s just those three the ones on the Locust Grove side that we’re talking about?
Stiles: Yes.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Any other staff comments?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
***End Of Side 2***
Schultz: (Inaudible) 50 South Beechwood. Just to clarify from what Shari said. It was not our intent to show any access on to Locust Grove for any lot except for that one shared driveway
that you mentioned. Those 2 corner lots on Watertower, we did intend to take access off of Watertower. Other than that I think you covered the points that the property to the west the
D J subdivision was bordered on the south by the state police facility, on the north by the cemetery. That didn’t provide any stub streets. We provided stub street with this one to the
north into the south is the proposed City Police facility. With that we just propose a site plan as presented and ask for this variance.
Corrie: Okay. Council, any questions.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Shari did we get easements for this for the widening of Locust Grove or any of that?
Stiles: As part of the plat for this, you mean?
Anderson: Is that something that we asked them for.
Stiles: They will be required to dedicate 48 feet from the centerline of Locust Grove. I doubt that’s a gift.
Anderson: Yeah.
Stiles: They will be required to dedicate that as part of their plat.
Bird: Should be a gift.
Corrie: Perhaps the better price but that’s not got anything to do with the variance.
Stiles: Matt may be prepared to offer that as a gift to Ada County Highway District.
Bird: I think he should after we bought most of that.
Schultz: Yes. My clients not here to discuss that.
Bird: Cash up front.
Schultz: We are dedicating that to ACHD. I’m kind of new to the area as to dedications and gifts. My understanding is that it’s kind of practice for ACHD to buy that. Anything above
and beyond that’s just an accepted practice.
Bird: The problem is the City of Meridian is footing the bill for that on this deal –
Schultz: I could –
Bird: -- so if we could get any gift we could and we paid a nice chunk of cash for 10 acres of this development that was cash up front. If you would go back to your client we would sure
be happy to put a plaque there with his name on it for donation.
Schultz: (Inaudible) working hard to have plans approved, not approved but done. I know he is building sewer, water, roadway and all that stuff to provide access to the police site.
I believe that’s part of the deal as well.
Bird: He’s getting paid back for that.
Schultz: I understand completely. I’m not going to agree or disagree –
Bird: (Inaudible) Tell him that –
Schultz: I’ll pass the word on.
Bird: Pass the word on that we would be very very happy clients of his if he would donate that 48 feet of right-of-way along the length of his property and it will be to his benefit
in selling his lots. Once we get that over pass over Locust Grove will definitely add to the feasibility of these lots.
Schultz: Definitely the marketability is going to go up on these.
Bird: I would like to – and they don’t have anything to do with the variance or anything like that. I wish that he would get hold of the Mayor and let the Mayor and him see if we can’t
get it –
Schultz: I know –
Bird: -- at a reduced rate if not free.
Schultz: I’ll certainly pass that on to him first thing in the morning.
Corrie: Just tell him that we need to talk –
Schultz: Yes.
Corrie: -- I’ll be talking with Colleen.
Schultz: Okay. Sure.
Corrie: Thank you.
Schultz: Thank you.
Corrie: Just for the record it has nothing to do with your variance.
Bird: No. It had nothing to do with that. We would like to recommend that you know because it does help your development.
Schultz: I don’t know what the price is. I mean I may, I don’t know if it’s a lot or a little. I don’t know what the going rate is. They keep the engineer out of that portion of it.
We dedicate –
Bird: I know what we paid for the police station –
Schultz: I saw it too.
Bird: -- and we paid a very fair market value.
Schultz: I understand.
Bird: Okay.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone with the public that would like to issue a testimony at this time?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Okay. I don’t think there’s any need for the developer to have a rebut unless he wants to say something else. Hearing none, does Council have any questions for the Public Hearing?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Then I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing
Bird: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second to close the Public Hearing. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Ok. Discussion on the request for variance?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Given the location and the fact of what properties abut this and being in a commercial area and with the fact that it does go on out to Locust Grove and has to tie into Adkins
Way, I really don’t see any problem at all with approving this variance.
Bird: I echo that. I don’t think staff sees any problems with it.
Corrie: Shari.
Stiles: And you will put the limitations on the access to just the one lot to Locust Grove?
Bird: Yes.
Stiles: Okay. Thanks.
Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? I will call Mr. Murdoch or Howell. Okay. Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion on the request for variance.
Bird: Your turn Cherie.
Corrie: McCandless
McCandless: (Inaudible) – the one that has. Okay. I move that we approve the variance for the thousand-foot block length for Murdoch Subdivision No. 2.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Okay motion’s been made and seconded. I would assume that comes with the staff comments?
McCandless: With the staff comments included, yes.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor members of the Council. Roll Call vote.
Bird: Aye.
Anderson: Aye.
McCandless: Aye
Berg: De Weerd’s absent.
Item 9. Continued Public Hearing from April 3, 2001: PP 01-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 building lots and 2 other lots on 20.26 acres in an R-8 zone by J-U-B Engineers
for proposed Murdoch Subdivision No. 2 – west of Locust Grove Road, south of Franklin Road:
Corrie: Ok. The ayes ( inaudible) Now let’s go back to No.9 which is a continuance of Public Hearing. I had continued and opened it so we will have staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and members of Council. Again this is for the property where the police station, new police station site is. It’s for 11 building and 2 other lots. It is in an R-8
zone. They will be awaiting any changes to the comprehensive plan
that might effect this property I believe before they try to develop it. We would recommend approval of the plat with staff and agency conditions.
Corrie: Thank you.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor. Just another point. I didn’t know if we needed to have those findings prepared and acted on before we actually approve the plat or is that necessary? Just the final?
Okay.
Schultz: Matt Schultz 250 South Beechwood. I represent the applicant. We concur with staff’s recommendations and ask for approval of the Preliminary Plat as submitted. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you. Mr. Nichols, Shari raised a question. Can we go ahead and do that without the findings of facts on the variance approval first?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor and members of Council. Until you actually adopt the findings, it’s not final. You can go ahead and have these same motion on the Preliminary Plat then we’ll have
them together on the Consent Agenda at the May 1st meeting.
Bird: The variance is in front of the preliminary plat?
Nichols: Yes. In other words we would incorporate into the Preliminary Plat the reference to the approval of the block variance.
Corrie: Okay. Is there any other question from Council for the Public Hearing? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
McCandless: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to close the Public Hearing on Item No. 9. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Opposed? No. Motion carried. Okay discussion?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Okay. Then I’ll entertain a motion on the request for Preliminary Plat on the Murdoch Subdivision No.2.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor
Corrie: Mrs. McCandless
McCandless: I move that we approve the preliminary plat for 11 building lots and 2 other lots on 20.26 acres in an R-8 zone for proposed Murdoch Subdivision No.2 and for the attorney
to write the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
Anderson: Second it.
Corrie: Motion has been made and second to approve the request for Preliminary Plat on Murdoch Subdivision No. 2 Item No. 9 PP 01-004 and the attorney to draw up the proper form. Any
further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Members of Council roll call vote.
Roll-call: McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; Bird, aye.
Berg: De Weerd is absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Bird: Mr. Mayor
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: For the gentleman out there, I believe that’s about 700 800 foot long and we’re asking for 48. It’s less than an acre tell him.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: What is it?
Schultz: 23 feet.
Bird: How much?
Schultz: 23 additional feet, 25 foot exists so it’s 48 total.
Bird: But that’s not all off his property?
Schultz: No. 23 –
Bird: Well, then he’s at less than a half acre. Come on. Mayor, (inaudible)
Corrie: The pressure’s on me so I’m going to tell (inaudible).
Item 13. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
Corrie: Okay. Water, sewer and trash delinquencies. This is to inform you in writing if you choose to have the right to a predetermined hearing at 7:30 PM Tuesday April 17, 2001 before
the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged in the facts and defend the claim made by this City that your water, sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain council.
This service will be discontinued on April 18, 2001 unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her water, sewer and trash delinquency? Hearing
none, you’re hereby informed that you may appeal or have the decision of the City reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho state code. Even if you do appeal your
water will be shut off. The amount of the turn off list is $39,311.96. Hearing that Council I will entertain a motion to approve the delinquency turn off schedule.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the delinquency turn off schedule but as we had stated last month, we are going to add a day or two to it. I would change that from April 18th to April
18th and 19th .
Smith: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Yes.
Smith: May I comment?
Corrie: Yes. Mr. Smith.
Smith: The last time Mr. Mayor and Council, Councilman Bird. The last time we had turn off and we did it on 2 consecutive days there was some problem in coordinating turn offs and
turn ons the second day.
Bird: What would you recommend?
Smith : The Water Department was asking if we could turn half of the accounts off this Wednesday and turn the other half off the following Wednesday, if that would be acceptable with
Council?
Bird: With your permission Mayor then I’ll change my – I move that we approve the delinquency turn off for one half to be turned off on April 18, 2001 and the
other half on April 25, 2001 unless payment is received in full. The amount of the turn off list is $39,311.96.
Corrie: Do I hear a second?
McCandless: Second
Corrie: Motions been made and seconded for the delinquency turn off schedule on Wednesday and Thursday April the 18th and 19th half-and-half. Any further discussion? All those in favor
of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 11. Public Hearing: AZ 00-019 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT-R-4 for proposed Cedar Springs by J-U-B Engineers, Inc – northwest of Meridian and Ustick
Roads:
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I believe that you had stated that we had not made any motions to table 11 and 12. Do we need to do that as a body?
Corrie: Yes. I’m sorry. You’re absolutely right. You’re right Mr. Bird.
Bird: With your permission then I would move that we table the Public Hearing the request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R4 for proposed Cedar Springs by JUB Engineers
Inc. until June 5, 2001.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Yes. I need to open it. Then we can do that. We need to open it –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: Do you have to renotice it if we don’t open it?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: I’ll pull my motion then. Go ahead and open it up.
Corrie: Okay. Then I will open the Public Hearing on item No. 11AZ00019 request for annexation and zoning by Cedar Springs. At the request of the applicant I will entertain a motion
to table that and to have a continued Public Hearing on 6-5-01.
Bird: Mr. Mayor
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we continue the Public Hearing for the annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres for the Cedar Springs by JUB Engineers to June 5, 2001.
McCandless: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second to continue the Public Hearing on item No. 11 until June 5, 2001. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 12. Public Hearing: PP 00-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 333 building lots and 25 other lots on 99.83 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Cedar Springs by J-U-B Engineers,
Inc – northwest of Meridian and Ustick Roads:
Corrie: Okay. I’ll open the Public Hearing now on item No. 12 request for preliminary plat approved for 33 building lots by Cedar Springs JUB Engineers. Since the applicant has requested
that we continue the Public Hearing until June 5, 2001 I will entertain a motion to that effect. Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor I make a motion that we continue the Public Hearing on Cedar Springs to the date of June 5, 2001.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second to continue the Public Hearing until June 5, 2001. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Okay. I believe that does it. I want to think Mr. Bird for – I need your phone number to call so if I can’t be here I can – and I apologize for not being here –
Bird: No problem. Mayor. I’ve got one thing that I – we had brought up you were out of town and I think it was a workshop. The Council had asked about having an appreciation night for
our volunteer committees that we have throughout the City and feeding a Bar-B-Que and having H&M meats come in and do something before a City Council meeting. Somehow or another it got
put on the back burner. We have a workshop which is the 7th, 8th, 8th of May that maybe we could do it
starting at 6, with your permission. If you would like to do that. You have to work something out (inaudible)
Corrie: You mean the 6th?
Bird: The 8th.
Corrie: May the 8th?
Bird: And get all the Committees that volunteer their time and the people that volunteer their time and service for the City to come. We’ll feed them hamburger and hotdogs and potato
chips or something like that. That was the feeling of the Council.
Corrie: Where would you want to have it?
Bird: I think we can have it right here. Right out in the parking lot or something, couldn’t we?
Nichols: Prior to our workshop?
Bird: Prior to our workshop. Don’t you think guys? That’s what we discussed before and plus it’ll be a good time to do some selling on our meeting tomorrow night.
Corrie: Okay. So we charge a dollar to get in?
Bird: No. This is coming out of your budget.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: Will said he’d split it with you. Shari said Will would split with you.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: I think we discussed that this morning didn’t we Will? You’re out of money. Okay, yes that will be fine for the May 8th. I’ll get my secretary on it. I may need some help.
Since she’s not here, she’d be the one to help me.
Bird: She’d love to do that. I volunteer her.
Corrie: Okay. We got it. All right. It’ll be done.
Bird: Okay.
Anderson: I just request that they don’t bring that bar-b-quer over here.
Bird: Anderson is not the Bar-B-Que. We don’t want any fried Fire Chiefs again.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
McCandless: Do we have a meeting tomorrow night at –
Bird: Yes we do at 6:30.
McCandless: --6:30?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bird: H &M Meats.
Corrie: H & M Meats. What do you want to do hotdogs hamburgers?
Bird: Chips and stuff.
Corrie: With that I would entertain a motion we adjourn.
McCandless: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
KEITH BIRD, PRESIDENT
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK