HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 01-02MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 2, 2001
The regularly scheduled City Council meeting of the City of Meridian was called to order at 6:40 p.m. on Tuesday, January 2, 2001, by Mayor Robert Corrie.
Members present: Robert Corrie, Ron Anderson, Tammy de Weerd, Cherie McCandless, Keith Bird.
Others present: Bill Nichols, Janice Smith, Bill Gordon, Bruce Freckleton, Shari Stiles, Tom Kuntz, Ken Bowers, Will Berg.
Item A. Tabled from December 19, 2000: Approve minutes of December 5, 2000, Special Pre-Council Meeting:
Item B. Tabled from December 19, 2000: Approve minutes of December 5, 2000, City Council Meeting:
Item C. Approve minutes of December 19, 2000, Special Pre-Council Meeting:
Item D. Approve minutes of August 1, 2000, Regular City Council Meeting:
Item E. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ-00-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 34.84 acres to R-8 by Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene – west of S. Meridian
Road south of W. Overland Road:
Item F. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: RZ-00-006 Request for Rezone of 7.14 acres from I-L to C-G for the Meridian Business Park by Donald Asbell – E. Franklin Road and N.
Baltic Place:
Item G. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: PP-00-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 13 building lots and 3 other lots on 7.88 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Meridian
Greens No. 4 by Scott-Fuller Investment / Glenco – northwest corner and northeast corner of SE 5th and E. Overland Road:
Item H. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: VAR 00-022 Request for a variance of Section 12-3-6 (a and b) Time Extension of Preliminary Plat for Gemtone Center No. 4 – west of
N. Eagle Road and south of E. Fairview Avenue:
Item I. Beer and Wine Transfer: Ken Hamilton Presentations for the Meridian Speedway:
Item J. Beer and Wine Renewal for 2001: Ken Hamilton Presentations for the Meridian Speedway:
K. Beer and Wine Renewal for 2001: Chinatown Quik Wok Restaurant:
L. Approve bills:
Corrie: I’ll open the Council meeting at 6:40. Roll-call, Mr. Clerk, just to make sure we’re all here.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, this isn’t a Pre-Council. This is our regular one starting this year.
Corrie: That’s right that’s regular Council. I beg your pardon. It is regular Council.
Bird: If I hadn’t read that – and I had to ask the attorney to make sure I was right.
Corrie: Thank you, I’ve been so long in the Pre-Council, so we are now having the regular City Council meeting. All of the Council people are present, and we have the Consent Agenda
for us. Looks like we’ve got a couple of things that – Item G, Meridian Greens, Page five, got a correction. Does everybody know what the correction is?
Anderson: It says Brad Hawkins-Clark had a slight change in 2.6.
Corrie: Brad? He’s not here tonight, is he? Shari, what’s the change, I guess the attorney could answer that?
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, if you’ll go down the second to last sentence when it starts out the applicant. Formerly it read this way: the applicant shall verify the
correct boundaries of the subject parcel in this northeast corner, and the plat boundary has been modified to exclude the 80-foot easement. Instead it now reads, the applicant shall
verify the correct boundaries of the subject parcel in this northeast corner and the plat boundary has been modified to exclude the 80-foot easement. It’s just a scrivener’s (sic) change.
Corrie: So that’s – the changed is the one we’re going to be voting on right? Any other questions for the Council on the Consent Agenda? Chief have you signed two beer and wine licenses
that we have in our file? There are three of them, I guess. We don’t have your approval signature anywhere.
Gordon: Yes, sir, I have. I received them today, and they were signed today, all three of them.
Corrie: How come you received them today?
Gordon: I have no idea. I was off Friday. Today was the first day – they were in my mail today. They were signed; there were no problems.
Corrie: Thank you. I think Keith – you’re going to do it the 19th right? The 16th so Keith if you would swear in those officers on the 16th, I would appreciate it. I’m going to be
in Washington D.C. I’m going back to see if we can get us some more money.
Gordon: Mr. Mayor and Council, that would be three full-time officers and two reserves. I couldn’t get them all in tonight at one time.
Corrie: Other questions on the Consent Agenda? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion for the Consent Agenda.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the Consent Agenda with the one correction on Item G.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion’s been made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda except for the corrections in Item G. Any further discussion? Roll-call vote, please.
Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, roll-call vote:
Roll-call: Anderson, aye; Bird, aye; De Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 1. Department Reports:
A. Accounting/Finance Dept. – City Treasurer Janice Smith:
1. Treasurer’s Report:
Corrie: No. 1 is Department Reports, Accounting and Finance Department City Treasurer Janice Smith.
Smith: Thank you, Mayor and Council members. On your desk this evening you found a rough draft of our audit report for the fiscal year 2000. We received that today, and I will be
going over that tonight for any corrections. If you find anything that you have questions on feel free to call us. We will set up a meeting later after the final report is done. In
a review on the expenditure report an investment that you received last week, the investment in cash summary. We
had a footnote of the general ,fund and cash is getting low. As you know, we receive our big property tax moneys in January and in August. We won’t be receiving the $2,230,000 till
the end of this month, January 26th. Right now after paying our bills and also our payroll we are down to $21,000 in general fund in the checking account. I did an analysis over what
were costs that are going to be hurt, our payables and payroll. We should be receiving state liquor appropriation moneys here within a week, that’s about $25,000. State revenue sharing,
that’s going to come in about $250,000 around the 20th. At this time I feel that we’re okay not to hit any investment money because towards the end of the month we’ll be receiving the
property tax money to cover payroll. Our payroll for the general is running around $300,000, a little over. We should be okay with the state revenue sharing and the state liquor appropriation,
what we have in there and some moneys that have been coming in. At this time I was going to recommend to the investment committee to leave the investments as is. I’ll be following
up with the phone calls to the state revenue making sure the money’s going to be coming in and also with their property tax, making sure when that money’s going to be coming in. After
the money comes in on the property tax, the forecast looks okay on our cash until June and then we’ll have to make some decisions. I’ll be getting with our Police Chief, Bill Gordon,
to see how the construction is coming on with the new police building and look at the construction schedule. Usually they have a pay schedule for the contractors so I guess I’ll just
be meeting with that department. We had invested some money from the enterprise and from the parks until June so we can get better interest rates. We feel that’s safe until June, at
that time we’ve touched base with our investment agents to let them know in June. Also we called them today to make sure they have some cash available if the property tax money doesn’t
come in on time. There are some moneys available without losing any interest or no penalties. You did get your report last week; did you have any questions? Anybody have any questions
on that report? That’s all I have Mayor and Council.
Bird: Thank you Janice.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I just had one question Janice. Did the auditors indicate when the final draft of the audit would be out?
Smith: I think our ordinance is by the 5th. He’s just waiting for me to make some comments, which I’ll be taking it home tonight. They’re pretty well ready. We have to make some
adjusting entries for audits, adjusting entries to make sure (inaudible) fiscal year report would be right. I think he’s waiting on us now, which we just received it this afternoon.
I’ll be taking it home tonight and Reed will be looking at it tomorrow morning. I’ll call them and let everybody know. We just got it so it’s hot off the press. It’s by the 5th,
our ordinance says by the 5th.
Bird: I think it says they’ve got to present it by January 20th. I think that’s what it is January 20th.
Smith: We’ll put it on the next meeting. Are we having a meeting every Tuesday now?
Corrie: The one on the 9th is workshops and the 16th and 23rd are the two meetings.
Smith: I’ll get with them and make sure. Maybe we could get that for the 16th?
Corrie: You can go ahead and get it the 9th if you can get it done.
Smith: Okay, well I’ll check on their schedule. I think they’re just waiting on us right now. It’s going smoother every year.
Corrie: Any questions?
Bird: I have none Mayor.
B. Fire Department – Chief Ken Bowers:
1. Appraisal for Ten Mile Fire Station Property:
Corrie: Thank you Janice. Fire Department -- Ken.
Bowers: Good evening, Mayor Corrie and City Council members. This agenda was brought up quite awhile ago between City Councilman Ron Anderson and the Rural Fire Commissioner Mike Engraham.
They had discussed what we were going to do with the property out on Ten Mile Road that we’re going to build our fire station on. At one time, President Mike Engraham thought it would
be a good idea to own part of the land because they were also going to own part of the building. They thought it would be a better deal if they owned part of the land and the building
in one package. Talking with Mayor Corrie on this subject -- he didn’t think it was quite right for the city to have the rural, or pay the rural for part of this property that was donated
to the city. Then years into the future if anything does happen to the rural fire district, that the city would have to turn around and pay for that property again, the piece of property
that was donated to us. I talked to Keith Bird about this one night and he was wandering even if it was legal for the city to do this with the rural fire protection district. I contacted
Bill Nichols; I’m kind of putting him on the spot tonight. He looked it up, went through some of his books and thought it would probably be in the best interest of the city to go ahead
and have the rural pay for part of the property, their percent. That would make everything much cleaner if there ever was a split in the far future. I don’t want to say near do I?
I’d also like it to be known that Steve Bravo was in the audience tonight representing the rural. Bill would you be able to elaborate a little bit more on that? I kind of hit him
on the spot tonight?
Nichols: Mayor, members of the Council, and Chief Bowers, the question that was asked was whether it would legal to convey an interest in that parcel to the rural fire district. Because
the rural fire district is another government entity, the city can convey an interest in that property without having to jump through this public sale, you know put it up for auction
type procedures. It is legal to transfer an interest. I think the other question that was asked was, could something that has been donated to the city, part of it be conveyed to another
entity at a price or should it be considered a donation. The answer there is it is legal and appropriate. If the rural fire district is going to acquire an interest that they pay their
requisite percentage of whatever the value of that land is now. One way to look at it, I suppose you could leave the title to the real property and just the city, and give the title
to the improvements. It would be partly in the city and partly in the rural fire district since they’re helping pay for those improvements out there. Then tracking it out later, if
you were to ever sell that property and determine, okay how much of this price that somebody’s willing to pay for this since we no longer need it for a fire station because we’ve got
a different one or whatever the situation might be. How much of this price is attributable to the land and how much is attributable to the buildings and improvements instead of rural
fire district owns x percent. I think that’s the issue. My experience has taught me the simpler that we keep it, the better it is in the long run. Either way could be legal to do
it that way.
Corrie: My question, I guess, would be what happens when the rural no longer exists. There’s no more rural. What do we do? Yes, come on up here Steve. It’s a question that I had
in the back of my mind. Let’s say that we will still own the same property that we have now and the rural is no longer – it’s all part of the city. I guess you would have part of it
out.
Bravo: Well until the point that the districts dissolved and that would be a matter for the rural attorney to set up. Things would have to be taken care of, so to speak, but we would
have to adjust that back to the taxpayers in some manner. A credit or something that the money would be given back to the taxpayers once the district became non-existent. Any funding
left over would have to go back to the taxpayers.
Bowers: Mayor Corrie and City Council, basically my question is just how much farther do we want to go with this subject. Do we want to go ahead and appraise the land and give the
rural commissioners a price on that? Do you guys want to sit on it a little bit longer and think about this because I know Cherie and Tammy have not heard about this before so I’m just
bringing it up for you guys.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, Kenneth after hearing Mr. Nichols statement and the Mayors, how much is it going to cost to have it appraised. Anybody got an idea?
Bowers: Mayor Corrie, City Council members, and President Keith Bird, right around $1500 would be the appraisal. The question would be then who was
going to pay for the $1500? Would the Rural pay their percent, or would the City pay the whole thing? That, to my knowledge, has not been even discussed yet unless maybe Councilman
Anderson has, but I don’t think it has.
Corrie: Just the Council – they want to have a meeting with the City Council. About the only date’s open is Wednesday, January the 24th. One Tuesday is a meeting night, and the other
is a Planning and Zoning meeting and they want to have it from 6:30 to 10:00 p.m. The 24th is on a Wednesday, looks like to be the only one and maybe you discuss that with them at that
point and see where we want to go. Do we want to pay for the whole thing, or half of it? I don’t know where the rules are coming from and it wouldn’t be fair to them and we do something
and then not discuss it with them. With the two Council people here that haven’t had the chance to really look at it that maybe we could – if the Council decides the January the 24th
on Wednesday to have that meeting from 6:30 to 10:00 we might be able to. Do we have any objections to the Council on that (inaudible).
Bird: I don’t have any problem.
Corrie: Why don’t we set it up, Kenny and Steve for the 24th of January at 6:30 to 10:00 here in the conference, or in the chamber here. Then we can go over that and kind of get everybody
acclimated in what we are doing and wanting to do. I think it might be easier Kenny so we all get on the same page.
Bowers: That would be fine, I appreciate it.
Corrie: (inaudible) by them or Steve knows but make sure that Debbie and Ike knows the date.
Bowers: Thanks Mayor and Council, I appreciate it.
C. Mayor’s Office – Mayor Corrie:
Appointment of Parks and Recreation Commissioner:
Corrie: Did I leave – the two people at the – David Moe sent me a letter that they had interviewed and talked with the people on the list. They had four people that they said they
therefore on behalf of the Parks and Recreation. We ask that you recommend two of the four names listed above the City Council for their approval and they said anyone of the four would
be good. What I’ve done is I’ve thought that – bring the names of Bruce MacCoy and Creg Steele as appointments for the Parks and Recreation at this point. We got one more that will
be going off, Moe, David Moe and I have to talk to him yet on – I guess he can go two terms, he’s done one and he (inaudible) to do another one. My recommendation to the Council for
members of the planning of Parks and Recreation would be Bruce MacCoy and Creg Steele. (Inaudible) any questions you might have?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, when is Mr. Moe’s term expired?
Corrie: It shows that it’s up on October of 2000.
Bird: Okay so he’s over?
Corrie: Yes.
Bird: You don’t want to confirm him again?
Corrie: I haven’t had a chance to talk to him.
Bird: You got a letter from him didn’t you?
Corrie: I got a letter from him yes, but I want to talk to him. We can do it next meeting if we have (inaudible). He’s still on until we replace him or get him back in there.
Anderson: So there’s two vacancies not counting his?
Corrie: Right.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, on Bruce is he – I see where he’s a territory manager, does he have to travel that much?
Corrie: No, not any more.
Bird: I didn’t think so.
Corrie: I think Creg Steel has been – I think April the 18th is when he sent me his letter that first time (inaudible).
Bird: I’ve worked on committee with Mr. Steel; he’s very, very capable.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, Tammy since you’re our Council liaison, I guess I kind of have to rely on some of your expertise because I don’t know any of these people or anything about them.
Do you know anything about them or interviews or – I just (inaudible) a résumé’s alone, you know it would be one thing?
De Weerd: I do know a couple of the members but I wasn’t involved in the interviews. I thought it would be important that these recommendations come from the commission themselves.
I do know they are very comfortable with all four of these candidates, after talking to them and finding out – being able to exchange information they felt that these were four very
top notch people. I do
know three of the four, I think all three that I know of would do a great job. If there’s no further discussion I would like a motion.
Corrie: I don’t have any.
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept the non-appointment of Bruce MacCoy and Creg Steel for the Parks and Recreation Commissions. Do you need them to fit into one of the two
seats?
Bird: No, not necessarily.
Corrie: (Inaudible discussion amongst Council members) at the same time.
De Weerd: Well, yes they do. That expired 2002.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to accept the recommendation, the Mayor for Bruce MacCoy and Creg Steele to be put on the Parks and Recreation. Any further discussion?
Anderson: They do meet the requirements to living and that stuff?
Corrie: Yes.
De Weerd: That is one thing the Commission tried to make sure we have our different (inaudible) spread out.
Corrie: I think that’s important too because you have them all in one area of town that isn’t the best either. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 3. Swear in new Meridian City Police Officers:
Corrie: No. 3, which is swearing in, will be on the 16th of the month.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, just one question. With David Moe, will we have that on the next agenda on the 16th?
Corrie: Yes, you’ll have to go through -- Keith will be – I’ll nominate that you will have to go –
Bird: Okay you make the recommendation, if you don’t I won’t do it.
Corrie: Okay, any other questions?
De Weerd: No.
Item 4. Tabled from December 19, 2000: Ordinance No. : Land Swap between Steiner Development and the City of Meridian at The Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 8 Subdivision and Cherry Lane
Golf Course:
Corrie: No. 4, this was tabled from December 19, 2000. It was the Land Swap between Steiner Development and the City of Meridian. There was a letter that they were to delay that
again and table that to the 16th is that correct. That would be the one that they had the land use agenda.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I can’t see any reason why wouldn’t allow that and give them time to work that out so I would make a motion that we table No. 4 until January 16th.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and seconded to table Item No. 4 till the 16th of this month. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I abstain.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSTENTION
Corrie: Okay.
Item 5. Tabled from November 21, 2000: FP 00-018 Request for Final Plat approval for of 61 building lots and 3 other lots on 23.02 acres by Packard Estates Development for proposed
Packard Acres Subdivision Item No. 2 – south of E. Ustick Road between N. Locust Grove Road and Wingate Lane:
Corrie: Item No. 5 is tabled from November the 21st. This was a request for Final Plat approval for 61 building lots and 3 other lots on 23.02 acres by Packard Estates Development
for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision Item No. 2. Staff comments?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, we did receive response to our comments just today. The comment – the response letter refers to a revised plat that we don’t have a copy of and they
are still trying to work some things out with Ada County Highway District regarding the one gate lane. I would like to have a
representative from Ada County Highway District be in attendance at the next meeting. I ask that you table this to January 16th.
Corrie: Any questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion to table this to the 16th and have a representative from ACHD at that meeting.
McCandless: I move that we table the request for Final Plat approval for 61 building lots and 3 other lots by Packard Estates Development until the 16th.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and seconded to table Item No. 5 until the 16th of January. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 6. Tabled from December 5, 2000: FP 00-020 Final Plat approval of 47 building lots and 3 other lots on 14.93 acres in an R-4 zone for Autumn Faire Subdivision Item No. 1 by Gem
Star Properties, LLC – south of West Ustick Road and west of North Black Cat Road:
Corrie: Item No. 6 is a request for Final Plat approval of 47 building lots and 3 other lots on in Autumn Faire. We have got a letter from the attorney, Susan Wildwood to have that
postponed to January 16th to be continued at that point. Any questions from Council on this?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Staff is that what you follow as well? I entertain a motion on Item No. 6.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we continue this to January 16th on the request for Final Plat for Autumn Faire Subdivision.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to table Item No. 6 until the January 16th meeting. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7. Public Hearing: VAR 00-021 Request by Glenn Johnson Homes for a variance allowing a one-year time extension for the signing and recording of Final Plat for Hartford Subdivision
– northeast corner of W. Ustick Road and N. Ten Mile Road:
Corrie: Item No. 7 is a public hearing request for Glenn Johnson Homes for a variance allowing a one-year time extension for the signing and recording of Final Plat for Hartford Subdivision
– northeast corner of West Ustick Road and North Ten Mile Road. At this time I will open the public hearing and staff comments first.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this Final Plat was originally approved on September 7, 1999. They had had some problems working out right-of-way and sewer line issues. Having to do
with the drainage from the streets and working out something with the Ada County Highway District to allow that in there right-of-way. They have basically built the entire subdivision
at this point but since their plat wasn’t recorded in time it’s now null and void and they have pretty much all of the improvements constructed out there. I would request that the Council
approve the variance to extend the Final Plat recording time. I believe they requested March 7th, I’m still not confident they’re going to be successful in making that date for the
recording. They do have some issues remaining and would ask that you grant one year from the original one year to make the final recording date September 7, 2001.
Corrie: Any question for the staff?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Someone else from the public would like to issue testimony in this request for variance for the one-year time extension?
Wilder: Janet Wilder as 3340 North Ten Mile Road. We live in the house that the subdivision is around, and we were a little concerned about some of the things that haven’t been completed
there for us. One pretty pressing issue is the power; the line that came to our house ended up not on our property line. They have told us since they’ve started the subdivision, I
think last March, that they were going to move that and so far it hasn’t been moved. We had it on a garage that has since been torn down. The only thing left standing is just one part
of it that supports the power box. I’ve talked to the engineer several times and he’s referred me – the last time I talked to him he referred me to the developer, Glen Johnson. I talked
to him and he said he didn’t know anything about it. I talked to the engineer again, at that time he told me he would get back to me. I talked to the engineer again and he told me
he would talk to Glen and get back to me. It’s still sitting on the little part of the garage that wasn’t demolished. We need to get that – in the meantime we’ve had extension cords
running out our back door and our side door to the pump because the line to pump got torn up somehow in the
construction. We built a new little garage and we had to run power out there because there isn’t any power in it yet. They were supposed to put a fence around us but that can’t be
done until they have their sewer and power lines into us because it would cause a problem with the fence if they did it later. They had to put sidewalk in front of the house so they
tore up our front yard and it’s still just like they left it. The engineer told me that they could put grass from the sidewalk out to the road, and I had talked to Ada County on that
and they said it was okay as long as we maintained it. That hasn’t been done, in fact nothing has been done there. It’s pretty hard to get to the mailbox and the paper box without
getting muddy because it’s just mud out there. They paved the driveway from the sidewalk to the street and then on the house side they put road mix in. When you drive over that, well
it just tracks the sand and it comes into my carport. We had put a little gravel in there before for that reason, to stop the tracking. I’d like to have that gravel put back in there
so we don’t have to contend with the sand all of the time. We still have – I guess that’s part of the subdivision but we have open trenches around the house where they haven’t completed
the pressurized irrigation. That isn’t a big issue but it hasn’t been completed to us either. Just tonight I noticed the powers on there so I don’t know why they can’t get power to
us. Their original idea was to bring it in from the rear of our house from their subdivision into us. Before that’s been the thing they’ve told us they couldn’t – the power didn’t
go on until their Final Plat was approved or something. Anyway I would like to have some of those things – I don’t want to wait a year for this to happen. I just kind of wanted to
make you aware of those things, so maybe we could get those things fixed. Any questions?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, Mrs. Wilder, did you sell the property to Johnson?
Wilder: No we did not, we sold the property to Ray Patell. They sold it then to Glenn Johnson, I think. It’s been I think six or seven years since we sold it. Any other questions?
Thank you.
Berg: Mr. Mayor, Shari, were any of these completes as she’s raised – were any of those conditions of the Final Plat that you are aware of?
Stiles: I’m not sure if the fence was a part of the conditions of approval around their lot. It kind of sounds like a lot of those might have been included as part of their agreement
with whoever they sold it to. The thing I can think that would part of a policy or an ordinance would be Ada County Highway District requirement that they pave the driveway 30 feet
into their property not just beginning at the sidewalk. Other than that, I don’t think those are actually conditions of the plat.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for the attorney then. Would it be appropriate to continue this till the 16th and to allow Shari to make sure none of these are conditions of
the CUP? Also, look into, perhaps if this is an agreement, if we could get a response by the developer.
Nichols: Councilwoman de Weerd, I think to me if the Final Plat has been approved and it has to be signed off on by the city engineer and other city officials before it can be recorded.
It has to be recorded before they can sell those lots. It’s a pretty big financial incentive for them to be able to get the engineers approval, public works, and zoning administrators
approval as far as the hammer over the developers head. The question is, are the complaints that Mrs. Wilder raises the city’s business, I mean that’s the real issue. If they’re conditions
of the plat then they’re the city’s business. If they are conditions in the sale agreement between the Wilders and Mr. Patell then that’s a private, civil matter that the city’s not
a party to. You can defer this but I don’t know that that really does much, where really the city staff holds the keys to this developer being able to sell lots which is, we wont sign
your plat unless the punch list is completed.
De Weerd: Mrs. Wilder, were these conditions of the sell of your property or do you remember them to be conditions of the platting process?
Wilder: These were what we agreed on when we sold to Patell. They were, I guess passed onto Glenn Johnson. Rick Thurber, who is the realtor, could verify this. We also have a letter
that was signed by Mr. Johnson when he first started trying to get approval for the subdivision, our place was not in the subdivision at that time. He had – Rick Thurber came out to
the house and said he needed to get us in the subdivision. He would have Glenn sign a letter that said that we were not responsible for any – which (sic) we wouldn’t incur any financial
responsibility for anything that came up because of the subdivision. I don’t know if that covers any of this or not but it was our understanding from the get go that these things would
be done. We would be hooked up to water, sewer, power and that we would have a fence around the place to fence us off from the rest of the subdivision. I don’t know whether this should
be here, or whether it should be – they haven’t really said that they wouldn’t do it. They’ve talked to us about putting a fence around, but it just hasn’t been done.
De Weerd: You would probably like it done in a timely fashion.
Wilder: Yes, we would. We’ve been a mess for almost a year now, and we would kind of like to look out and see something besides a mess.
De Weerd: I think I have had experience on how new development can kind of disrupt your life for awhile.
Wilder: Right, well the biggest mess is in front of the house. From the road to the sidewalk. It’s just mud – tree roots.
Corrie: You do have sewer and water there though don’t you?
Wilder: Well yes from private – we’re not hooked up.
Corrie: They’re not hooked up to the City yet?
Wilder: Their water’s there, the power’s there and I guess the sewer must be.
Corrie: Are you part of that subdivision now?
Wilder: Yes.
De Weerd: I guess I have a problem extending a Final Plat when all of this work should have been done and these people should have had the services available.
Bird: Is that the condition – it is like Mr. Nichols said is that the condition of the Final Plat, the facts and conclusions when this was passed. I would doubt that the City of Meridian
has any authority to entertain what their sale agreement between the Wilder’s and the buyers was. It had nothing to do with the Final Plat, and I agree with you, they should have it
done. I don’t think as a city that we have the authority to tell them that if this wasn’t within the conditions of the approval and the Final Plat then we can’t tell them they have
to do it legally. I don’t believe.
Corrie: I haven’t seen the Final Plats for a year, I don’t know what’s in it.
Bird: I’m with you. I haven’t either.
Corrie: Do you know what’s in it? I’m asking you a thousand-dollar question here but I don’t even know what’s in the Final Plat.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I wouldn’t know without reviewing everything. I know that when it was originally annexed, the Wilder’s home was left out of that annexation. A condition
of the original annexation was that they had to be included because they have created conclave there and we also wanted the improvements to be constructed on Ten Mile across their property.
I don’t believe it addressed anything to do with what happened from the sidewalk to the existing roadway because that would be an Ada County Highway District right-of-way. I think
– I would certainly be willing to work with you and try to at least encourage them to do it but beyond what’s actually been part of the conditions of the plat we wouldn’t be able to
enforce that.
Wilder: The only reason we bring it up is that we just aren’t getting anywhere with them. We keep kind of being passed to someone else.
Stiles: I can relay that to Richard Jewel and Mr. Johnson and encourage them to talk to you and make sure that they at least are able to compromise on some of the items that you’re
needing out there. I can call him tomorrow.
Wilder: The power is probably the most important one. We would like to get that changed so we don’t have to run those extension cords. I’ve talked to them several times about that
and we still have the extension cords running.
Stiles: I can certainly understand that.
Wilder: Thank you.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, at the risk of being redundant I think another way of looking at this is would approval of this variance somehow diminish Mr. and Mrs. Wilder’s efforts to get this
stuff done. I don’t believe that – I think that it may in fact help them if you extend the time for filing the Final Plat.
Corrie: Any other one from the public would like to issue testimony on Item No. 7?
Schaffer: Hi there, I’m Tammy Schaffer, I own the property and reside at 2788 West Ustick Road, which is the property to the east of Hartford subdivision. I’m not sure whether this
is a good neighbor agreement or a Final Plat requirement. When they poured the sidewalk adjacent to Ustick Road, they kind of missed the property line and poured about 3 feet of it
onto our property, our lawn, and a couple of sprinkler heads were covered for a few months. Mr. Johnson finally addressed it, but he’s really hard to get a hold of. We were also told
the fence was going nicely, running north and south on our property line and it stopped where that stub street towards the north end of the subdivision. We’ve got asphalt and two sidewalks
that have extended about two and a half, three feet onto our property line. They are aware of that, they took care of the front but I’m not sure when they’re going to address it. It’s
not a big problem but if it does go on for quite sometime we have a little concern. I wanted to bring that up, I’m not sure if the fence – we were told the fence was going to block
the street and it stops just before it gets to the street. Right about where the cursor is there, that’s where it stops. I’m not really sure – not real familiar what the plan initials
but I thought to support my good neighbors, the Wilders, if there having a little trouble I thought I should at least let them know we’ve had some concerns. When they were doing some
of the underground work – we have a haystack right about where that arrow is and I understand that human comfort is a big factor. When we saw some of the construction workers coming
from behind our haystack, hoeving toilet paper, that was a concern too. Mr. Johnson said that’s just the nature of the construction business. Just thought I’d let you be aware. We’re
being real patient and good neighbors.
Corrie: You certainly are.
Bird: Yes, you are.
Wilder: We’re patient (inaudible).
Schaffer: Anyway I just thought I would bring that up in case that was a concern with the Final Plat.
Corrie: Thank you Tammi. Questions Council?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Mr. Wilder?
Wilder: I think on this human comfort thing we had a couple loafing sheds and a garage and stuff that they pushed. That was a bathroom for 50 guys for three months. I think on these
subdivisions you got out here there’s a lot of them going but I don’t see any restrooms there. In somebody’s – in the back of somebody’s garage is a mess if they went out there and
took a look. They ought to put that – when they start subdivision they ought to have a restroom or something someplace. At my house everybody – all of the buildings were – you couldn’t
go out there after they got started. They should address that somehow. When they get their first plat or something I don’t know.
Bird: They should have portables.
Wilder: Well if you got a Mexican hoeing out in a beet field you got to have one and water for him to drink. You go out and put 40 guys on a subdivision you don’t have to have a restroom
for them or any water to drink.
Bird: They should.
Wilder: It didn’t look very prosperous.
Corrie: Thank you Mr. Wilder.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, looks like not only in this debatement but in portables do we need to improve our standard requirements.
Corrie: Any one else in the public would like to issue testimony on this?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, seeing no one else coming forward I would make a motion we close the public hearing.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing, all those in favor say aye.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, before we – can I have a discussion for a moment?
Corrie: Yes, because I forgot to do that.
De Weerd: Before we vote on this we may want to just continue this. If it was the intent to continue this till the 16th, if there’s any comments on requirements for the Preliminary
Plat or anything that that testimony can be included on the public record.
Corrie: Any other comments? We still have a motion before the floor to close the public hearing. Roll-call vote please on closing the public hearing.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Roll-call vote:
Roll-call: De Weerd, naye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, naye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO NAYES
Corrie: It’s a tie, I’m going to close the public hearing at this point. You can – now you need to – a discussion on whether you want to extend the one-year time extension or if you
don’t want to. Discussion?
TIEBREAKER VOTE: THREE AYES, TWO NAYES
Bird: Mr. Mayor, as I understand we’re not – from this date, we’re not extending it one year. You want to go to September 7, 2001? That was one year from the last deal but it’s not
one year from the day we’re doing it right now. I don’t know how we can take this developer and put some scare or tactics or something. I’m not too sure that that wasn’t in the sale
agreement with the original buyer. I don’t know what the second buyer, Mr. Johnson, where his liabilities ended and started as far as the first one. I don’t know Shari you got any
ideas how we can get some things accomplished if we do give this variance?
Stiles: I think to a point we really have some opportunity as far as the plat is not signed yet, it hasn’t been signed by Gary Smith. The development agreement has still not been approved;
we just found that out that this was annexed back originally in 1994, I think. At that time the development agreements were prepared by the applicant and submitted to the city and I
just think it was never followed through. I believe Mr. Glen Johnson – oh, I’m sorry, Gary does have some notes that said that the Council approved development agreement June 15, 1999.
It has been recorded but that was only for the 0.45 acres of the Wilder’s. The development agreement for the entire subdivision has not been done. That would leave that open for discussion
at that time. We also have the ability to withhold building permits even after the plats are corded, to the extent we have any kind of authority. We could stop them even applying for
building permits which is a very good incentive to get a lot of work done. As far as the
rest I have mostly dealt with Mr. Jewel and he seems to be real willing to do whatever he needs to do. Maybe it’s just going to take calling it to his attention and telling him that
that’s our expectation that those things be taken care of.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I don’t think delaying it two weeks is a complicated thing. I do believe what the City Attorney suggested is that it does send a message. It might give our staff
a little bit more behind when they call the developer to inform them of some of the things that still need to be cleaned up. I don’t see what harm it would have in delaying this two
weeks. I think we have to have a message that says when you impact the neighbors you should be a good neighbor. I had no interest in extending these things, and they do have a lot
of money into it if they can’t be good neighbors (sic).
Corrie: We certainly can make a motion to that affect. We just closed the public hearing the other time but we can have two weeks to talk it over with them, come back here and the
duty will not be a public hearing but it will be a decision you can make with a little more authority I presume. You can make that motion.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, the only thing I have, and I’ll refer to the attorney on this – I believe that if it isn’t in the conditions or anything that we can certainly suggest that Mr. Johnson
become a good neighbor. I don’t think legally we’ve got any leg to stand on as far as forcing him to do this kind of stuff. I think most of this agreement was made in the sales agreement
that we’re talking about. I think extending it two weeks doesn’t affect me one way or the other but I think in two weeks you’ll be – unless you give him the ultimatum to have this stuff
done in two weeks and you can’t do that because you don’t know if it’s under our deals.
De Weerd: “If” is a big word, and you don’t know what’s in there. It gives us a chance to find out what is there.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, I definitely agree with Tammy that we should find out what is in there and what isn’t in there. We’re just assuming right now and for that reason I would make
the motion that we put this off for two weeks so that Shari and her crew can find out exactly what is in it and bring it back to us so we can make a decision.
Bird: I’ll second that.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to defer a decision on this variance request until January 16th and give the staff more time to find out about the development agreement, and also the
recording – what was recorded on the Final Plat or wasn’t recorded yet. Any further discussion?
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, since everybody else got to throw his or her (sic) two cents worth, I’ll throw mine in too. I see this as two distinct issues, I guess as the City Attorney kind
of explained to us. As much as I think everybody on the
Council is appalled with the conduct of the developer, I think a lot of those things are issues that threw this Final Platting process, we may or may not have any control of. I think
as a city we ought to hold the developer’s feet to the fire and we ought to make him comply with all of the conditions that were set forth on this Final Plat. As we talked about, our
signature on that Final Plat and the building permits is our hammer that we can hold above his head to make him do those things. I think the things about the workers using the neighbor’s
as a restroom, I think those are probably outside the scope of what the City of Meridian can do. That’s really an issue that the Department of Labor would like to know about some of
their practices and some of those types of things. I really don’t have any major concerns or issues with delaying the vote on that for two weeks. If there is anything in the development
agreement that we can find that the developer is not complying with then we ought to hold their feet to it. I wouldn’t object at all to this motion.
Corrie: Okay any further discussion? Hearing none, the motion is called for a deferral till January 16th on the decision. Roll-call vote Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, Roll-call vote:
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Feedback on the 16th then. Shari you need to do some talking to some people.
Stiles: I will.
Item 8. Public Hearing: VAR 00-023 Variance requesting to use Meridian City Water for irrigation in the Wanda’s Meadow Subdivision by Robert Glenn – north of E. Ustick Road and west
of N. Locust Grove Road:
Corrie: No. 8 is a public hearing. It’s a variance request to use Meridian City Water for irrigation in the Wanda’s Meadow Subdivision by Robert Glenn – north of East Ustick Road and
west of North Locust Grove Road. At this time I will open the public hearing on Item No. 8 and have staff comments first.
Freckleton: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, as the Mayor mentioned this is a request for use of city water for irrigation, in lieu of pressurized irrigation. As you may recall,
the subdivision directly adjacent to Wanda’s Meadow called the Hollow’s, sought a variance and received a variance for the same basic reasons that this applicant is before you tonight.
They are on the tail end of a ditch; their water supply is intermittent, and not reliable. There is not a regional pressurized irrigation system in the are that they could tap into;
they are kind of hanging out
there. Staff supports the variance requests, and I’ll stand for any questions you might have.
Corrie: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
McCandless: I have none.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, Bruce, this situation as it came up before we had talked to Gary about maybe doing some possible revamping to an ordinance. I happen to live in a subdivision that
went on this same type of system; they went on the city water system in lue of putting in a pressurized irrigation. I know that it causes problems for years to come for the homeowners
because you’re paying for much more expensive water, treated water just to sprinkle your lawn with. We had talked to Gary about possibly revamping the ordinance to require developers
in this situation. Even though the pressurized irrigation may not be available right then as additional properties do get developed, then there could be a larger pool of people who
could contribute to a regional pressurized irrigation system. The ordinance would then require them to put in dry lines at this time that then later on could be hooked into a regional
system. Have you guys got any further in doing that ordinance because I hate to keep approving projects like this without some type of a long-term solution?
Freckleton: Councilman Anderson, we have had several discussions. We had some meetings with the developer of the Hollows and his engineers. Several ideas were batted around; we looked
at a lot of pros and cons to doing a system like that. One idea that Gary had come up with is that they install basically a single point connection feeding a system that each lot would
then tap into. In the future that system then could be converted by tapping into a pressurized irrigation system. The biggest draw back with a system like that, as we saw it, is that
there’s no metering of the water. You’re going to see certain people being conservative, you’re going to see other people being very, very liberal with the water, and everybody gets
to foot the bill for it. I think it was Gary’s feeling that the water consumption would probably be considerably higher because of that system than it would be if each individual lot
used their own meter and were therefore responsible for the amount of water that they used. I know Gary is still kicking around ideas on exactly what you talked about. To my knowledge
he hasn’t come up with any drafts of ordinances or anything at this time.
Anderson: Thank you.
Corrie: Any further questions for staff? This is a public hearing, is anyone from – a developer here this evening?
Tealy: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Pat Tealy. I’m representing the developer of the subdivision Mr. Robert Glenn. He also has a representative here if you need to
talk with him on this issue, and it was pretty well explained by Bruce. We are as an alternative, contribute to the well development system. I can see the benefits of a dry line installation
but how do you meter it. If you were to do a dry line installation should you do the well development fee also? It gets you real – double whammy, just bumps the price of the lot up
at least that much again. If there’s any questions we can ask, I know it was fairly well explained by Bruce (inaudible).
Corrie: Any questions for Pat?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Thanks Pat. Anyone else from the public like to issue testimony at this point. Hearing none, Council do you have any questions while it’s still in a public hearing? I’ll
entertain a motion then to close the public hearing.
Anderson: So moved.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on the variance of No. 8. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Discussion, questions, Council? Hearing none I will entertain a motion then for the VAR 00-023.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, in light of no better solution at this point I would make a motion that we approve VAR 00-023, a request to use Meridian City water for irrigation in Wanda Meadows
Subdivision by Robert Glen.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the variance request on the Wanda Meadows Subdivision. Any further discussion? Roll-call vote Mr. Clerk.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Roll-call vote:
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members.)
Item 9. FP 00-023 Final Plat approval of 26 building lots and 2 other lots on 7.99 0acres for Wanda’s Meadow Subdivision by Robert Glenn – north of E. Ustick Road and west of N. Locust
Grove Road:
Corrie: Item No. 9, Final Plat approval of 26 building lots and 2 other lots on 7.99 acres for Wanda’s Meadow Subdivision by Robert Glen. Staff comments.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is not a representation of the plat that we were asking for approval for. There is a stub street that goes to the west here and apparently we didn’t
have another eight and a half by eleven that we could scan and put into our system here. We have prepared comments; they’re dated December 26, 2000. We would ask that you approve the
Final Plat for Wanda’s Meadow Subdivision that is stamped and dated October 19, 2000.
Corrie: Council any questions for the staff?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Is the developer here – representative to ask that you have received the comments of staff and you approve all of them or disapprove or any of them?
Tealy: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Pat Tealy. Box address 2501 Bogus Basin Road. As staff said that is the wrong Final Plat, I apologize for that. We’ve got the
revised one into them in October, but like they were saying, that evidently they didn’t get a – you have it there? I didn’t want you to approve something that you hadn’t seen. We have
read the conditions and agree with conditions of staff.
Corrie: Any questions to Pat?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: None other than have porta potties out there.
Corrie: Any questions of Council on request for Final Plat approval? Then I’ll entertain a motion on Item No. 9, Final Plat approval 00-023 Wanda’s Meadow Subdivision.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the Final Plat for Wanda’s Meadow Subdivision, No 023, have the attorney draw up the appropriate findings.
Bird: With the drawings stamped and dated October 19, 2000. With that I’ll second it.
Corrie: Motion been made and seconded to approve the Final Plat, 00-023, the Wanda’s Meadow Subdivision with the plat dated stamped October 19, 2000. Any further discussion? Hearing
none, Roll-call vote Mr. Clerk.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Roll-call vote:
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 10. FP 00-022 Final Plat approval of 12 building lots and 2 other lots on 5.97 acres in an R-3 zone for The Hollows Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers – north of E. Ustick Road
and one-quarter mile west of North Locust Grove Road:
Corrie: Item No. 10 is a Final Plat approval of 12 building lots and 2 other lots on 5.97 acres in an R-3 zone for Hollows Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers – north of E. Ustick Road
an one-quarter mile west of North Locust Grove Road. Staff comments.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council this is property immediately to the west of the previous subdivision. You also have our comments and we would ask that you approve the Final Plat for
the Hollow Subdivision with staff and agency comments.
Corrie: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Hearing none, is a developer here this evening.
Boyle: Mayor and City Council, Clint Boyle with Pinnacle Engineers, 12552 West Executive Drive in Boise. Just one comment on this, we agree with staff memo and staff comments. Our
office has had discussions with Bruce Freckleton regarding the sanitary sewer main extensions into the project and I’m just going to refer to one of the comments under the site-specific
comments, Item No. 7. States that sanitary service to this (inaudible) subdivision will be via extensions from the proposed mains within Wanda Meadow’s Subdivisions. In our discussions
that we’ve had with Bruce Freckleton we felt that it would be more appropriate for us to extend the sewer service along Ustick Road and then enter the project along Boulder Creek Avenue.
Therefore that would relieve us of being tied to the development of the Wanda Creek Subdivision and waiting for their improvements to go in and having that be kind of a hitching factor
for us. Essentially what we’re proposing is that the sewer service to this proposal would come from the east side of the project on Ustick Road, extend west along Ustick Road and then
into the site along Boulder Creek Avenue.
Corrie: Any questions from Council at this point? Bruce, how about that?
Freckleton: Mr. Mayor we have had conversations and I can cur with what Clint has said. I guess what we would propose is in site specific Item No. 7 that we just strike the first sentence.
Bird: Strike which sentence, Bruce?
Freckleton: Completely.
Bird: First sentence?
Freckleton: Yes. So Item 7 would start out, subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, Bruce is this the South Slough sewer hookup or is this going to be the white trunk?
Freckleton: This is the South Slough.
Bird: We’ve already got some trunk line in Ustick there don’t we?
Freckleton: Correct. Mr. Mayor there is another point regarding sewer that we would like to talk about as well. General requirement No. 6, that’s sewer coming up Ustick Road is getting
to the end of its service ability depth. Therefore the two and through policy would not be applicable in this case, if the sewer was brought west in Ustick and extended north into this
project. There is no need for it to extend any further west. I would request that on general note No. 6 that we would just tag onto the end of that or as approved by public works.
That’s all.
Corrie: Any other questions Council for the staff?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: I’ll entertain a motion on the Final Plat approval.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the Final Plat 022, 12 building lots and 2 other lots on 5.97 acres for Hollow Subdivision with the additions made by Mr. Freckleton.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Final Plat of the Hollow Subdivision, that Final Plat 00-022 be approved with the changes that were requested. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, Roll-call vote Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Roll-Call vote:
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 11. FP 00-024 Final Plat approval of 3 building lots and 5 other lots on 3.84 acres in an R-4 zone for Primeland Subdivision by Primeland Development Co., LLP – north of West Ustick
Road and east of North Ten Mile Road:
Corrie: Item No. 11 is a Final Plat approval of 3 building lots and 5 other lots on 3.84 acres in an R-4 zone for Primeland Subdivision by Primeland Development Co., LLP – north of
West Ustick Road and east of North Ten Mile Road, staff comments, Item No. 11.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council you have our comments dated December 28, 2000, and hopefully you received a copy of the applicants response to save – dated December 29th, do you have
that? This is the first phase of what was approved at the Preliminary Plat stages Bridgetower Subdivision. The lots south of Five Mile Creek -- the applicant has proposed at some future
time that these may be office lots and realized that they would need to have the – a (inaudible) change or a change in our planned unit development ordinance. In order to accomplish
this as this is designated single-family residential. They will still have – it will appear to be a residential subdivision until they come back through. Either through a rezoning
or through the planned development, a new planned development ordinance that is being proposed. I don’t believe there were any real issues on this subdivision, we are awaiting a new
plan that will show the actual details of the fencing along Five-Mile Creek. There’s a 140 for the easement and for the Five-Mile Creek, it’s a right-of-way that is actually owned by
the Bureau of Reclamation. Mrs. Bowcutt has indicated that they cannot obtain an easement from Nampa Meridian or the Bureau of Reclamation and that they will obtain a license agreement
for the crossing of the creek with the sewer and water utilities. We are in agreement with the proposed change in wording to that site-specific comment No. 12. With that I would recommend
that it be approved with the conditions of our memo dated December 28, 2000 with the change to Item No. 12 under site specific, that they will obtain a license agreement in lue of an
easement.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, Shari has this changed considerably since we (inaudible) a Preliminary Plat?
Stiles: This is only a small portion of it. If you look at this vicinity map, these are where those proposed future office lots would be. The remainder of this subdivision that they
proposed -- you’ll see on the next item on the agenda -- is residential all back clear to the crease in lateral. The part – the school site was proposed, it was never proposed as part
of their annexation – the property that
they were previously proposing to use for the school was never annexed and the school district is requesting that another area be set aside for an elementary school. In the next Final
Plat you will see where they are Platting only the Phase 1 of Bridgetower Subdivision. They are following the phase lines as they were approved at the City Council. The first phase
of the other subdivision would only include an area for the recreation center. The next phases that they come in with for a Final Plat will include the entire 5-acre park that’s adjacent
to Five-Mile Creek.
De Weerd: So this hasn’t changed since Preliminary Plat?
Stiles: No. This is only a 3.84 acre part of this initial annexation.
Corrie: Becky, I guess the user question, do you have any – everything you agreed to everything? Let the record show she said yes, sir, and nodded her head.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I got a question to ask Shari on the site-specific Item No. 4. The applicant from Ms. Bowcutt’s deal, the applicant will add this statement?
Stiles: Yes, Council President Bird, Mayor and Council. The minimum residential house size is part of our ordinance; it does need to be stated on the plat. It is an R-4 subdivision
and until something changes that it won’t hurt anything to have it on there because if it’s not a residential house – a residential house is not built then it will just kind of be a
moot point.
Corrie: Anything else? If there’s no other questions I’ll entertain a motion on the Final Plat approval on 00-024 Primeland Subdivision. 3 building lots and 5 lots.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Final Plat 00-024, 3 building lots and 5 other lots on 3.84 acres in an R-4 zone for Primeland Subdivision.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion been made and seconded to approve the Final Plat, 3 building lots and 5 other lots on 3.84 acres in an R-4 zone by Primeland Subdivision and that the attorney draw up
the proper order. Any further comments? Hearing none, Roll-Call vote Mr. Berg.
Freckleton: Mr. Mayor, there was one modification to site specific Item No. 12, to insert license agreements that have easement.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, we could add subject to staff comments on that motion.
Bird: Second agree.
Corrie: Second agrees to the addition of the motion to include staff comments. Anything further? Roll-call vote please.
Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Roll-call vote:
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 12. FP 00-025 Final Plat approval of 54 building lots and 8 other lots on 19.08 acres in an R-4 zone for Bridgetower Subdivision No. 1 by Primeland Development Co., LLP – north
of West Ustick Road and east of North Ten Mile Road:
Corrie: Item No. 12 is a Final Plat 00-025 approval of 54 building lots and 8 other lots on 19.08 acres in an R-4 zone for Bridgetower Subdivision No. 1 by Primeland Development Co.,
LLP – north of W. Ustick Road and east of N. Ten Mile Road. Staff comments.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council this is the remainder of the Phase 1 proposed for Bridgetower Subdivision. You have our comments that are dated December 28, 2000, and Ms. Bowcutt’s response
dated December 29, 2000. I’ll go only over the items that have been highlighted in Ms. Bowcutt’s response. Apparently those are the items that we may still have disagreement on. No.
4, the response indicates it cannot exclude the word homeowners from the pedestrian access statement. Our comment was only geared toward trying to avoid a problem in the future. Homeowners
within this subdivision would think that because it said homeowners access that no one else – access that would be acceptable. We would agree to strike that request for change on Item
4 provided we receive a recorded copy of that easement prior to signature on the Final Plat. Item No. 11 under site specific. Our comment was that no building permits would be allowed
adjacent to the Five-Mile Creek until the pressure relief sewer was built. This, I believe was a result of Gary Smith not wanting to have to go out and tear up utilities or – they are
requiring an additional temporary construction easement along the backs of these lots to construct that line. I don’t have a schedule of when that relief line is being built, I don’t
know if Bruce has further information on it. Staff still feels strongly that that does need to be done.
Freckleton: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, today I spoke with Brad Watson in our office trying to get a little bit of an update on that relief line. The 17th of this month that
is going to bid and as most of you, maybe all of you know we are working towards the pathway project and trying to get the sewer line in ahead of that. Brad said that house construction
on those lots probably would not impact the construction. They would be far enough back that it wouldn’t hinder us getting through there, however having pressurized irrigation and whatever
– fences back there along that lot line definitely would be in the way. If we could
maybe work something out to where we would allow them to go ahead with construction on those lots but hold up the installation of pressurized irrigation until such time that we get that
line constructed so that we’re not in there tearing up new improvements. That is something that we could probably live with. As far as the timetable goes, Brad said that optimistically
we would hope to be through there by April. That’s not in any way any kind of a commitment. We’re working towards trying to get it all done but we don’t have a firm schedule set yet.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council although this is not highlighted on the response. On Item No. 12, the applicant has proposed only to pipe the portion of the crease in lateral, which
is on their property. The way our ordinance reads is that if it is adjacent to the property it will be also be piped unless Council grants a waver of the requirement to pipe. We will
expect the entire length of the property and the crease and lateral to be piped if any portion of that easement is adjacent to their property. We do not agree with No. 12. Item 16,
similar to the previous project, a license agreement in lue of an easement is acceptable. Also on No. 17, the license agreement and letter so consent are acceptable in lue of easements.
We do have a comment that we had made about putting a deed restriction – this is under site specific Item 10. The parts director has also requested as part of that deed restriction.
Perhaps it can be included as a note on the plat to make those lot owners fully aware that there will be a multiple use pathway constructed along Five-Mile Creek right-of-way so that
we won’t have problems in the future. If we were going to actually construct the pathway with people upset. I think it would probably be best served by a note on the plat but Ms. Bowcutt
can offer any alternatives that she thinks might be acceptable. Except for those somewhat major items we’re generally in agreement and would recommend approval with staff conditions
on this plat
Corrie: Any questions of Council at this point? Chief I have one it says the City Police Department public safety concerns. I don’t have anything here; do you know what it is?
Gordon: Just that every time we add a subdivision, the police and fire get farther behind, Your Honor.
Corrie: Thank you.
Gordon: Not just police.
Corrie: Thank you.
De Weerd: Does that mean we can’t service that? Is that what you’re saying?
Gordon: Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman De Weerd, all it’s saying is that we are stretched right now. Any additions are going to stretch us even farther. We will service and respond but our
response times are going to go up. I don’t know
what the answer is but the way the town is growing, public safety is not keeping up with the growth of the town and my concerns.
De Weerd: So these issues probably need to come at the Preliminary Plat and annexation and zoning time where we can do something about it.
Gordon: I’ve been putting this on for about the last four to five months on all of the plats that have come through.
Corrie: (inaudible) the developer, Becky, you have some thoughts?
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 11283 West Hickorydale Boise. Just to clarify one issue, the reason that you’re seeing this in two Final Plats was the requirement of the Ada County Engineer.
Five-Mile Creek is a 140-foot wide right-of-way owned by the Bureau of Reclamation, then the two plats are not contiguous. The Ada County Engineer indicated under state law that we
would be required to have these as two Final Plats so we split them apart and that may have confused Councilman De Weerd on the way it looked. Item 4 that was highlighted, I agree with
Shari. I believe that we can go ahead and provide a pedestrian easement and then we’ll reference an instrument number on the plat so there’s no discussions in the future about keeping
other residents out of their development. Awareness of a future path along Five-Mile Creek, I don’t necessarily believe that a deed restriction would be the way to go but possibly a
note on the plat. We can do it in the notes; we can also do it on the face of the plat. Future city pathway, so it’s quite clear. Anytime a homeowner purchases a lot they typically
get an eight and a half by eleven of the face of the plat. It’s also as part of the covenants so if we put it in some bold letters that would obviously be there so we can have no one
in the future complain to the Council about that. Item 11, I’m glad to hear that the city’s proceeding forward on the relief line. This condition was placed upon our Preliminary Plat
originally and we objected – we withdrew our objection prior to coming to the Council when Mr. Smith indicated that he thought the relief line would be constructed this fall. Obviously
there have been a few delays but I’m glad to hear that it’s on the horizon and it sounds like it will be taking place probably simultaneously with us. We would be glad to hold off installation
of our pressure irrigation along that south boundary and any fencing and (inaudible) for those two items because we obviously don’t want to disrupt that construction or create any possibility
for any damage. Our concern was just timing because no one had given us any type of timeframe on when the relief line would be constructed. Item 12, Shari brought up. We have an interesting
neighbor; Mr. Husky adjoins us to the north and to the west. We have dealt with him on a sleeve issue. A water sleeve for a future extension of a 12-inch water line in Ten Mile was
installed when ACHD did some bridgework along the creasing. That sleeve was placed right at the edge of Mr. Husky’s property, I believe with just a minor little overlap. We were inquired
in order to extend the water line up Ten Mile for our mini storage facility to go to Mr. Husky and obtain an easement because the city had never acquired one when that was installed.
We needed that in order to utilize it. Mr. Husky granted us that easement and then sent his attorney to the City Engineer to resend his granting of that easement to the city. The crease
and lateral traverses our property but then it veers to the north and goes on his property. The ditch is solely upon his property but there is a minor overlap of the easement along
our north and west boundary of this particular phase. It is my concern that if we are faced with dealing with Mr. Husky again on an issue, we may have a problem. Nampa Meridian in
the past has told me even though they have an easement for a lateral that we do not have the right to go in and do any work on private property. If Nampa Meridian goes in for maintenance
purposes or they have a particular problem they have the right to go in and make improvements but we do not. It would require Mr. Husky to grant his permission for us to go in and modify,
pipe the ditch, change the boxes, the head gates etc. I don’t know if that’s obtainable. Mr. Husky is an elderly man, and my dealings with his attorney were not a good one. We are
willing to pipe whatever ditch is on our property, relocate it, in compliance with the code. To deal with the adjoining property owner, that’s very scary. I guess I disagree with staff
on Item 12. We don’t want to pipe that ditch that’s not on the property. Item 16 were in compliance with and Item 17 I believe we’re in compliance with. We can obtain license agreements
and letters of consent but I cannot obtain an easement from Bureau of Reclamation. Shari were there any other outstanding issues?
Stiles: I believe we’re just going to get some clarification on some of the landscaping and fencing. Under general requirements it kind of reiterates the crease and lateral tiling
issue. I wandered if the applicants representative would reply to go ahead and bond for all of that that’s adjacent to the property, then go ahead and fence it off and see if you can
work something out with Mr. Husky. In the meantime I believe the properties in probate as far as I know right now --
Bowcutt: That’s my understanding.
Stiles: -- but there has been a lot of interest in development of that piece so I wouldn’t think it would be ended to distant future that that property’s going to be developed. Depending
on how long probate takes.
Bowcutt: Right because the probate is being contested by other family members at this time. That’s my understanding. Now Shari if the property were to be developed obviously that
property would be responsible for piping also. Then at that time would you be responsible for only 50 percent of the cost of tiling the ditch when the property (inaudible)?
Stiles: Our ordinance doesn’t address that at this time. We have had requests to kind of come up with a similar latecomer’s agreement for piping of these ditches. To date we haven’t
done that, but I think that’s reasonable to expect a sharing of the cost of piping that ditch.
Varriale: My name is Frank Varriale, I reside at 4702 Hillcrest View in Boise. I am the managing partner of Primeland Development Company. As I understand the question is would we
be willing to share in the cost of piping that ditch?
Bowcutt: (from audience) Bonds for the entire cost.
Varriale: Bond for the entire cost including that on Husky property?
Bowcutt: (from audience) That adjoins you.
Varriale: Go into some kind of latecomers’ fee, or latecomers’ return, I didn’t understand your response here.
Corrie: We don’t have a latecomers fee, what we would have to do is – the way I understand it is if that’s developed when they have to – they would their half of what it costs. You
would get your – well you wouldn’t get it back, you’d just have to be part of the bond to be taken off. That’s -- counselor is that – I’m not a bond expert here.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, the currently latecomer agreements are only used with regard to water and sewer line extensions. They are not used in connection with any
other infrastructure improvements that are a requirement of development. Does that mean they couldn’t be used for tiling of ditches, I suppose it’s possible but right now there’s no
mechanism for that. Even when that’s there, there is a requirement that it usually has a definitive time that it doesn’t go past. Typically it’s been ten years so that if a property
next door develops in year eleven, there’s no fee paid to the original developer. There are those sorts of perimeters on latecomer agreements. I think what the proposal is there is
as Ms. Bowcutt said, bond for the entire thing or tile what you can tile and bond for the rest of it. Then at such time as Mr. Husky’s property or whoever it belongs to, which is kind
of the issue on the probate, develops – that might be worked out with that person that wants to develop it then. If not then the bond is there to tile it.
Corrie: That way you would only be tiling on your property – (inaudible) hopefully they can do it ten years. If they don’t then –
Nichols: Mr. Mayor if I may interject here we can’t promise that because we don’t have latecomers on tiling and ditches at this point.
Corrie: No, that’s what I’m saying if they don’t do it then it’s theirs.
Varriale: Mr. Mayor, if I may, I’m still a little confused here. It appears to me that if you’re asking me to bond to tile the ditch on Mr. Husky’s property that the desire here is
to have that ditch tiled at some point. As being mentioned that property will probably be developed within the next ten years and whoever
develops that ground will tile it at that time. I don’t understand the concern. Someone please clarify that for me.
Corrie: Okay the ordinance states that you have to tile that whole thing, right now to and through. What Mrs. Bowcutt is saying is Mr. Husky is a hard one to deal with and technically
you can’t go on his property to do the tiling. You have the tile on your property you can tile that. That part that’s on his land is you can’t tile that or go onto it but you can bond
for that to – if that land is sold and they want to tile it that’s fine. You are still required by ordinance to tile that whole thing. Do you see what I’m saying? You can’t – you’re
caught in a Catch-22 here, unless Mr. Husky says okay you can come over here and tile this. Mrs. Bowcutt’s saying that chances of that are not very good. I would assume the way that
the Ordinance reads, unless you go up for a variance for that, you would have to tile your part and put a bond up to tile the other part in hopes it would happen in ten years that they
come by and do it. If they don’t, I don’t know what will happen in that case, that sounds to me like the attorney doesn’t know sure what would happen either, you can’t say what will
happen.
Bowcutt: Mr. Mayor, I think Mr. Varriale’s point is the intent of the ordinance is to make sure that when property’s developed that the ditches are piped for safety purposes. We will
be required to fence our perimeter, which would mean fencing that ditch out because it’s north of us on Mr. Husky’s property. When Mr. Husky’s property is developed which with the sewer
becoming available out there and we’ve already extended water out its frontage, it’s highly likely in the near future. Then they would be responsible for piping that ditch just as we’re
responsible for piping the crease in which traverses us. It comes on our property from our western boundary so we’re piping everything through us. I think he’s having a difficult time
dealing with why am I piping someone else’s ditch when the ditch isn’t on my property. I understand where you’re coming from sir, the way the ordinance wording is.
Corrie: Anyone else want to tackle that one a little better.
Bird: I’ve got a question for ordinance. How does the ordinance read that says that they go onto other people’s property? It says to and through their property, am I not right? If
it goes out for 100 feet or 200 feet onto somebody else’s property how is can our ordinance require them to tile that?
Anderson: It says adjacent to.
Bird: It doesn’t say adjacent to.
Bowcutt: Yes it does.
Corrie: Does it say “adjacent to,” Mr. Attorney?
Nichols: Councilman Bird, Mayor, members of the Council, I’m looking at the development agreement which has in it a condition which says, all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals
exclusive of natural waterways intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the parcel shall be tiled.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols – you can’t go on somebody else’s private property even though it’s adjacent to it but it’s not adjacent it’s over on their property. How would we do that? How
can we get by that?
Nichols: That’s the question Mr. Mayor and I’m not sure exactly how they can get it done –
Corrie: I would think that if Mr. Husky didn’t want to do anything about it he could say it’s my property don’t step on it. Nampa Meridian has an easement there.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I think the only way they probably could accomplish it is they would just buy the materials and then Nampa Meridian of their own accord would go in and
tile it. They wouldn’t need to have his permission to do that.
Corrie: Yes.
Nichols: How much are we talking about that’s actually on Mr. Husky’s property, how many feet?
Bowcutt: About 24, it exits our property and goes for about 24, runs on his property turns and then runs south on his property and then runs west.
Stiles: This portion right here, it over – the easement actually overlaps onto this property. There is a slight overlap of the easement on the north.
Bird: Where is it on your property there Becky? You’re telling me it runs on his property from lot 24 and goes west?
Bowcutt: Yes sir.
Bird: Then comes south?
Bowcutt: Yes sir.
Bird: On his property?
Bowcutt: Yes sir.
Bird: So in other words two thirds of it’s on his property and one third of it’s on yours?
Bowcutt: It starts on the eastern boundary, it comes in right here and we’ll be responsible for piping it through here. That runs all along here and in front of both of these existing
dwellings. It runs here and then when it comes to our western here it moves – it’s north and the ditch bank doesn’t touch our property but the easement overlaps it. It turns, goes
down, then it goes west and then I think it dumps into Five-Mile.
Bird: They’re building a path here but see they’re bringing it through here and then from here on over. It leaves their property.
Bowcutt: The problem is only this area here when it leaves our property and goes solely on Mr. Husky’s.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members.)
Bowcutt: Any other questions? I’m sorry I always have a problem.
Corrie: Yes you do. At least their different all (inaudible).
Bowcutt: If they were easy they wouldn’t need me.
De Weerd: You keep yourself employed.
Bowcutt: Yes I keep myself employed with problems.
Corrie: I don’t know whether a variance would be allowed would it? Mr. Nichols – this is land use; you can’t do a variance on that. You could do what Shari said, buy the pipe and
let Meridian Irrigation put it in.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council that is the practical solution. If Nampa Meridian were convinced that from a maintenance standpoint it boohoos them to tile that ditch and
they are supplied with the tile then I would think they would do it. They certainly have the right to do it. They are the easement holders, they can in their sole discretion determine
that it’s most appropriate for the maintenance of the ditch and for serving their customer’s that the ditch needs to be tiled then they can do it. That’s the practical solution. From
a legal standpoint I guess what I need to do I guess what I need to do is go back and look at the city ordinance with regard of this adjacent to language on the tiling requirement to
see where we’re at on that. With regard to this particular application it may be where the practical overcomes the legal side of things and that’s the way that you get it done.
Corrie: Like a tennis match, the balls in your court now.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I would like to just interject one thing. I really have a problem with – one developer has to do something on another developers property or pay for it that that is
going to enhance that property if and when they ever decided to develop it. I realize that there’s a lot of thinking around that developers walk around with a lot of money in their
pockets but they have to put a pencil to these things to make them work out. I just have a real hard problem. The man – after they leave their property and go through somebody else’s
property and that enhances that property that they have to pay for. I realize it’s in the – they signed the Development Agreement so I think – and it says in the Development Agreement
they will do it. I don’t think it’s fair to the developers and I don’t care which developer it is.
Corrie: Well it may be time to revisit the ordinance too.
Bird: I don’t think that ordinance says that. We’ll see what the attorney says.
Corrie: Becky, how critical is the timing on this? Can you allow a couple of weeks for this Final Plat?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members.)
Bowcutt: I think that would be fine sir because I guess I have some questions on this section 12-4-13 too because it talks about touch either or both sides of the area being subdivided,
ditches or laterals. Touches, I mean – I guess staff looks at it from the easement touches but is that talking about the ditch itself touching. If the ditch doesn’t touch you then
I don’t know, I guess I would like to have a legal opinion on that section. I think it’s worth it.
Corrie: If that be the case that the Council would like to have a little more time I would – and with the applicant’s agreement, put this till the 16th of January and get some questions
answered and put the ball back in our court again. Council, this is the decision that you are going to be able to make.
Bird: You want to continue, that’s your recommendation?
Corrie: It would be mine.
Bird: I’ll make one motion. Mr. Mayor I move that we table FP0025 the Final Plat approval for 54 buildings and 8 other lots on 19.08 acres on a R-4 zone for Bridgetower Subdivision
No. 1 by Primeland Development Co., till January 16, 2001.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to table Item No. 12 the Final Plat 00-025 on the Bridgetower Subdivision No. 1. Is their any further discussion? Hearing none, all those
in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 13. Appointment for Board Members and Alternates to Ada County Regional Public Transportation Authority and the Valley InterArea Transportation Authority:
Corrie: Item No. 13 is appointment for Board Members and Alternates to Ada County Regional Public Transportation Authority and the Valley InterArea Transportation Authority. On that
one, Council, I had made the recommendation – we have two on that committee now as Gary Smith and myself (sic).
Bird: You guys said you’d keep it didn’t you?
Corrie: Yes, we would – we would like to have the two other representatives. Shari was one and I needed one more yes. Somebody want to step up and hit the ball? Chances are the fourth
one won’t have to go.
Bird: I think that maybe we should have Bruce or Brad from City Engineer Department be another alternate.
Corrie: That’s fine with me.
Bird: Do you want to do that Mr. Freckleton?
Freckleton: Sure. Alternate right?
Corrie: Okay we’ll (inaudible) resolution number. We can do that tonight if you have a resolution number. Are you prepared for that Mr. Clerk? We can put the resolution number on
there and this would be by Tammy de Weerd. Resolution number to be given is the resolution by the Mayor and City Council, the City of Meridian setting to forth certain findings and
purpose, establishing appointments for the board members and alternates to the Ada County Regional Public Transportation Authority and the Valley InterArea Transportation Authority.
It would be four primary representatives. It would be Mayor Corrie, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, and Bruce Freckleton. Do I hear a motion on the resolution number? Whatever that will
be.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the Resolution regarding the representatives and the alternatives or alternate for the Ada County Regional Public Transportation Authority and
the Valley InterArea Transportation Authority with suspension of rules.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Resolution.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council I just noticed a typo on the Resolution itself. We’ll get you the correct one tomorrow but on the second page, the last two lines should
indicate as alternate representatives.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members.)
Corrie: 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; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Mr. Corrie or Mayor Corrie, I would like to go into an Executive Session, a short one for Idaho’s code 67-2347(a).
Corrie: All right (sic), is there a second to that motion?
De Weerd: Can we first have a short break?
Corrie: You can walk in there, just take your time getting there. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: I entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded, all those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Corrie: Nothing was discussed. It’s 9:20; I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn.
Anderson: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded, adjourn 9:20. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:20 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK