HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 01-16MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 16, 2001
The regularly scheduled City Council meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Council President Keith Bird at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 16, 2001.
Members present: Keith Bird, Cherie McCandless, Tammy de Weerd, Ron Anderson.
Members absent: Robert Corrie.
Others present: Gary Smith, Bill Nichols, Ken Bowers, Shari Stiles, Bill Gordon, Janice Smith, Will Berg.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Tammy de Weerd X Ron Anderson
X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird
X Mayor Robert Corrie
Bird: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I’ll open up the City Council meeting for January 16, 2001, and welcome everybody here. City Clerk, would you call roll, please.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Bird: Thank you. Council, on the agenda, we have one addition. It’ll be Item 17, the water, sewer and trash delinquency notices, which was in your box tonight. With your approval,
we’ll adopt the agenda.
De Weerd: Mr. President, I move that we adopt the agenda with the change noted.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of December 19, 2000, City Council Meeting:
B. Approve minutes of January 2, 2001, City Council Meeting:
C. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: 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:
D. Development Agreement: AZ 00-009 Request for annexation and zoning of 101.4 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision by Gem Star Properties, LLC – southwest corner
of Black Cat and Ustick Roads:
Bird: Consent Agenda what’s your pleasure?
Anderson: Mr. President, I would make a motion that we approve the Consent Agenda Items.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: It’s been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. Roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Department Reports:
A. Treasurer Department – Janice Smith:
1. 1999 / 2000 FY Audit Report:
Bird: Department Reports, Treasurer’s Department, and Janice Smith.
Smith: Thank you, Council members. For the agenda that I have tonight is to present the Council with our financial auditor report prepared by Balukoff, Lindstrom & Co., P.A. Kevin
Anderson is with the firm and is here to present it to the Council.
Bird: Thank you.
Kevin Anderson: Mr. President and members of the City Council, my name is Kevin Anderson; I’m with the firm of Balukoff, Lindstrom & Co. As Janice Smith stated, our firm performed
the audit of the financial statements for the City of Meridian for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2000. I believe most of you got a copy of that audit, and I just want to point
out a few highlights. I’m available and told Janice Smith that I would be available for come back for a workshop to go into more details. I’ll just go into a few highlights tonight
for just a few
minutes. The scope of our engagement was to do an audit of the financial statement. An objective of an audit is to provide reasonable insurance that the numbers, the amounts in the
financial statements are fairly stated in material respects. We also perform procedures to perform and be in compliance with laws and regulations that might have a material impact on
financial statements. It’s with our audit that we consider the City of Meridian’s internal control over financial reporting to determine what our audit procedures would be. The results
of the audit on Pages 1 and 2 show that the City received an unqualified opinion on the financial statements which in (inaudible) is the best you can get. So it’s – unqualified opinion,
the financial statements are fairly stated. We also issued a report on compliance with the laws and regulations as it relates to our audit. I’m not saying that we do a complete verification
of that. That would be virtually impossible for an audit firm to do, but to the extent that it would affect the financial statements, we have reviewed the compliance with the laws and
regulations, and that report is found on Page 33 on the financial statements. That report shows no instances of non-compliance, which we were able to determine during our audit. We
also issued a management letter on the City’s accounting, and I will say that I think from the last year when we also issued that management letter, the accounting system has improved
significantly. Many of those items were addressed and taken care of that we had noted in our previous audit. So I think there has been significant improvement there. We had no disagreements
with management applying any accounting principles, to the financial statements or to any transactions, and we had no difficulties during the audit. Some of the highlights of the audit
just to – expenditures were less than budgeted amounts, which is required by State Law. Your General Fund balance is at 10.7 million dollars at the end of September 30, 2000, the end
of the fiscal year 2000. Those were – I would consider those to be highlights of the audit. I’m available to come back and schedule that to come back and go into the audit in more
detail. If there are any questions, I’ll entertain those now.
Bird: Any questions?
Anderson: I just had one. Accounting practices, are the rules going to be changing in the next couple years for cities of our size?
Kevin Anderson: Yes. There is an accounting standards body that sets standards for governments. That standard-setting body is called the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, and
they issue statements that we follow in terms of reporting and accounting for municipalities. The GASB, as we call them, issued a statement that will affect how the financial statements
are presented. I’m not sure that it really affects how the accounting is done; cash is cash, checks are disbursements, and receipts are deposits. It will affect how the statements
look and some of the things that we are required to present there. That is effective, I’ll double-check in a couple of years, Councilman Anderson. It will change some of the way the
financial statements look. There’s also a requirement in that Standard that requires the City to determine values for –
you’ve got most of your fixed assets on, but what we call infrastructure. For the City of Meridian probably will include streetlights and most of your sewer lines, but I don’t think
(inaudible) on that. The reason I say that is because Ada County Highway District infrastructure is roads and bridges, so you can imagine what they have to go through in terms of what
costs and so forth in order to put that number or amount on the ballot sheet of the (inaudible). I don’t think that it will have a significant impact on that; although, we’re still
kind of working through that in trying to determine what the impact would be. We’re still in the learning process of that, too, so there could be some (inaudible) on that.
Bird: Kevin is it time – (inaudible) get programs to get started toward that area, spreadsheets or anything?
Kevin Anderson: I don’t know about that. I don’t think so yet. That’s going to be something we’ll need to work – I don’t think it will be something we’ll need to work on this fiscal
year. As far as next fiscal year, possibly. I don’t think so.
Bird: It’s going to impact our budget, we’ll need to get it for the next fiscal year.
Kevin Anderson: You know, I really think it’s more in how amounts are grouped. I don’t know how the program will need to change or whatever; it’s just how it’s presented in the financial
statements. I don’t think it will require a new software program like the one you just went through. It might require some spreadsheets or whatever (inaudible) but I don’t think it
will get – off the top of my head, require a significant budget outlay to do that. What I’ll do is between now and the workshop I’ll see what I can do to consider some of those things
that might be – give you a better answer then.
Bird: Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Anderson, and thanks again for the quick, nice report.
De Weerd: Mr. President, (inaudible) can work with (inaudible)
Bird: We’ll put it on the second Tuesday if that’s okay with Kevin. That’s our workshop day, the 13th. Thank you. Janice, do you have anything else? Thank you, Janice. Okay.
B. Fire Department – Ken Bowers:
1. Change Order No. 1 for Ten Mile Fire Station:
Bird: Fire Department.
Bowers: Good evening. Tonight I brought before you a Change Order on Fire Station No. 2, Ten Mile Road. I’ll give you a little bit of history on this. When KJ started working in
the area of our phase that we housed the equipment, they ran
into a lot of clay in the ground that they had not anticipated. They figured they were going to be able to hit good dirt going down a foot, foot and a half. As they got down there,
they got down into the clay. What happens is you have your regular dirt on top, and you have your clay between there. When we wash the trucks or when it rains, the water cannot penetrate
that clay. They had put a Change Order to start moving the dirt out of the fire station bay area. There was a little bit of miscommunication with KJ, the contractor. The owner had
told his foreman, Dale, that he had signed the Change Order. Dale thought in his own mind that the whole – everybody had signed it and proceeded in taking out the dirt and the clay
before we had authorized it. When I got the Change Order in the mail, I had a little heartburn there; my eyes got a little big. It came it at $20,200. I knew we were going to have
to have a meeting, and I knew the Mayor and you were going to have to approve that. So I got a hold of Ron, and I’ve gotten a hold of ZGA’s Tom Zabala, and told him that we needed to
have a meeting ASAP, as soon as possible. At that time Dale shut down the work of hauling out the dirt and bringing more dirt in. We had the meeting with Jack and discussed the miscommunications,
and do we have any other ways of doing this? $20,000 is quite a bit of money. Jack was mentioning that when you drive down a road that is under construction and you see this black,
plastic mesh pulled up on the side of the road. They could have put that mesh down between the dirt and the clay and it would have run the water off at that time. So Ron had mentioned
that since they had not pulled all the dirt up on the west side, let’s go ahead and have the fabric on the west side of the property. Jack, realizing that this was a miscommunication
with his company, in good faith, said that he would do that for no cost whatsoever. He would fix the west side of the property at no cost. So that brought the price down of the change
order to $16,000. At that time, Councilman Ron Anderson, myself and ZGA thought that was probably the best situation we could do at that time since the dirt and clay had already been
hauled out. Are there any questions from you guys on this?
Bird: Council, any questions for Bowers. If not we’ll –
Bowers: At this time I would like to – can you sign this acting Mayor Keith Bird? Do I have to wait till the Mayor – is he gone for awhile?
Bird: -- I can sign it.
Anderson: Mr. President, I would make a motion that we approve Change Order No. 1 for the Ten Mile Fire Station in the amount of $16,020 for KJ Corporation.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: Been moved and seconded for Proposal Request No. 2, Change Order No. 1 for the amount of $16,020. Any discussion? If not all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Mayor’s Department – Mayor Corrie:
1. Appointment of Parks and Recreation Commissioner:
Bird: The next one is the Appointment for the Parks and Recreation Commissioner, we’re missing one. I’ve got a letter from Mr. Mayor Corrie and he would like to extend the Appointment
of Mr. David Moe to a second term on the Parks and Recreation Commission Board for the Council’s approval. With that I would entertain a motion unless you – to approve or deny.
De Weerd: Mr. President, I move that we accept the Re-appointment of Mr. David Moe for another three-year term on the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Anderson: Second it.
Bird: Been moved and seconded to Appoint Mr. David Moe to the Parks and Recreation Commission for a three-year term. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: The next thing on the agenda for –
De Weerd: Mr. President, before you move on, David Moe just completed his second term as President of the Parks and Recreation Commission. I would hope that maybe the City, perhaps
you, could write him a letter thanking him for his work as President.
Bird: It will be taken care of. Why don’t you draft one and give it to Will, he can write it and we’ll all sign it. Give that to Will.
Item 6. Tabled from January 2, 2001: Swear in new Meridian City Police Officers:
Bird: Chief do you want to get your officers in here and I’ll – I have the honor of getting the swearing in.
Gordon: Acting Mayor Bird, City Council, I would like to present the three new Police Officers and ask Councilman Bird or acting Mayor Bird to swear them in. Could I have Cindy Robinson
up here please, Mark Taylor and Stacy Arnold?
Bird: Repeat after me.
Gordon: Evidently we were a little late in getting the notification to the Reserve Officers. I would like to have Kevin Field up here and Scott Coggins. These
gentlemen do all of the police work that the officers do except for they’re volunteers. We don’t have to pay these guys.
De Weerd: That makes you even more important.
Anderson: Kevin you would think you would learn after all of these years.
Field: It makes it even better.
Gordon: Kevin is also involved in our Explorer Troop too.
(Three Police Officers and two Reserve Police Officers sworn in.)
Item 7. Tabled from December 19, 2000: Ordinance No. : Sign Ordinance:
Bird: Item No. 7 is tabled from December 19, 2000, the Sign Ordinance. I don’t believe it’s ready yet.
Nichols: Mr. President, members of the Council, the Planning and Zoning Department’s been waiting on some graphics to be able to insert into the Ordinance for better explanation on
Signs. Those were anticipated to be here I think last Friday but they didn’t get in, in time. We’ll need to table this. I would recommend, the first meeting in February Shari?
Stiles: Yes, probably to be safe.
Bird: Council what’s your pleasure?
De Weerd: Mr. President, I move that we table the Sign Ordinance to February 6, 2001.
Anderson: Second.
Bird: Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 8. Tabled from January 2, 2001: 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:
Bird: Item 8, is the Ordinance for the Land Swap between Steiner Development and the City of Meridian at The Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 8 Subdivision and Cherry Lane Golf Course.
De Weerd: Mr. President, I would like to excuse myself from this.
Bird: You may. Council the agreement was just received by Cherry Lane Golf Recreation Incorporated. With your approval they would like to delay this, table this until the next meeting
which is the 23rd. Mr. Nichols do you have anything to add to that?
Nichols: No Mr. President, I think this doesn’t violate our new Ordinance. This would be okay on the 23rd. This is the kind of thing we can take up on the 23rd.
Anderson: Mr. President, I would make a motion then that we table this until – did you say this wouldn’t qualify for a land (inaudible)?
Bird: No, it would. It would be okay – we could (sic) do it the 23rd he said.
Anderson: I would make a motion that we table it until the Council meeting on January 23, 2001.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: Move and second the Ordinance for Land Swap between Steiner Development and City of Meridian to January 23, 2001. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSTAINED
Item 9. Tabled from January 2, 2001: 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:
Bird: Item 9, Tabled from January 2nd. 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 West Ustick Road and North Ten Mile Road. Staff do you have anything for this?
Stiles: Is Mr. Johnson or Mr. Jewel in the audience today? I think Council had some questions or maybe some clarifications they wanted. I have not been able to contact Mr. Jewel but
we’ll make sure that they know either Mr. Johnson or Mr. Jewel needs to be in attendance at the next meeting on the 6th.
Bird: Do I take it, then, that you want to table it until the first meeting –
Stiles: The 6th.
Bird: -- that would be tabled to February the 6th?
Stiles: Yes, please.
Bird: Is that what you’re recommending, Shari?
Stiles: Yes.
De Weerd: Mr. President, I move we table the request by Glenn Johnson Homes for a Variance No. 00-021 to February 6, 2001.
Bird: Do I hear a second?
McCandless: Second.
Bird: Been moved and seconded that we table the variance for a one-year extension for Glenn Johnson Homes at Hartford Subdivision to February 6, 2001. Any discussion? Hearing none,
all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 10. Tabled from January 2, 2001: 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 No. 2 – south of E. Ustick Road between N. Locust Grove Road and Wingate Lane:
Bird: Item No. 10 is tabled from January 2nd. 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 No. 2 – south of East Ustick Road between North Locust Grove Road and Wingate Lane. Staff?
Stiles: Mr. President, Council, I don’t know if anyone is here from Ada County Highway District to address this issue or if the applicant has anyone here. We did request Ada County
Highway District to be in attendance. They indicated at a meeting that we had with them last week that they would be here. There’s pretty significant issues dealing with Wingate Lane
that we felt that they needed to address. If they’re not here I don’t know that we can continue. We could go ahead with some of the other items that we’ve met on. Do you have the
comments from staff dated September 28, 2000?
Bird: Could you refresh us on the comments from staff on the 28th so they can be heard?
Stiles: I’ll just go over the items that we had met about. We did meet with the applicant and their engineer and there are a few items that remain to be decided. The first item would
be Item 9, on our memo dated September 28, 2000. After discussion with Bill Nichols, Legal Counsel, we agreed that the 15-foot wide easement would be what needs to be shown on the plat.
It was put out that we couldn’t require anything in addition to that 15-foot existing easement that is the private lane easement for Wingate Lane. On Item 9, the 20-foot wide easement
would be changed to 15-feet and the last sentence would be deleted. Item 12, on our comments has been fixed on the new plat that’s been submitted. Item 13, is regarding an easement
for public utilities, drainage and irrigation. We had asked for an additional easement that would be along these lots and also along the Wingate Lane lots. As there is an existing
easement for the Wingate Lane here, they would need to provide an additional easement beyond that for utilities, irrigation and drainage. Their response was that they would work out
a solution with the Public Works Department that we would like that item to remain as is except it should reference lot 20, block 2 and 15-foot wide easement in lieu of the 20-foot wide
easement. I know this isn’t making any sense to you if you don’t have the comments. I will get a copy to Bill so he can know what’s going on. On Item 15, we asked for detailed fencing
and gate plans. They had submitted previously some fencing and gate plans. Those were not approved. The irrigation plans, they indicate that this was done as part of a prior approval.
The irrigation plans were subject to approval by downstream water users and that can be coordinated through the Public Works Department. I still need details on the fencing and gate.
Part of the Wingate Lane discussion has a lot to do with that fencing and gate plan. Item 19, the third sentence may be deleted as it was talking about the 20-foot wide easement. All
headgate/cleanout structures are to be located outside of the 15-foot wide easement not the 20-foot wide easement. Item 20, this is probably the biggest issue remaining on this subdivision.
Wingate Lane has always been an item of contention since the beginning of this project. Wingate Lane runs north and south from Ustick Road to – there are two five-acre parcels that
are still in the County. I’ll go back to the arial so you can see it a little better. This property is currently still in the County, this property is in the County it is owned by
Helen and Dale Sharp. Packard Acres No. 1 Subdivision is east of Wingate Lane. All of this area is where Packard Acres Subdivision No. 2 is proposed. As part of the final approval
of the Development Agreement and the Preliminary Plat, Ada County Highway Districts' comments in their Conditions of Approval were that there would be a public road in this location
linking Packard Acres No. 1 and Packard Acres No. 2. The way that Ada County Highway District comments read, was that there would be a gate constructed on the east and west sides of
Wingate Lane across this public road. I think I still need to go back the other one again, sorry, this public road here. What was proposed was there would be a gate here and a gate
on the other side of that 15-foot wide easement. There would, in essence, be a permanent fence constructed on each side of that 15-foot lane to prevent anyone in this subdivision or
the public in general from accessing Wingate Lane and using it to access Ustick Road. Ada
County Highway District, in their Conditions of Approval, said the applicant is not to construct a 20-foot wide portion of East Challis Street at the east boundary. He (sic) is to deposit
money to complete construction of East Challis Street and remove the gates when and if the two five-acre parcels to the south are developed. Which was when at least this portion of
Wingate Lane could be vacated. The City put a condition that a 20-foot wide gate be constructed at the easement line of Wingate Lane that allows Emergency Fire Department access only
with appropriate signage. ACHD also had a condition of approval to install gates and allow the passage of pedestrians and bicycles across the un-constructed portion to East Challis
Street. The homeowners along Wingate Lane have requested that all access to Wingate Lane be prohibited. This is one of the major items that we are at an impasse and it needs to be
decided through the Ada County Highway District and the Council, which of those conflicting requirements will stand. The original conditions of approval of this project required a bike
path to be located along the South Slough. The South Slough is designated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a multiple use pathway. Staff has agreed to not require the pathway
but has asked that they pave over the sewer access road that will be constructed along the City’s trunk line. Item No. 23, staff had asked, after consulting with our Attorney that the
developer have their attorney drop a release of Dominant Parcel Interest in the Private Lane Easement and record it prior to signature on the Final Plat. Also provide a copy of the
recorded deed restriction to prohibit access to Wingate Lane and forbid gates or removal of permanent fencing on these lots prior to planning for building permits. Fencing shall be
set at the western boundary of the 15-foot easement for Wingate Lane. This requirement as staff asked for, due to the fact that some of these lots, particularly probably this lot due
to the size of that lot, it would not be unreasonable to think that the person buying that property would love to come down Wingate Lane. Perhaps have a gate, and park his RV in the
back. That was an attempt to have all of these lots give up their right to access to that lane until such time it could be vacated. Those are the major items and the remaining items
that need to be determined – still not seeing anyone from Ada County Highway District. Do you have any questions of me?
Bird: Council any questions for Shari?
Anderson: Mr. President, help me to understand the gate stuff and the issue there on Item 20, with Wingate Lane so that I get this straight in my mind. Wingate Lane will have a 15-foot
easement; is that correct?
Stiles: Yes.
Anderson: Wingate Lane comes south from Ustick Road. It services a couple of five-acre parcels that are going to be south of this subdivision? Is that correct?
Stiles: Yes, those plus everything north to Ustick Road. All of these lots all access Wingate Lane as their only access.
Anderson: The Ada County Highway District is asking for a gate to go across Challis both to the east and west of Wingate? The City of Meridian wants access through there for the Fire
Department and pedestrians?
Stiles: I believe Ada County Highway District is not aware of how their condition actually read. We would like to have access for pedestrians and bicycles and agree with Ada County
Highway District on that point but realize the neighbors did not want that.
Anderson: Wingate’s a gravel road is that correct?
Stiles: Yes.
Anderson: These homeowners that are south of where Challis crosses it, it’s their desire to continue to access their homes down this gravel road on Wingate? They don’t want to go through
a paved subdivision to get to their parcels is that what I’m understanding?
Stiles: Correct.
Anderson: That’s the purpose of the gates?
Stiles: Yes. Ada County Highway District, the way their report read, was that they would not construct that 15-foot wide portion of Challis. They would put up a deposit to construct
it in the future and that on the east and west sides of the un-constructed portion they would put up these gates. Now the Highway District is telling us that they really meant to put
two gates on Wingate Lane on the north and south boundaries of Challis so that these property owners back here would have to go through two sets of gates to get to their house.
Anderson: Or come through the paved subdivision and then just go through one gate.
Stiles: And do away with the gates.
Anderson: I think I’m understanding.
Stiles: The neighbors are wanting to know what the legal precedents is or what allows Ada County Highway District to basically condemn a portion of their private lane, their existing
easement and to allow construction of gates across that lane.
Bird: Any other questions for staff?
Anderson: This will just be a question of the attorney and maybe he doesn’t know the answer to this. I’ve always understood property rights; laws to say that you have to provide access
to the property. My question is, if that was the case and they put a gate on the north side of this Challis Drive and blocked off Wingate, the people that own property to the south,
if they still had access to their properties through this Challis Drive and through that subdivision? Doesn’t’ that still fulfill the requirements of the law? You’re not blocking them
off from access to their property you’re just forcing them to go a different way then what they want to go apparently.
Nichols: Councilmen Anderson, members of the Council, as a general proposition what you’ve stated is correct. The difference though here, is that in this case the Sharp’s have a 15-foot
easement that’s attached if you will to their property that runs all the way from Ustick Road to their property boundary. If I recall correctly there’s even, I think kind of a joint
maintenance thing with the property owners in terms of how they’re going to share costs of road and so on. To cut of their access to Ustick Road on that easement, in effect takes away
a part of the easement that goes along with their land. I don’t think that’s – if that’s what ACHD thinks they want to do, it doesn’t, it wouldn’t be what my advice would be but that’s
a different issue as far as this Council goes. Staff’s recommendation is essentially that you block off vehicular access to Wingate Lane and allow these cars to access the Sharp’s property
only on Wingate but still have some perhaps pedestrians on this 15-foot easement. The other thing is where this Packard Subdivision is, that property is a party or a piece of the original
property to which this 15-foot easement attached. That property has deeded access if you will, to Wingate Lane. That’s for the purpose of going up and down so we’re asking the developer
or requiring the developer to give up part of that. By my way of thinking they would rather go through their subdivision anyway, the streets are going to be better. I think there’s
– it would seem to me putting a gate on the north and the south side of Challis, interferes with the easement and creates the – it’s the vehicle and open the gate, shut the gate, open
the next gate and shut that gate. Or install one of those electric ones with the garage door opener type deal and I don’t think that’s right under these circumstances.
Anderson: That was one of my other questions. Are we talking about some elaborate gate system that has automatic openings or are we talking about a manual chainlink fence? Get out
and shove the gates out of the way type of deal or does it even specify?
Nichols: Looks like Mr. Sale is here so perhaps he can take off his coat, stay awhile and enlighten us on the whole issue.
De Weerd: Your timing is always impeccable.
Bird: Somebody forgot to tell you we start at 6:30 now didn’t they?
Sale: Perhaps they did and I forgot.
Bird: Sorry Larry.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Anderson: Mr. President, maybe we could brief Larry I guess on kind of where we were. We were getting comments from staff and I was seeking clarification on the gates. Staff had indicated
that the original request was that there would be gates on Challis Drive to the ease and west of Wingate. Now they’re not sure, they’re thinking that Ada County Highway District is
now asking for gates on Wingate. We’re kind of confused as far as where the gates are and what the legal requirements would be to provide access to the property (inaudible) of Challis.
That’s kind of where we’re at, at this point.
Sale: Mr. Anderson did you ever have one of those bad dreams that you kept having and it wouldn’t go away?
Anderson: Yes, I’ve had a couple of those.
De Weerd: I’m sure those residents have.
Bird: Would you state your name Mr. Sales?
Sale: My name is Larry Sale, I’m Development Services Supervisor for Ada County Highway District. I’m semi-pleased to be here with the Council tonight. This has been and obviously
still is a real thorny issue. I went back through the Commission minutes to make sure that we hadn’t said it wrong, but we didn’t say it wrong. After listening, at that time if you
remember this was October of 1995. At that time there was a lot of testimony from the neighbors about their desire and their need to keep Wingate Lane open. Now how much of that testimony
was actually related to Wingate Lane and how much of it was just related to opposing the subdivision, I don’t know. At any rate, after discussing this subdivision for two or three meetings,
the Commissioners made a motion to find that there was unique and compelling circumstances and that sometimes pollicies had to be set aside to or interpreted differently to accommodate
the public good. They made a motion to require the developer of Packard Subdivisions to dedicate right-of-way for what’s the name of the street, Challis across Wingate Lane but to not
construct it, to pave it up to each side of the Wingate Lane easement and to gate the public right-of-way. That is an action that’s unique in Ada County with one exception. That is
there’s a public street named Preece Drive or Preece Street that runs east and west from Milwaukee to Cole. It used to run that lane. When the Home Depot was approved in Boise, because
of the great difference in land use between the commercial and Mulda family on the west side of a certain line, and an old existing single-family
neighborhood on the east side of that line. Our Commissioners vacated a one-foot strip of Preece Drive and it has a gate in it. The gate is only for emergency access so that the Fire
Department and Emergency vehicles can get through it because nobody else has access to that gate. This, I guess was a like situation. Quite frankly I hoped and still hope that the situation
would resolve itself and I guess it partially has. At least one of the two parcels south of Challis has been sold. The Commission’s action went on to say that this was a temporary
situation, that the developer would be required to deposit the cost of removing the gates and completing Challis Street across this Wingate Lane at the time the two parcels to the south
were developed. That’s the way it is. It probably isn’t a – if it were a permanent decision I would feel badly about it. I think under the six circumstances that it was something
the Commissioner’s obviously felt they should do. It does have a sunset, it isn’t a permanent situation and when the other parcel to the south develops then the gates will be removed.
It is possible to go back and revisit the issue. If the neighbors in the are have changed their opinions about the need for the complete Wingate Lane, I suspect the Commissioner’s
would change that decision. I’m here to offer that as a possibility of the City if you would help me make that request we would take it back to the Commissioners and revisit that decision.
Any questions?
Bird: Questions, Council?
Anderson: I guess it’s not really a question as much as it is a comment. It would seem like building two streets and leaving a 15-foot section of dirt in the middle of it doesn’t seem
to make rhyme or reason to me. When you’ve got the equipment there, you’ve got the asphalt spreader, you’ve go the concrete trucks, you’ve got your curb machine your set up there doing
curb. It would make more sense to me to go ahead, even if you wanted to allow to continue, that easement of Wingate to go ahead to pave it, put the curbs and the sidewalks in that you
could still put in your gates. Those could be removed fairly easily but it seems like a lot of additional expense to come back after the fact to put in 15 feet of asphalt and curb and
gutter and sidewalk. They could still have their access come in from Ustick Road, they would just drive over, however wide road that is of asphalt and go on down their lane. Then it
makes it easy in the future to make that a third string.
Sale: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Anderson, you’re absolutely correct. As everyone in the room knows, there was some testimony at the time that indicated that the Wingate Lane easement might (sic)
be superior to a public road. Since that testimony, we’ve received documentation that convinces us that it is not superior to a public road, it is just another easement on private land.
The owner of the public land dedicates right-of-way over the easement then the right-of-way takes precedent. At that time, there was a lot of -- there was a great deal of testimony
opposing to the extension of what is now Challis. The Commissioner’s didn’t want to give up the ultimate ability to make the connection but they felt in view of the overwhelming neighborhood
testimony, they needed to listen to that.
De Weerd: Mr. President, when they do open that are they going to then gate Wingate to the north of East Challis to restrict the access out onto that gravel road?
Sale: Mr. President, Ms. De Weerd that wouldn’t be necessary we would just treat this as another driveway. It wouldn’t have enough traffic on it to warrant any special safety requirements.
We would probably require that it be paved back to the right-of-way line so that they wouldn’t track mud and gravel onto the pavement.
De Weerd: Yes, but that’s going to poor quite a bit of traffic out onto Wingate then to Ustick. If you’ve ever driven in any of those subdivisions I would look for that access myself.
Sale: To be honest, I have not driven Wingate Lane since that day. I haven’t gone down there looking for it. It doesn’t matter to us if there’s a concern about traffic using Wingate
Lane it can be gated. It’s just another driveway as far as we’re concerned. The owner of that driveway can gate it, the developer can gate it, and you or the Highway District could
require it to be gated that’s a simple matter.
Anderson: I would imagine those properties if they didn’t need the access would vacate that and then that property could be used by the homeowners that bought that wouldn’t they? (Inaudible)
vacated easement.
Nichols: Councilmen Anderson that would be a pretty major chore I would think because all of those parties that have to – it wouldn’t be like a vacation of a public easement or where
you simply petition the City. You have to have all the parties to whom the easement runs would have to release the easement, extinguish it.
Anderson: Not likely to happen.
Bird: Mr. Sales, as I understand it right now, the Commission is saying bring Challis in there and then gate east and west sides so you have no access on Wingate at all?
Sale: Mr. President, that’s correct.
De Weerd: Was that also the recommendation of our staff, Shari?
Stiles: In lieu of any alternative to come forward, yes.
Anderson: Maybe we could hear from (inaudible), his point of view. Just the whole picture I guess.
De Weerd: And the residents.
Bird: Yes, we can. Do you have any other questions for Mr. Sale?
Anderson: Not right now.
Sale: If you would like I would read into the record the action of the –
Bird: Would you please?
Sale: This was the concluding discussion of the discussion of Packard Subdivision No. 2 on October 18, 1994. Commissioner here we’re moved to accept staff recommendations but to alter
it whereby the developer has the opportunity to cross Wingate Lane with the public right-of-way. The portion crossing Wingate Lane will remain gravel, the portions east and west will
be gated in a manner which will allow pedestrian access and that at the time the Rickord and Sharp parcels developed, the public right-of-way will be open and will provide connectivity
between the two neighborhoods. This motion is made because of the unique and compelling circumstance and requires a little different approach to the policies. To implement this motion,
the developer will be required to dedicate the right-of-way, will not construct the roadway, would deposit the cost of constructing the roadway into the Road Trust Fund. Further that
the developer’s required to provide an easement physical connection from the Rickord property to the public road system and the subsequent lot purchasers of the subdivision not be responsible
for the maintenance of Wingate lane. In as much as they will not have access to it. Commissioner East Lay seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Bird: Thank you Mr. Sale. Okay, Represent?
De Weerd: You were early and under our old schedule.
Bird: Would you please state your name?
Tealey: Mr. President and members of the Council, my name is Pat Tealey, office address 2501 Bogus Basin Road. I’m here representing the applicant. The applicant is also here for
any input that he can offer on this issue. I’m glad Larry showed up, I was going to ask for at the worst, another deferment (inaudible) which we all don’t want to do. I think you all
have been here from the beginning of this and stayed at this. This actually started in 1994 and here we are six years later, still with the same basic issue, what to do with Wingate
Lane. It hasn’t gone away, won’t go away and shouldn’t go away, there are people with – the Sharp’s definitely do have an access easement across the 15 feet as being platted as part
of Packard Acres No. 2. This is an easement only there is no ownership involved in this by any other parties. The parties to this easement
range all the way from Ustick down to the Sharp’s parcel. They all own their adjoining land in feet. The access is simply that an easement, there is no ownership involved in this at
all. I think that was one of the major issues from the start that the City and the Highway District didn’t know this. They thought each, that there was natural ownership in the land
itself, the 15 feet so there are other rights perceived by this misunderstanding. Mr. Nichols has reviewed the easement and in our staff meeting has basically indicated that the easement
is in fact only for access purposes. It is not exclusive; in other words that 15-foot strip can only be used for access. There are other easements that can be granted pertinent to
this land. The access cannot be impeded, that’s the only thing that really goes with the easement. In other words we can’t block their access to their parcel. As stated there were
at the time, two five-acre parcels north of what is going to be platted as Challis Street. The Rickord parcel, one of the five-acre parcels where the cursor is right now has been bought
by the developers of Packard Acres, the only people that access Wingate Lane. South of what would be Challis would be the Sharp’s parcel where the cursor is right now. The people to
the north of the platted subdivision really aren’t affected by anything we’re doing down in this area of Wingate Lane. We are not affecting their access from Ustick Road. We aren’t
doing anything north of our property line, which is about south of where that cursor is. I forget which parcel it is. From here north this parcel here can access (inaudible) and all
of these parcels over here along Wingate Lane can access from Ustick Road and won’t be impeded by anything that we’re doing in Packard Acres No. 2. The issue is boiling down to the
access to the Sharp parcel. The developer of course would like to see no gates on Challis, which I think is the proper solution, however the powers that be have offered other solutions
to it. The solutions that you hear about the gates I believe are only there to address the neighbors concern, the Sharp’s concern. Certainly the public would be better served by a
connected street in that area, both as a safety issue and an access issue. There is a newly constructed school I think which you can see the pad over there. The way the neighbors want
it, there will be no pedestrian or vehicle access from the west of the cursor to that school over there. It seems natural that they ought to be able to walk the sidewalks and bike along
the streets to get to that school and to other – just their neighbors. This is a neighborhood that we’re actually building out there and we’re throwing a barrier up between these two
neighborhoods. Basically, if you want to go to Eagle Road, you have to head west a half mile, north a half mile and east a mile to get over to Eagle road. You’re pretty good with that
cursor Shari. As stated, I think the solution of the gates was there to address the Sharps’ issue. If that’s a solution that comes down the developer will live with it. We don’t think
it’s a good solution, I don’t think you think it’s a good solution and I believe that if the Highway District were to address this again that you wouldn’t come up with the same solution
once the issue has been understood. However you must respect the public input and if the Sharp’s carry enough weight to get those gates built and the other neighbors, we’re not just
saying just the Sharp’s. They’re the only ones that really access this thing though, then that has to be respected and we will build the gates. You just have to tell us what kind.
Do we want to build
physical barriers there where no access across that 15-foot area is allowed which is what the City of Meridian’s solution is or do we want to allow pedestrian and bicycle access across
that area which is the ACHD’s solution? I believe that’s really the only two issues. Stated again, I don’t believe those gates would be there in any normal solution, this is something
out of the ordinary. As far as the other conditions that were put on the plat, we have had talks with staff; we don’t have any problems with what they’re asking for. We have a couple
of other conversations to have with the Public Works Department about the sewer access road and sewer easement. I believe that can be handled by staff, we work with them they work with
us. All references to the 20-foot easement for Wingate Lane should be reduced to the 15, which is the existing. We have had talks with staff and with the Fire Department as far as
what they want. I believe we can work out Item No. 23, which states that the attorney draws up the release of (inaudible), a parcel interest. I believe the attorney for the applicant
and Mr. Nichols the City Attorney, can work that out against themselves. Are there any questions I would be glad to answer?
Bird: Council, any questions?
Anderson: This is Packard Estates No. 2. No. 1, where will they gain their access how will you get into that?
Tealey: From Hickory.
Anderson: Which is? Is that on the map there?
Tealey: You just see the end of it right here.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members.)
Anderson: My other question would be then as developers, you folks have met with the Sharp’s and weren’t able to work out any details on them using the subdivision roads to gain access
to your property? Has that been explored or that’s not an acceptable solution to them?
Tealey: I believe the answer is it’s not an acceptable solution to them. They have traditionally come down from Ustick and used Wingate Lane and they want to do that in the future.
There is a road in Packard Acres No. 1 that dead ends into their property a little bit further – about where the end of the picture is there’s a road that dead ends into the Sharp parcel
from Packard Acres No. 1. There’s also Challis, which will go across the top there, which they can get back down Wingate Lane. They choose not to use those paved public access roads
they choose to use Wingate Lane as their access. They have the easement to do it so we’re not fighting that at all, never have fought it it’s just the solution is just not, at this
time a good solution.
Bird: Mr. Tealey, if we allow gates or no gates across there and stuff what do you think that 90 percent of the traffic is going to go to get out? They’re going to come right up and
go up Wingate Lane to the north to get to Ustick.
Tealey: I’ll bet you there’ll be a few that adventure up there and want to go out there the first few times. That is a dusty road, it is bad access to Ustick. The entrance is very
dangerous actually at that intersection and certainly, I guess my solution to that problem would be, again excuse me for going to the picture again.
De Weerd: Just grab the microphone Mr. Tealey.
Tealey: My solution to the problem would be to gate it right here. The Sharp parcel could access out Challis this way and this way. They could come into this street that we’re platting
as part of Packard Acres No. 1. Get out this way and get out this way. These people here would still guarantee their access and the traffic that would go north of Ustick would be stopped
by that gate right there. As long as we’re talking about gates that would be my solution.
Bird: The only problem is the Sharp’s and that other property which you guys have already purchased I understand, have an easement coming down Wingate. Wingate no way is going to be
able to take any more traffic than it already is. I disagree with you, I think that the people in that subdivision are (sic) going to go up Wingate a lot more than they’re going to
come out to Fairview or any place else coming through their subdivision, if that’s an access to get out to. The thing Mr. Tealey, that I see is maybe, and Wingate is not capable of
handling anymore traffic than it already is. I don’t know whether it’s considered a public road or it’s a private lane, as I understand. I don’t know if it’s even considered to be
that.
Tealey: I don’t even believe it to be a private lane there’s an access easement.
Bird: It’s an access easement that goes all the way down to Sharp’s property. It’s a real problem.
Tealey: It’s an odd situation but I don’t believe it’s without parallel in Ada County. Certainly there are situations like this that arise. I agree there would be extra traffic down
there and something has to be done to stop that traffic is what that is. My solution would be to put the gate at the north end of our property. It doesn’t inhibit the access for anybody
that uses Wingate Lane to the north of the subdivision. It would hinder the Sharp’s access if they were to come down Ustick, however they would have to go through a gate. They would
be routed with public access from two different sources though. It is an odd situation and I think that’s where the solution was born on it. We sat here from meeting after meeting
after meeting trying to hammer this out and this is what came out of it. If the gates are what have to be fine we’ll do it you just tell us what kind of gate you want there. I don’t
think again though, the developer, myself, and I even think
the Highway District and the City don’t think that’s a good solution because it just doesn’t make sense to gate a public road. However in this situation it may make the only sense that
we can get out of this.
Bird: Any other questions?
Anderson: I have none.
Bird: Thank you Mr. Tealey. Council any questions of anybody here before we go forward, of staff or Mr. Sales?
Anderson: I have none.
De Weerd: Not at this point.
Bird: Council discussion?
Anderson: I know this isn’t a public hearing but are the Sharp’s here? Would it be appropriate to hear their views on this particular issue since we’re talking about access to their
property?
Nichols: Councilmen Anderson, members of the Council there’s not prohibition against hearing from them. There’s nothing in the Ordinances or statues that says that you can’t ask them
something or have them state their position.
Bird: With Council permission? Is everybody agreeable? Would Mr. and Mrs. Sharp like to give you a couple free minutes here?
Helen Sharp: I’m Helen Sharp, I of course am the one that lives on the end of the lane. To a few staff, thank you for wanting to listen to us I think it’s only fair. I find the thing
that’s very, very interesting when they asked did you have meetings with the members of the lane? No, the only one we met was Craig after he bought it and told us what was going to
be done. The meetings with Ada County Highway was more than two, my husband and I went to several meetings and it was stated, they had no jurisdiction over a private lane. If you will
contact Ada County they will tell you it is a private lane and there is to be no more access. I have been down to the records, I have been to Planning and Zoning, and I’ve been to all
of them. They have it flagged, there will be no more on Wingate Lane as it’s a private lane. A private lane constitutes no more than four, which means our Ada County is illegal because
they granted building permits on more than four acres. As you can tell I’m very disturbed and I’m having a real problem. We’ve been there since 1968, and now they’re going to say because
of public we should allow them to cut us off so that we haven’t got the access to Wingate Lane. If you’re going to bring the garbage trucks down -- our friends coming down Wingate to
see us they’re going to have to go through the subdivision. Can you imagine what a nice turn that’s going to be coming from their subdivision on
Wingate Lane? Do you who live in a subdivision, would you like to have more traffic through your subdivision? The words we’re getting out there is no. As far as access into that new
school which is a lovely building, they can’t come in that way they have to go around the front so they would have to revamp that. My question to you, I could go on for a long time,
has this really been completely pursued? I’m sure that the minutes that Shari has as to the gates on the east and the west is a little different than what he’s saying on the north and
the south because I was at the meeting when it said no, we have no jurisdiction on a private lane. That is a private lane. Thank you.
Bird: Thank you, Council? Council Mr. Sharp would like to speak, agreeable?
Anderson: Sure.
Dale Sharp: I’m Dale Sharp and I live on Wingate Lane. They say we’re the only ones concerned but I think in our letters to the – has been made part of the meetings previously that
all of the neighbors are very much concerned of any additional traffic whether it be foot traffic or bicycle traffic. People come down there and they walk their dogs down there and
they won’t move aside for us to get through. It’s like we have a right to be there, we can exercise on this lane. We’re not the exercise for the subdivisions there. They should use
their own subdivision for that purpose. As far as access, we do have that Private Road Agreement. It’s been in effect since 1913 and it very clearly states that it is a Private Road
Agreement. As such it should be – we should adhere to that. The Ada County Planning and Zoning did say that there would be no more access off of Wingate Lane, four or more houses.
The developer says well it’s not that it’s another sort of enterprise but it is houses. Speaking for the neighbors, they are very much concerned. Thank you.
Bird: Thank you. Council what’s your pleasure?
McCandless: Mr. President, am I to understand that this has been more or less of a private road into the Shari’s residence?
Bird: It’s a private lane.
Helen Sharp: Yes, it’s a private lane, (inaudible) access from Ustick. Right now it’s our only access to our property, (inaudible) the original agreement for this piece of property
because of the first one on the front coming right off Ustick. They made the agreement and I’m sure they owned all of that property because we were the only two houses on that road.
In order for us to get down there the agreement was made by these other (inaudible) that we would have access to it. I think another problem too is when people buy that land –
Bird: Ma’am – Mrs. Sharp.
McCandless: Thank you.
Bird: Mr. Nichols is that, as she stated a private road?
Nichols: President Bird, I think it’s simply an access easement. To boil this down here, the issue before the Council’s whether to grant Final Plat approval and if so with what conditions.
You have before you a report from your staff dated September 28, which has – Shari’s gone through and made some corrections, some notations, updated that staff report. That staff report
includes a condition if you will, that Wingate Lane be gated off on the east side and the west side of that lane. Mr. Sale has been here to clarify the issue and read into the record
the minutes from the Ada County Highway District meeting as which that’s the same thing as said with the exception of the allowance of pedestrian access. I guess what I’m saying to
you is, we do not have an issue other than the applicant saying maybe we could gate someplace else and so forth. As far your staff, ACHD, and so on it’s a gate on both sides of Wingate
Lane where it crosses Challis. Leave it unimproved, the developer makes his deposit and at some point in time it’s likely the Sharp property will be developable. They’ll want to develop
it or their successors or somebody they sell to. At that time this issue goes away. Right now, what you have before you is your recommendation, your staff with those notations that
she’s made. I guess what I’m telling you is we can get lost in the issue of what is Wingate Lane and try to divine what -- it would take somebody a tremendous vision in 1913 to see
what was happening out there now. You have to make the best soup with the ingredients you have now and I think that’s where you are.
Bird: Council, we have allowed the Sharp’s to speak and the developer is here if it would be with your approval he would like to speak for a short period. Like two or three minutes.
Groves: Mr. Bird, Council members, thank you very much. My name is Craig Groves, I am one of the managing members for Packard Estates Development. Unfortunately, I wasn’t at these
Public Hearings back in 1994 and if I were I probably wouldn’t be in this position here today. We acquired an ownership interest in this project back in July of 1999. We have met with
Mr. and Mrs. Sharp just a couple of times and met with some of the other neighbors out on site. Really, we’re at your guidance here. Whatever you guys decide is appropriate, you know
we’ll live with that. I would like to make just two points. The first point is that as a property owner, developer of the project, we are giving up a tremendous amount of our rights.
One of the conditions of the Preliminary Plat approval is that you’re asking us to basically give up our dominant ownership interest in Wingate Lane on those properties that adjoin
there forever. We’re agreeing that we will draft a document to make it part of the plat, make it part of the covenance that will prohibit any access onto Wingate Lane. We certainly
agree with that but the other condition of giving up that 15 feet forever is a big issue. We can work through that issue also. The next issue that we have is that
in our meeting with Mr. and Mrs. Sharp and the other owners, they’ve been very, very adamant that they want absolutely a solid locked gate going east and west across Challis. That’s
really not our understanding of the development conditions of approval, what the Ada County Highway District adopted and what the City of Meridian adopted. It’s very clear that they
will allow pedestrian and bicycle access across there through those gates. For that reason, and I would like to see the Council do today is give us our Final Plat approval and defer
the rest of the question back to the Highway District as far as the gate and the types of gate issue. Thank you.
Bird: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Groves?
Anderson: I have none.
Bird: Council, I believe we’ve heard from everybody that’s necessary, what’s your pleasure?
Anderson: I just have one more question for Shari about the gate. Are we in agreement with Ada County Highway District about the type of gate and the type of access that we’re talking
about? Is it pedestrian and bicycle is that what the City of Meridian’s wanting too?
Stiles: I believe that we would want to have pedestrian and bicycle access through there so the children can get to the Elementary School. It is the Sharp’s desire that there be absolutely
no access to it.
Anderson: Is there a question – are we requesting emergency access for Fire Department too or is that not an issue?
Stiles: Yes, then we would need to have Fire Department, emergency access.
Bird: Any other questions Council? Discussion? I entertain a motion.
Anderson: Mr. President, I guess in light of all of the testimony we’ve heard I agree with the City Attorney. This has already been through Public Hearings at Planning and Zoning and
at the Ada County Highway District. At this time I’m not sure that we’re going to resolve the Sharp’s issue with the road so both the developer and the City are in agreement with a
solution how this can still get done. I don’t see any reason to deny the Final Plat at this point. The only remaining issue seems to be the type of gating system and I would feel comfortable
having that worked out at staff level. I would make a motion that we approve this Final Plat for 61 building lots and 3 other lots for Packard Estates Development and instruct the City
Attorney to drop the appropriates Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Bird: Before that’s seconded, Mr. Anderson does that include staff comments?
Anderson: Yes it does. Subject to the staff comments.
Bird: Do I hear a second?
De Weerd: Second.
Bird: Been made and seconded to approve Final Plat for 61 building lots and 3 other lots for Packard Acres Subdivision No. 2 with staff comments. Any discussion Council?
De Weerd: Mr. President, just a question for staff. Have you the answer to work with ACHD on the gates, or the developer would work with ACHD on that? Is that normal protocol in regard
to what kind of gates and those kinds of issues?
Stiles: It would probably be more appropriate to work with the Emergency Services on what types of gate they would want there. I don’t think there’s any real president for gates crossing
a public road.
Bird: Any other questions or discussion?
De Weerd: No.
Bird: Hearing none, Roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk please.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 11. Ordinance No. 01-900: AZ 00-009 Request for annexation and zoning of 101.4 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision by Gem Star Properties, LLC – southwest
corner of Black Cat and Ustick Roads:
Bird: No. 11, Ordinance NO. 01-900. Request for annexation and zoning of 101.4 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision by Gem Star Properties, LLC. Clerk would
you read the Ordinance by title only please?
Berg: Thank you Mr. President, Ordinance No. 01-900: An Ordinance finding that certain land be known as Autumn Faire Subdivision lies contiguous or adjacent to the City limits of the
City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho; finding that the owner has made a request for annexation in writing to the Council; and that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian
and zoning designated low-density residential district R-4; and declaring that the said land by proper legal description as described below be a part of the City of Meridian, County
of Ada, State of Idaho repealing all Ordinances, resolutions, orders or
parts thereof in conflict herewith; and directing the City engineer to add said property to official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho; and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian
to file a certified copy of the Ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer, Assessor and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho
pursuant to Idaho Code, Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215.
Bird: Thank you Mr. Clerk. Is there anybody from the Ordinance that would like this Ordinance read in its entirety? Hearing none, Council what’s your pleasure, 01-900, Council?
De Weerd: Mr. President, I move that we approve Ordinance No. 01-900 for AZ 00-009 request for annexation and zoning of Autumn Faire Subdivision and to instruct the Mayor to sign and
Clerk attest.
Bird: Do we hear a second?
Anderson: Second.
Bird: Any discussion? Hearing none, we had a motion and second to pass Ordinance No. 01-900 with suspension of rules. Clerk, Roll-call vote.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 12. Tabled from January 2, 2001: 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 No. 1 by Gem Star
Properties, LLC – south of W. Ustick Road and west of N. Black Cat Road:
Bird: Item No. 12, is tabled from January 2nd. The Final Plat approval for 47 building lots and 3 other lots on 14.93 acres in an R-4 zone for Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 1 by Gem
Star Properties, LLC. Staff, comments?
Stiles: As a Development Agreement has been approved and the Annexation Ordinance has now been passed, staff would recommend approval of Autumn Faire Subdivision No.1 with all staff
and agency comments.
Bird: Council, question for staff?
Anderson: I have none.
Bird: Is the applicant here? Do you have anything to comment?
Wildwood: Mr. President, my name is Susan Wildwood. I’m the Attorney for the applicant and the only comment I have is I appreciate the time the staff has taken working with us on this.
We have some issues that we are working at very, very minor and they just have to do with the staff recommendations. Any of that can be handled at the staff level. We do appreciate
staff’s time. Thank you.
Bird: Council any questions for Ms. Wildwood?
De Weerd: I have none.
Bird: Thank you. Council, what’s your pleasure?
De Weerd: Mr. President, I move that we approve the Final Plat of FP 00-020 for Autumn Faire Subdivision by Gem Star Properties, and to have the attorney to draw the appropriate paper
work.
Bird: Do we hear a second?
Anderson: Second.
De Weerd: To include all staff comments please.
Bird: That includes all staff comments. Had a motion to pass Autumn Faire Subdivision Final Plat for 47 building lots and 3 other lots and has been seconded with staff comments. Roll-call
vote please, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Council, with your approval can we take about a five- or ten-minute break?
Anderson: Sure.
Bird: So moved?
De Weerd: So moved.
Bird: Thank you.
De Weerd: Second.
Bird: All in favor aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
(Meeting reconvened at 8:25 p.m.)
Item 13. Tabled from January 2, 2001: 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 W. Ustick Road and east of N. Ten Mile Road:
Bird: Council on Item 13, the Final Plat for Bridgetower Subdivision by Primeland Development Co. Staff? Is she lost now?
De Weerd: I’m sure there’s just major problems that (inaudible).
Bird: I apologize for the delay. Shari, we’re on the Primeland Development the Final Plat. Item No. 13.
Stiles: Mr. President, Council, I believe this was tabled last time to give Legal Counsel an opportunity to review our piping of ditches Ordinance and give his determination for the
bonding of the Creason Lateral.
Nichols: President Bird, members of the Council, I have looked at our Ordinance and I’ve got a response from the developers attorney which was faxed over to my office late this afternoon.
What it boils down to is, the question is, can we, by our Ordinance require the tiling of a ditch if that ditch doesn’t lie entirely on the property of the developer? The Ordinance
provision in question, I’m going to read it it’s 12-4-13c. It talks about boundary line ditches and I’ll just read it. Boundary line ditches agreement with owner, payment of cost.
Where the ditch under consideration is on the boundary between the land being developed and the adjacent land not owned by the developer or the owner of the land being developed or
is in fact the boundary, the ditch shall still be tiled. The developer shall attempt to obtain the permission of the adjacent landowner to tile the ditch and attempt to have the adjacent
landowner share in the cost of the tiling. If the adjacent land owner is unwilling to cooperate in sharing the cost of the tiling, but willing to allow the use of his land for tiling
the developer shall tile the ditch at his sole cost. If the adjacent land owner is unwilling to allow his land to be used for purposes of tiling the ditch, the developer may request
the City to condemn that part of the adjacent land necessary to tile the water way. The developer shall be required to pay all of the costs of condemnation, pay all of the costs of
obtaining the adjacent land and all of the cost tiling the ditch lateral or canal. There is another provision in the same co-section 12-4-13a2 which says, the City may waive the requirement
for recovering such ditch lateral or canal if it finds that the public purpose requiring such will not be served in the individual case. What we have is the Creason Lateral that goes
along several sides of the property and then drops on the north south line I think. Gary and I were looking at the map. I’m going to have Gary use the cursor to show where this goes.
Anyway it’s a Nampa Meridian ditch, and when we look at the proposed Final Plat itself it shows the Creason Lateral which there’s a 60-foot easement for that lateral. I
see Ms. Bowcutt is here and she can explain to us, but I think that the boundary lines, it looks to me like the boundary line for block 4 which is the northern portion of this is right
at the edge of the Nampa Meridian easement. She could perhaps clarify that for us.
Bird: Ms. Bowcutt?
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 11283 West Hickory Dale, Boise. I brought a blow-up of that area to kind of try to show you what is represented up there on the screen. What you see here is
the first phase of our project, this loop here. We have the Creason coming through our property here; this would be a latter phase. As it comes through, at this point here, our property
boundary is right there and it’s running. The pink is what would be the top of the bank. The pink is off set from our north boundary it varies from three to five feet because it’s a
ditch and it meanders. That ditch goes in, there’s Mr. Husky’s property here, and then tuns and comes down. It kind of widens out and it does run right here along the edge here. As
you can see it looks like the ditch kind of widens out and then the ditch turns and heads to the west. This kind of shows you and you can pass it along, if you want to look at it.
That’s what we have out there in the field at this time and as we stated before we have every intention in complying with your Ordinance as that crease intreverses through our parcel
we’ll be piping it in accordance with Nampa Meridian standards. The issue arises when the ditch is not contiguous and according to Mr. Snider’s definition under praises and so forth
that was faxed over, if something is contiguous it touches. In reference to your Ordinance it talks about touch, laterals, ditches or canals touch either or both sides of the area.
I think in the past the staff has always concluded if the easement overlapped onto the property, which we do have some overlap of easement on our parcel then that constituted it touching
your boundary. Therefore you were required to pipe it. The issue behind the ditch Ordinance is safety. We are required under your Ordinance to fence our perimeter, so if we fence
our entire perimeter out obviously we would cut off any access to the ditch at least from our parcel. Secondly, we got to thinking about it and the Husky property in question is outside
the City limits so it’s under jurisdiction of Ada County. Then I got to thinking does Meridian Ordinance apply outside the City limits and the County? That’s another question in itself.
It’s not an easy answer to this but we’re trying to look out from a practical perspective. Obviously the Husky property is going to develop. Water and sewer are going to be available.
In fact I think they are close to being available now. When that property develops that ditch will have to be piped. Until then there are several complicated headgates which checked
that water up, then that water backs up and then drops five to six feet. They have to check it up in order to get enough water to irrigate. One of the concerns that we had, if we go
in there messing with this even if, hypothetically Mr. Husky – we could get him to agree to this, how are we going to impact his irrigation? That is one of my concerns. I did talk
with Nampa Meridian about it, Nampa Meridian said that if the property is on Mr. Husky’s we have to have his permission. If he’s an agreeable fellow and hasn’t been with us in the past
then there’s nothing that
Nampa Meridian can do, that’s what they indicated to me. It was Bill Hanson that I spoke with. Mr. Anderson is on vacation all month. One of the other concerns that we had, if we
put in elaborate box systems throughout there then when the property is developed those structures would almost likely be eliminated. There will be no need for them, possibly some safety
issues or just trying to work around them. That maybe money that is not very well spent, that’s one of other concerns. There was discussion about bonding. Could one bond for say your
proportionate share of this for an indefinite amount of time? We’ve done some checking with some of the financial institutions that my client deals with and I believe the maximum is
a three-year bond. I guess they charge quite a premium if one has a three-year bond. We have to obviously keep track of this, renew it if by chance the property, the Husky property
that is did not develop within that time frame. One advantage that I feel we do have is this is not the only portion of what’s being developed. We’ve submitted application to your
Planning Department on Friday for development of the rest of this property, which I think, is around 370 acres. We have an annexation PUD and Preliminary Plat application. Obviously
with an application of that magnitude, I believe over 750 lots, we will be doing many multiple phases at the City for many, many years. We feel that the City has the ability as these
other projects are coming through phase by phase or with Preliminary Plats that if it is imperative that that be done at that time they have the opportunity to impose the requirement
on us. We’re just concerned that it wouldn’t be prudent to do it at this time and the complications with dealing with Mr. Husky, they’re legal problems, we just don’t see the benefit.
We had asked the Council under that section, it says that the Council can consider a waiver of it under certain circumstances and I guess we would ask for your indulgence. Do you have
any questions?
Bird: Mr. Nichols did you have some questions?
Nichols: Yes, Ms. Bowcutt, with regard to Nampa Meridian, did they indicate whether they would be willing to approach Mr. Husky about permission to put the pipe in?
Bowcutt: When I talked to Bill about that they only accept projects where they construct the first week of September of every year. There’s one day where you may submit an application
for Nampa meridian to install where you provide all materials. In talking to Bill, Bill didn’t see that while the properties being farmed that it’s imperative that they pipe it with
– they’ve to the complicated check structures and weirs and so forth. If Mr. Husky did throw a fit, I don’t know if Nampa Meridian would go ahead and force the issue at that time.
My dealings with him as I said before have not been good. On an indirect basis he seems to send everything to his attorney who then comes up with a menagerie of requirements, potential
problems and issues. It just goes so far that you’ve got to find another solution. At least that’s my experience.
Nichols: Ms. Bowcutt if this Final Plat was approved, what’s your construction schedule and when would you have these lots for sale on the north side of this?
Bowcutt: Our construction schedule sir, is probably going to begin around the first of February. Lots would probably be available early summer, June, July depending on plat recording.
There would be water in the ditch. It’s too late this year to go through and pipe it. They don’t allow you to pipe I believe after March 15th isn’t it Gary? March 15th is their deadline.
Water comes down the ditch on April 12-15. Unless you have your plans approved and are considerably under way early you’re kind of stuck until the next season when water’s out of the
ditch.
Nichols: What’s your proposal with regard to that portion of the Creason Lateral that does even fit Mr. Snider’s definition of contiguous?
Bowcutt: We discussed that. I believe Mr. Variall’s conversation that we had today was that we would obviously approach Mr. Husky. We’ve also got a small strip in there of some USA
ground, we’re having the Title Company pull that information to see if maybe that portion on that west side is on USA property, Bureau of Recreation. There’s a small sliver in the assessor’s
map. We found some of that same information on the assessor’s maps within portions of our property but then through title searches it was found that that was not correct. We are researching
that and exploring that avenue. I believe where it’s touching is on the west boundary as the ditch comes back in if you look at that drawing. That topo was shot from the ground, which
is not the arial topo out there that we purchased from the City.
Bird: Council any other questions?
Anderson: I had a question Mr. President. Becky you said you have all of these additional acres that you’re going to develop. Where are they, aren’t they north of there and kind of
to the east?
Bowcutt: Yes sir, and to the west. They wrap around Mr. Husky’s property. Shari can you go further up?
Stiles: Not on this one you can’t. Let’s look at the whole square mile.
Bird: There’s the property right there.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Bowcutt: What we’re asking approval on at this time is this portion of the property right here. Our property boundary comes up right there, it comes out to Ten Mile, up to McMillian,
across to Linder, down this way, this way and that way.
Anderson: Why don’t you circle the part you don’t own over there.
Bowcutt: That’s an easier question. That stuff right there, Mr. Husky right there and this little piece right there. Then the property also takes an 80 up there, a 160 here and an
80 there I believe. My client owns that too.
Anderson: I guess kind of back to the City Attorney’s question. If all of that other land is ultimately yours and it’s going to develop, his question was what’s your proposal? Are
you proposing tiling that stuff that you know that you’re going to develop anyway and are we just talking about the piece of property that’s adjacent to Mr. Husky’s that you’re opposing
tiling?
Bowcutt: Yes sir, only when the ditch leaves our property, which is right at that point. As it comes past these homes it leaves our property and is clearly outside our boundary. It
turns, and then as it comes down our western boundary it does come in and it looks like it runs parallel and contiguous to our boundary there, right there. All of this as it enters
our eastern boundary, we are piping and we’ll pipe all of that until it exits. The only portion in contention is when it exits our property. Does that –
Anderson: That helps.
Nichols: Mr. President Bird, Ms. Bowcutt, I want to make sure I understand or clarify something, make sure I didn’t hear something different than what I think I did. Are you saying
that your client is willing to defer the tiling issue or to make future development contingent upon – in other words if we say, work on the tilling issue?
Bowcutt: Yes sir.
Nichols: If you don’t come up with a solution be prepared that some future development if it were otherwise approved by the City would be contingent upon finishing the tiling. Is that
what I was hearing you say? You said something about you’re going to have other things before the City might be – we’re not going to presume approval, but assuming that it were approved.
That sounded like you could -- we’ve got other things we’re going to have to pipe, we’re going to have to do other things. You could approve this one and then make future approvals
contingent upon giving you time to work on these issues or maybe Mr. Husky’s not in the picture anymore it’s somebody else. The issues about to probate and so forth or been resolved
and you know who you’re dealing with etc. I need you to clarify on that.
Bowcutt: Mr. Nichols, I think what I was alluding to unlike some developments where once this parcel is developed the development is over, it ends. That is the perimeters of it. This
development is much larger than that. I guess what I was alluding to that the City would have ample opportunity because of these multiple plat applications, annexation, PUD to request
tiling of some of these ditches. Am
I trying to move it out into the future? I would like to solve it as soon as possible. I just don’t think it can be solved on this first phase. I guess I am trying to move it out
a little bit. Frank am I wrong, one of the reasons being is we disagree with the staff’s interpretation of the Ordinance? Maybe in the future we have a new Ordinance.
Varialle: Frank Varialle, Primeland Development. There’s probably two parts to that if I might – Councilman Bird, and Mr. Nichols. The first part is I think that we would be willing
to look at – knowing that we are going to be talking to you over a long period of time. When the Husky ground does come up for development, if – to deal with the portion of that ditch
which does seem to touch us actually and then leave us again, we would be willing to work with the developer. Whoever we feel should be tiling that ditch when they purchase that property.
We would be willing to work with them on the portion that abuts us in sharing the cost of that or whatever to see that that happens. We feel fairly strongly that the ditch is not on
our property and is really out of our control. There seems to be a lot of room in here from what my attorney’s telling me and so forth as to what the definitions are within the Ordinance
you have. Becky’s suggestion as to perhaps move this on into future phases is to what the exact determination is made on what we do with the Husky portion allows us time to work with
staff, to work with Mr. Nichols and the City to come to a final resolution. This (inaudible) everybody with less pressure upon us. We were only made aware of this particular problem
a few weeks ago and it seems to be one that’s very difficult to resolve and having a little bit more time to do that I think would be in everybody’s best interest. I think – there are
kind of two parts to that. Any questions?
Bird: Frank, isn’t the parcel that is there to the north of you right there – is that flood irrigated out of that ditch?
Varialle: Yes it is.
Bird: By tiling it what is that going to do to the flood irrigation?
Varialle: We don’t know exactly. I know that Mr. Husky takes water at the turn right there and I believe also where it first enters, you can kind of see a ditch heading north. We
would need some type of facility as a minimum there where it moves north and then again where it makes the turn south as a minimum. Then as you come down the west boundary we’ve lost
it a little bit there. It comes back, one more shot. Right there where the light is, is a check gate that has to check the water up about four or five feet to go out the north there.
The difficulties in – we’re not just talking about running pipe here – the difficulties of working with Mr. Husky is also going to be unsatisfying his needs to get his irrigation water.
That’s going to be very expensive. Once we’ve achieved that, and the point in the future arrives when that ground is going to be developed, all of those mechanisms, boxes, flood control,
floodgates, and whatever irrigation gates will all have to be torn out and sections of the pipe rebuilt. We feel that,
once again we’re just spending a lot of money to achieve something that the necessity doesn’t seem to be very high.
Bird: Thank you.
Anderson: Mr. President, Frank I just had one question. Since the Creason Lateral does come back into your property over there on that west side, I mean a reasonable expectation at
this point because we really don’t’ know what’s going to happen with the property to the north of you and who might buy that and things like that. It would seem logical that doing a
letter of credit or bonding for half of the cost of tiling that ditch from the point where it leaves your property to where it’s in question. You do a bud in the easement and then it
comes back into your property. Becky (sic) had indicated that that’s a substantial cost but I can’t imagine that could be that expensive to post a bond or do a letter of a credit for
three years. After three years we would have a good idea probably at that point because you’re going to be well into some of these developments. What’s going to happen with that property
to the north? Is that not acceptable to you?
Varialle: The little bit of inquire I’ve been able to do about bonding is it’s not quite as easy as it sounds. The banks want things more definitive than – we’re handing you a bond
to tile a ditch that’s not on our property, the controls that they’re looking for are not all in place. It’s just not as easy as it sounds. I can bond anything on my property very
easily but you start reaching our beyond my boundaries and they are all kind of want a lot of explanations.
Anderson: We could put a condition on there that said you’re responsible for half of the cost but the problem with that is if you sell your interest in this later on how do we hold
somebody to that? If you go out of business it would be very difficult for us to hold anybody to that. That’s the purpose of the bond or the letter of credit. Like Becky suggested
that maybe somehow the tiling of this ditch could be held to future phases or something. We’ve seen in other developments around this community where a developer will sell out his interest
to another company. Then it’s virtually impossible for us to come back and hold those future developers that may own that to a condition or not even a condition but kind of an implied
thing that we agreed to with you. You can understand why we’re trying to get some assurances that that will get tiled at some point in the future. I know it doesn’t exactly meet the
definition of contiguous and that’s why staff’s always interpreted that I think as the easement does touch your property. I’m kind of looking for a little help from you too so we can
move forward with approval of this project.
Varialle: Councilman Anderson, I appreciate what you’re saying and I understand that. I think that we’re taking a little bit of a position that, by definition we don’t really feel
that the Ordinance applies to us. We’re looking to find some common ground however though, to solve the problem. We can look at the portion that does – it’s not all of that the runs
along our west side there’s a
portion of it that runs along the west side that does appear to potentially be in question, it could potential fall within the Ordinance. We certainly would not hesitate to look at
providing some guarantee there. I would prefer not to use a bond. I would have to look at the dollar amounts I don’t know if we can do a cash deal or whatever if we’re only talking
about the portion. I’m reluctant to accept responsibility for that portion that is definitely off of our property. I think that again we were looking for someway to, perhaps have discussions
continue so that we can define these issues a little further.
Nichols: President Bird, if I could ask a question. Mr. Varialle, doesn’t the easement for the Creason touch your boundary? Doesn’t it come – the south boundary, the Creason Lateral
easement does it not touch the northern boundary of this particular parcel?
Varialle: It may – does that touch Becky?
Bowcutt: Which one? The southern boundary?
Bird: That’s the (inaudible) of the southern boundary touch your property all the way across?
Variall: Does the easement touch our north?
Bowcutt: Does it overlap or abut?
Nichols: Abut?
Bowcutt: I believe it does abut, but not overlap on the north side. On the west side we have slight overlap.
Nichols: When you say that part of the ditch is on your property, on the west end of your property, is it the physical ditch or part of the easement that actually goes past your property
boundary?
Bowcutt: The easement overlaps our property, the ditch appears to run (inaudible) bank at the property line for a certain portion of the western boundary.
Nichols: What we’re looking at is we have a ditch easement then that runs along the north sides. It abuts the northern boundary of this particular parcel and then coming down the west
side would be the eastern edge of the Creason Lateral easement overlaps your property boundary, and the physical ditch also part of the top of the bank comes onto your property you think?
Bowcutt: It abuts the property. It looks like it’s running – the top of the bank line is running parallel and almost on top of the boundary. It doesn’t appear to overlap it just appears
to be adjacent to. To the north, the Creason Lateral top of
bank they’re between three and five feet of distance between our north boundary and the top of bank, which would be the south, bound bank of the Creason.
Anderson: Is a letter of credit easier or a (inaudible) obtained in the bond?
Nichols: Councilmen Anderson and you asked Mr. Varialle. I think it depends upon the person. For some people either is not a problem and for some – a lot of times the bank wants a
deposit equal to the amount of the letter of credit as their security for that letter of credit. If it’s a 30,000 dollar letter of credit, they want a $30,000 CD in their bank, which
they have access to pull to satisfy the letter of credit if somehow there’s a default.
Anderson: Somebody that owns a mile of ground I would think (inaudible) what would be able to cover that.
Bird: The only problem I see having had to get bonds and stuff, the bonding company or the letter of credit. Whoever gives you the letter of credit has no more control over getting
the property owner to allow you to go in there and put that in as these people do right now. I will be quite shocked, even with the background of these developers, that if they will
find a bonding company that will bond to put something else on somebody else’s property.
Anderson: That’s why I suggested the letter of credit.
Bird: Letter of credit I think you’re going to have the same problem. They’ve got to have control. If you’ll recall, it’s like the letter of credit that Cherry Lane Golf Course.
They had to control that building even above us if it was forfeited. They come in and they do the job but they’ve got to be able to get to it. The same as these developers have to
get to it and if you don’t own that property you can’t get to it.
Nichols: Councilmen Bird, members of the Council, if I can just interject a little bit here. My interpretation of our Ordinance is different than the developers and I respect his analysis.
Where we have an easement, a 60-foot wide easement for an irrigation ditch and where that easement abuts the property I believe that satisfies the Ordinance requirement of being adjacent
to. I recognize the problem of how you do something on someone else’s property, however, having been through the issue with Nampa Meridian over issue of their easements with regard
to licenses for pathways and so forth. They were there on Mount Sinai is the way they approached these things. Maybe Mr. Husky’s got them too but it appears to me that if Nampa Meridian
says we’re going to tile this ditch, and this is how we’re going to do it, and we’ve got the engineering and you’re still going to get your water that it can be done. At the same time,
I think that the developers raised a very legitimate issue and that is the expense of constructing check structures and things in order to be able to irrigate Mr. Husky’s ground in the
same way he’s done it in the past. Then later on have to tear those things out. It
would be more appropriate, probably to condition this on some sort of deposit to help cover the cost of tiling the ditch. That property will develop at some point in the future. It
might be an underground tiling in order to have some sort of a pressurized irrigation structure for the developed parcels in there rather than to have something that you have to tear
out and do it twice. We don’t want to create a Curtis Road situation out there on the boundary of this property.
Anderson: That’s the direction that I’m trying to head. I’m trying to get to the point where we’re not going to tile the ditch but I want some type of guarantee that later on, when
that property in the north does develop that we will tile it. So far you guys have shot down bonds and letters of credit do you have any other ideas?
Nichols: I’m not saying that we’ve shot down the bond. I think the question would be how much is the bond, and what is it that we’re requiring that the bond be for. If the bond is
for payment of up to half of the cost of tiling, so many feet of this ditch, up to certain point in the future. Whether it be by bond, deposit, letter of credit or some sort of issue
that somehow we can find someway to get it done. Mr. Varialle can go ahead and proceed with his development. The City knows that there’s security there for payment of up to half during
a particular period of time. That, again that you’re not – it’s certainly half of something, or at least what I’ve got envisioned here is a lot better than half or even a whole with
all of these irrigation structures and so forth and then paying to have them tore out later. I think we’re talking about a smaller amount.
Anderson: You’ve all said, Mr. Varialle, Councilmen Bird, and yourself that a bond and a letter of credit isn’t an option if the piece of property isn’t owned by him.
Nichols: I didn’t say that, Councilmen Bird did.
Bird: I said that.
Anderson: I thought I saw your head nod.
Nichols: No, I had said that I could see that it may be difficult but I don’t think it’s impossible.
Bird: I don’t think anything’s impossible.
Nichols: The other question is how much is it? That’s another factor. The bigger the amount the more nervous the bank gets.
Anderson: How big of tile do you have to tile this ditch with, is it 49 inch?
Varialle: I think it’s 36.
Bowcutt: The portion maybe as big as 48 but it’s 36 on the western boundary.
Bird: What about the northern?
Bowcutt: Bill Hanson brought back 48. We’ve got a meter the water when it comes in the ditch.
Bird: Mr. Varialle?
Varialle: I was going to offer a suggestion back on the idea that we are bringing in future phases. If there is a way, if it is possible to – we do have a plat for some 300 and some
acres coming before you that, as it will be multi-phased. If there is a way to attach to that plat this condition. Should something happen to us or someone else buys the ground or
whatever, it runs with that land. The plat will be in place and as that plat eventually would be (sic) implemented under any condition there would be an obligation to work with whoever
takes on the Husky ground.
Anderson: I understand what you’re saying. I guess my question would be to the attorney though is could we put a condition like that on a plat that none of those additional properties
are going to touch this thing? That would be questionable in my mind.
Varialle: Excuse me Mr. Anderson, it does touch our north boundary. It does touch the north boundary of the phase we have now.
Bird: Not (inaudible) that we can’t get tiled, the Husky property. You don’t own the Husky property.
Varialle: That’s correct.
Bird: Who’s going to say that you might have the whole three quarters of a section already developed before they ever decide to develop that property.
Varialle: Councilman Bird what I am suggesting is that we put a time in there. Two years, three years, whatever.
Bird: What do you make – three years from now what makes you think that Husky’s going to be any more agreeable? That’s what I’m trying to do, looking from the City standpoint. We
can make you get a bond, or we can make you get a letter of credit, but 20 years from now we still might have that. There’s nothing to say that Husky’s going to ever develop that.
That’s why I think there’s other – I don’t know how we tie into the deal. I personally have a problem with making a developer that doesn’t have a ditch on his property tile it, that’s
my personal opinion. It’s in our Ordinances that we do. Time wise, I don’t know how we put a
time one it. Who’s going to say when Husky sells, you guys let’s face the fact you have probably tried the (inaudible) with the whole thing.
Varialle: That solved the problem.
Bird: That solved the problem, Ron that’s where I’m coming from how do you put a time on it?
Anderson: I don’t know.
Nichols: Councilmen Bird, members of the Council. One of the things I’ve thought about is the issue is really safety. If you keep – you put up a fence from the ditch but Nampa Meridian
is certainly not going to let you put the fence inside their easement. It better be at least a half an inch away from the easement. They’re not going to like the maintenance issues
of having a fence along there and some of those things. There’s not a great solution. A fence is an easy one, you put up a fence and it’s done. Maybe that’s what you do, you have
a perimeter fence on this thing and that’s how you keep people out of the ditch at least on the northern side of that. What you do on the western edge that’s more problematic because
of where the ditch runs. I suppose you could just do a five foot offset from the boundary or something and set a fence inside the boundary line along there. There’s just not an easy
one on this one, there just isn’t.
Bird: That’s what I was wandering Ron is how do we set a time limit on it. There’s nothing to say that 10 years from now you’ll have any – you might be developed completely around
him but that one area would still be –
Anderson: I agree, I was thinking that if you did some type of a bond or letter of credit that it would have to have a reassessment at the end of that time frame. Then you would have
to look and see what conditions might have changed at that point and then decide whether you wanted to continue that or renew that or let it go.
Bird: I have no –
De Weerd: It might be easier getting a letter of credit for land that overlaps rather than abuts the easement if it’s – I don’t know. The north side seems less problematic than the
west.
Bird: It’s quite a ways off the north side of it.
De Weerd: None of us are bankers so we any only speculate.
Bird: No, we can only speculate. Council any more questions for these people, we can get this wrapped up?
Anderson: I have none.
Bird: Thank you Frank, thank you Becky. Here do you want this? Council you have any questions for staff or anybody, Mr. Anderson?
Anderson: Mr. President I guess a question for Legal Counsel. I just have a question, would more time build give us the opportunity to research any further the legal questions about
the easement touching the northern boundary of this property and make that any clearer for us? Would there be an advantage in tabling this to allow you some optional time to look at
that issue or is it just one of those things that you’re never going to have the answer and we just need to make a decision? How do you view it?
Nichols: Councilman Anderson, members of the Council, I think we’ve got a situation where – between the developer at least the developers attorney and my opinion is we’re at the, agree
to disagree point. Further research on it on my part I don’t think is going to change my opinion where that easement actually abuts against this development. In the Development Agreement
that’s been signed requires all ditches shall be tiled according to 12-4-13. To answer your question I don’t think that does us any good or buys us any solution. It would look to me
like maybe the compromise deal is you bond for the west ditch and you fence the northern boundary. (Inaudible) in other words you waive the requirement which you have the right to do
as to the northern part of it and you bond on the west boundary side and go from there.
De Weerd: Sounds like a compromise.
Bird: Council any other questions?
Anderson: When you say bond are you talking about for three years, as long as we can?
Nichols: Three years is probably as long as you can. I would probably call it a renewable with an option to renew it another – I guess I would defer that, I don’t know if Shari’s got
an opinion or Gary does on how long we can string this along. My only concern about – you can say yes, you’re going to pipe it but my concern is with those check structures and all
of that stuff that has to be done. How are you going to – then to have to tear them out later? That is a tremendous waste of materials and money to me even though that we might speculate
that that Husky property won’t develop in the next 10 or 20 years. It’s highly likely that it would.
Bird: What’s your pleasure Council?
Anderson: Mr. President, I guess I will make a stab at this then. I would make a motion that we approve the Final Plat for 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. With the condition that on tiling the ditch that we request that they bond for half of the
tiling of the ditch on the west side of the property and construct a fence on the north side of the property to keep pedestrian and traffic from the Creason Lateral. Instruct the City
Attorney to draw up the appropriate Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order. I think Bill’s pointing his finger at me. One more thing, subject to staff comments
and whatever input Bill may have.
Bird: Mr. Anderson, before we have a second, strictly a bond or can they get a letter of credit regarding which is for half of the amount on the west side? You stated a bond, either
one?
Anderson: Either one is acceptable to me.
McCandless: Mr. President would you need a renewable (inaudible) in there?
Anderson: On the bond or letter of credit that that be a three year and that be a renewable and that be reviewed at the end of that three years to see the status of the project and
the development of the north.
Bird: Do I hear a second?
Nichols: Councilmen Anderson, I assume that that’s the north boundary where it’s alongside Mr. Husky not the north boundary to where the developer owns the property on the north side
of that.
De Weerd: I’ll second it.
Bird: Discussion? We’ve had a motion made and seconded for approval of the Final Plat for 54 building lots for Primeland Development Company, Bridgetower Subdivision No. 1 with stipulations
stated in the motion. Mr. Clerk, Roll-call vote.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Anderson: I just wanted to thank Becky for bringing all of those issues up, we appreciate it.
McCandless: We really enjoyed this.
Anderson: Do you stay up late at night dreaming these up?
De Weerd: We’ve noticed you’ve gotten very informal lately though.
Anderson: We love to have you.
Item 14. Ordinance No. 01-901: RZ-00-006 Request for Rezone of 7.14 acres from I-L to C-G for the Meridian Business Park by Donald Asbell – East Franklin Road and North Baltic Place:
Bird: Item No. 14 is Ordinance No. 01-901. Request for Rezone of 7.14 acres from I-L to C-G for the Meridian Business Park by Donald Asbell. Clerk would you please read the Ordinance
01-901 by title only?
Berg: Thank you Mr. President, Ordinance No. 01-901: An Ordinance finding that Donald R. Asbell and Annette Asbell are the owners of certain real property has made a written request
for a rezone of the zoning classification for real property north of Franklin Road, west of North Baltic Place Meridian, Idaho, that lies within the boundaries of the City of Meridian
from I-L, light-industrial zoning district, to C-G, general-retail and service commercial district as defined under Meridian code section 11-7-2(k); repealing all Ordinances, resolutions,
orders or parts thereof in conflict here with; and directing the City Engineer to add said rezoning designation to official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho.
Bird: Would anybody in the audience like to have Ordinance No. 01-901 read in its entirety? Seeing none, Council, I entertain a motion.
Anderson: Mr. President, I would make a motion that we approve Ordinance No. 01-901, a rezone request for 7.14 acres from I-L to C-G for the Meridian Business park by Donald Asbell
– East Franklin Road and North Baltic Place with suspension of the rules.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: Motion made to approve Ordinance No. 01-901 and seconded. Roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk, please.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 15. Public Hearing: VAR 00-025 Variance of the lot width from 80 feet to approximately 79 feet for the four lots at the west side of Tumble Creek Subdivision No. 6 by Pinnacle
Engineers – Ustick Road and North Linder Road:
Bird: Next is a Public Hearing regarding a variance of lot width from 80 feet to approximately 79 feet for the four lots at the west side of Tumble Creek Subdivision No. 6 by Pinnacle
Engineers – Ustick Road. Council, I believe before we open the public hearing, we got today on our deal -- we received from
Pinnacle Engineering a letter, which I don’t believe – has staff had a chance to see this?
Stiles: Yes.
Bird: With that, I’ll open the Public Hearing and staff report.
Stiles: Mr. President, Council, this is for four lots within the proposed Tumble Creek Subdivision No. 6 that a variance of the lot width from 80 feet to between 78 and 79 feet and
you have the applicants explanation of how that occurred. We have been told that the lots will still meet the minimum square footage requirement of 8,000 square feet. They had submitted
the No. 6 for Final Plat approval but because those lots did not meet the Ordinance requirement we did not process that application. The Preliminary Plat they did meet the 80-foot minimum
requirement and then they go to the Final Plat stage and they’re explanation is that a previous phase had a bigger lot than was shown on the Preliminary Plat. I’m not sure this meets
the evidence required for a variance, as it’s not really anything to do with the topography of the land or the physical limitations of the property. However staff would not object to
granting this variance, put the applicant and his representative on notice that future proposals for variances similar to this would not be supported by staff.
Bird: Thank you Shari. Any questions for Shari?
Anderson: I have none.
Bird: Is the applicant here?
Boyle: City Council members, Clint Boyle with Pinnacle Engineers, 12552 West Executive in Boise. I’m here representing the applicants, Stubblefield Development, or the developer on
this particular site. Before I get started here I do have just two exhibits that I would like to submit that graphically show how this request came about. The first one is the Preliminary
Plat in the area in question that was previously approved. The second exhibit that I’ll submit is the Final Plat for Tumble Creek Phase 1, which has already been approved by this Council
as well as Tumble Creek No. 6 which has yet to come before this Council. Again, Tumble Creek No. 6 is the Final Plat that has the lots in question. Essentially I believe that Shari
did a good job representing the facts behind how this occurred. Originally, if you’ll look at the bottom of the page, I have -- she had indicated as Preliminary Plat and then the other
item as the Final Plats. On the Preliminary Plat I’ve highlighted the lot in question that was the lot that has potentially caused an issue with the frontage dimensions on the four
lots that we’re requesting the variance on. That is lot 4 of block 9 and originally on the Preliminary Plat that lot was shown with approximately 81 feet of street frontage. However
when Tumble Creek Division No. 1 was approved, the lot frontage was represented as approximately 85 feet. Therefore in this later phase, Tumble Creek No. 6, on
these four lots it has caused an issue of not being able to meet the minimum lot frontage requirements on those four lots. Essentially that is I guess the issue and we would certainly
agree with Shari that we don’t like to present variances in front of the Council. The original Final Plat was prepared by a different engineering firm and I guess essentially we’re left
to clean up an item that was done previously. I appreciate the fact that we would be on notice. We certainly are agreeable to that because we don’t plan on presenting variances often
at all. Again just to kind of clarify, without the variance – let me back up on the Preliminary Plat as far as the approval that is in place, this variance request does not increase
the number of lots nor the density of the overall subdivision. In other words, this is in compliance with the number of lots that were approved on the Preliminary Plat. We’re not trying
to squeeze another lot into the subdivision. It’s mainly just an error that we’re trying to clean up. One other item that I will point out at this point in time is that the developer
has worked with the City with regards to the subdivision. There has been a lot that has been deeded to the City for their purposes and use. I guess in hindsight now, had we realized
this error at the time, maybe we could have negotiated to allow them to pick up the remainder if we had 3 lots with 80 frontage and then a remainder of 76 foot let’s say. That’s somewhat
in hindsight but I guess this evening we just would ask the Council to approve this variance based on the fact that now we are constrained by previous divisions of this development that
have been approved. We would certainly be on notice with further variances on frontages. If there’s any questions I would be happy to answer those and like I mentioned the developer
is in attendance and could field questions as well.
Anderson: Where’s this lot that was deeded to the City and what was it for?
Boyle: That’s one that John Stubblefield, the developer, could probably respond to you better than I could.
Stubblefield: John Stubblefield, 641 Franklin. The lot that has been deeded to the City, I’ll walk over and point to it. It will come with the approval of this last phase. It’s in
the area approximately where Shari has the cursor there. It’s part of this approval. There’s a secondary main entrance that will be coming off of Linder right in that area, and just
to the south of that main entrance we’ve dedicated a lot to the City for a well lot.
Bird: Thank you.
Anderson: So that’s Linder Road?
Bird: Yes.
Stubblefield: Correct.
Bird: Any more questions Council?
Anderson: No.
Bird: Thank you very much.
Stubblefield: Thank you.
Bird: Anybody else in the public like to testify? Council, seeing no more testimony before we entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing is there any questions now for staff or
the developer that we need to ask that you have? Seeing none I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Anderson: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
Bird: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: Council what’s your pleasure?
De Weerd: Mr. President, I move that we approve the variance request 00-025 for the lot width of 80 feet to approximately 79 feet. For the four lots at the west side of Tumble Creek
Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers and to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Bird: Do I hear a second?
McCandless: Second.
Bird: Motions been made and seconded to approve the variance on the lot width for 80 feet to approximately 79 feet for 4 lots on the west side of Tumble Creek Subdivision by Pinnacle
Engineers. Roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk.
Anderson: Hey what happened to the discussion?
Bird: Discussion? I’m sorry, I’m getting ahead of myself.
Anderson: I just wanted to make a couple of comments and kind of echo what Shari said. I know our Ordinance says that 8,000 square foot is a minimum. I guess what I see here in this
development is that they took that literally and 80 by 100 and it doesn’t leave you any room for air. It’s kind of like a good lesson to me. It’s kind of like the guy that comes in
at one minute before 8:00 every day. You ought to leave yourself a little wiggle room in future developments in case
there is an error. As our Ordinance also talks bout for variance there needs to be overwhelming support that this cause some type of financial hardship and I don’t see it in this case
other than this was a human error on the part of somebody doing some measurements. I just kind of wanted to echo what Shari’s saying, I strongly would suggest that you not make a habit
of this and that you try to give yourself a little bit of room in future developments so that they’re not that close.
De Weerd: Very nicely stated.
Bird: Any more discussion? Mr. Clerk would you Roll-call vote?
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 16. FP 00-026 Final Plat approval for 48 building lots and 3 other lots for Tumble Creek Subdivision No. 5 by Pinnacle Engineers – Ustick and North Linder Roads:
Bird: Item No. 16 is the Final Plat approval for 48 building lots and 3 other lots for Tumble Creek Subdivision No. 5. Also Council, we had a thing on our deal before us, tonight when
we got here regarding this item. Shari have you seen this?
Stiles: Yes I have.
Bird: Shari do you want to bring us up to date and give you a recommendation?
Stiles: Mr. President, Council, you have our comments dated January 12, 2001 and also a memo from Gary Smith dated January 15, 2001. The applicant’s representative has responded to
our comments. They furnished the information we had requested. They’ve indicate they will provide closure table to show that the lots do meet the minimum 8, 000 there’s some that are
squeaking by, maybe. They have suggested some modifications they may make to meet the minimum frontage requirements. On Item No. 1, on the second No. 1 of the applicant’s response
regarding the Flood Plane. I was not aware that the Flood Planes could not be shown that the County has changed their opinion on whether those should be shown on a plat. However we
would ask the applicant to supply us with a plat, with the fima Flood Plane superimposed on the plat map as it’s – the fima Flood Plane maps we get it’s almost impossible to determine
where those flood planes are because of the scale of them. We would like to, if you have that information available to provide us with that information. On the second page, Item 2,
the applicant’s representative may not be aware of how frontages are calculated. On these lots that show – these are also two of the lots that their proposing to take two feet off of
to make the other lots meet the frontage requirements. The frontage of a lot is taken with the line length and half of this
line length for a corner lot. That results in less than the 80-foot minimum frontage. If you put those arrows on there, they can face the houses that way that would be their frontage
and it certainly would be more desirable to have their garages coming in off of the other direction. That’s one solution if you wanted to get rid of those driveways. Under Item 3,
I wasn’t sure if Gary would have a chance to go over this and that’s why the comment for my Item 14 just to make sure that someone from engineering had a chance to review it. I believe
Gary Smith has addressed any concerns of the Public Works and Building Department. We would ask that you approve the plat of Tumble Creek Subdivision No. 5 with staff and agency comments.
Bird: Any questions for staff, applicant?
Boyle: Again, Clint Boyle with Pinnacle Engineers. I’m in agreement with Shari on everything that she just stated. That’s fine, as far as those different items that we discussed,
we’re not contending with any of those. On the frontages, that was just a clarification item. Unfortunately our understanding was the City offices were closed over the Martin Luther
King holiday so we weren’t able to contact anybody to discuss that but we did come to an understanding on those frontages this morning with the staff. I appreciate that and we’ll keep
that in mind, future phases. Again the only items that we had question with was on memo Item No. 11 and this is the Meridian Staff Memo with the fima Flood Plane issue. We certainly
don’t have any problem providing an exhibit or a plat overlay blue line to the City to Shari showing that designation. Essentially it affects one lot, and that lot I don’t have a pointer.
It’s lot 24 in the right hand corner that’s up against the Five-Mile Creek drainage. There’s a small portion of that that is within the Flood Plane designation. That would be the
only lot in the entire division that would be affected by a Flood Plane and we can show where that crosses that lot. The other item I guess that was a little bit unclear to us was it
was also stated that development and I forget how It’s phrased in the staff report under 11 but it would require a Conditional Use Permit. Any structures proposed within 100 year Flood
Plane require a Conditional Use Permit. Maybe that’s something that Shari can clarify because our understanding was that that dealt with structures within the Flood Way rather than
the Flood Plane.
Stiles: (Inaudible) your Flood Plane?
Boyle: Requires Conditional Use Permit.
Stiles: Yes.
Boyle: Rather than just an elevation permit on the structure?
Stiles: We’re working on changing that but unfortunately that’s what our Ordinance reads. There’s a Flood Plane overlay district and that includes everything within the 100 year Flood
Plane. Not the 500-year Flood Plane but
any structures within the 100-year Flood Plane are required a Conditional Use Process. As large as that lot is I can’t imagine -- if it’s just a portion of it it’s probably not going
to affect you.
Boyle: Okay, that was just an item of clarification and I don’t recall if that item was part of the approval on the other 3 lots that abut the Five-Mile drainage. We’ll comply with
that if that is a requirement. In the final one that we went through, I guess that we would just like removed or struck from the comments was Item No. 14, of the staff comments, which
was the last item in the response that I gave. Essentially that was just one of the provisions of approval was that Bruce Freckleton would be allowed to make additional changes once
he had an opportunity to review the plat. We would certainly rather have it -- condition upon the memo that Gary Smith submitted and have that provision of the staff comments removed
I guess would be our request. So that it’s not left up to Bruce to make changes to our plat after we receive or hopefully receive approval from the City Council. I would be happy to
answer any questions.
Bird: Any questions Council? Thank you Mayor very much. Council any discussion? I would entertain a motion then.
McCandless: Mr. President, I move that we approve the Final Plat No. 00-026 for 48 building lots and 3 other lots for Tumble Creek Subdivision No. 5 and I’m lost. Instruct the City
Attorney to draw up the proper papers including staff comments.
Bird: Does that include this memo? Gary Smith’s memo of January 15, 2001 regarding to provide the elements of not having –
McCandless: He made the comments for the Engineering Department, yes.
Bird: Deleting 14.
McCandless: Deleting 14.
De Weerd: Second.
Bird: Been moved and seconded to approve the Final Plat for 48 building lots and 3 other lots for Tumble Creek Subdivision No. 5, any discussion? Hearing none, Roll-call vote, Mr.
Clerk.
Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 17. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
Bird: Item No. 17 which we added is a delinquency for turnoff scheduled for January 24, 2001 this is for trash, water and sewer. This is to inform you, in writing, if you choose to,
you may have the right to a pre-determination hearing at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, January 16, 2001, before the mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and to
defend the claim made by this City that your water, sewer and trash be delinquent. You may retain counsel. This service will be discontinued on January 24, 2001, unless payment is
received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her water, sewer and trash delinquency? They are hereby informed that they may appeal or have the decision of
the City reviewed by the Forth Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho State Code. Even though they appeal, their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn-off list is $56,093.17.
Nichols: Just for the record you need to state on the tape that there was no one present to appear in –
Bird: I’m sorry.
Anderson: He’s back in Washington DC.
Bird: There was nobody here to protest their delinquency turnoff. With that I would entertain a motion to approve the delinquency shutoff.
McCandless: Mr. President, so moved.
Anderson: Second.
Bird: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 18. Election of Officers:
Bird: Isn’t that a lot of money? Council before we go any farther we need to elect our President and Vice President for the City Council for this coming year. I would entertain nominations
for President.
De Weerd: I would like to nominate Keith Bird for President.
Bird: Do we hear a second.
McCandless: I second it.
De Weerd: That’s of City Council not of the United States.
Bird: Any other nominations? If hearing none I will close nominations, all in favor? Now for Vice President of the City Council?
McCandless: Mr. President, I nominate Ron Anderson for Vice President.
Bird: Do I hear a second?
De Weerd: Second.
Bird: Any other nominations? Hearing none, all in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Bird: I guess we’re re-elected for another year. We’ll discuss and the next meeting have our assignments for our deal if that’s okay with everybody. I think Cherie’s got something
that she would like to –
Item 19. Executive Session 67-2345(e):
McCandless: Mr. President I would like to request a short Executive Session under 67-2345(e) to consider matters of Commerce.
Bird: Do I hear a second.
Anderson: Second.
Bird: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
(Regular meeting reconvened at 10:34 p.m.)
Bird: We came out of the Executive Session; nothing decided. I need a motion to come out of it.
McCandless: So moved.
Bird: Do I hear a second?
Anderson: Second.
Bird: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: You need to state that no decisions were made.
Bird: No decisions were made.
McCandless: He did.
Bird: I did when I first said it.
De Weerd: Sorry.
Bird: If there’s no further business, I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
McCandless: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Bird: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:35 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK