HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 05-18Meridian City Council Meeting May 18, 2004.
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at
7:10 P.M., Tuesday, May 18, 2004, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, William Nary, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree and Shaun Wardle.
Others Present: Jill
Holinka, Will Berg, Anna Powell, Brad Watson, Bill Musser, Gary Smith, Kenny Bowers, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X Shaun Wardle
X Bill Nary
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
_X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and open the City Council regular
meeting for Tuesday, May 18th. It is ten after 7:00. I would like to welcome you all here tonight. Glad you joined us. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll call attendance.
Item
2: Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Item No. 2 is the pledge of allegiance and we have Max Beerdon with the ESGR to lead us in the pledge. Will you please rise.
(Pledge of Allegiance
recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation by Robert Curler with Christ Lutheran Church:
De Weerd: Thank you, Max. Okay. Item No. 3 is our community invocation. We added this item to
our agenda and to involve our faith community to work together with our city government and our business community to bring solutions. This is one way that we are involving them. If
this -- we don't want -- we want to be inclusive, we don't want to offend anyone. If you could use this as a time of silence, if you do not want to join us in prayer, but I would like
to welcome Pastor Robert Curler with the Christ Lutheran Church. If you would, please, join us.
Curler: Let us pray. Dear Heavenly Father, Eternal Lord, ruler of all, we graciously
regard those who have been set in positions of authority among us that they may be guided by your spirit, Lord, be high in purpose and wise in counsel, firm in good resolution and unwavering
in duty, that under them we may be governed quietly and peacefully. And, Lord, we pray that you would keep this nation, Lord, under your care. Bless the leaders of our land that we
may be a people that are at peace among
ourselves and a blessing to other nations of the world or help us to provide trustworthy leaders to contribute to wise decisions for the general welfare and that serve you faithfully
in our generation to the honor of your holy name. And, Almighty God, you have given us this good land as our heritage. Grant that we remember your generosity to us and that we would
constantly do your will. Bless our land with honest industry, truthful education, and an honorable way of life. Save us, Lord, from violence, discord and confusion from pride and arrogance
and from every evil course of action. Make us, oh, Lord, who came from many nations with many different languages, a united people. Lord, defend our liberties and give us -- and give
those whom we have entrusted with the authority of government the spirit of wisdom that there may be justice and peace in our land. When times are prosperous, Lord, let our hearts be
thankful and in troubled times do not let our trust in you fail. Through Jesus Christ, our Lord, we pray, amen.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you so much. And
I -- this is your first time with us tonight. I would like to present you with a City of Meridian pin. Thank you for joining us. Okay. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda.
Bird:
Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We have had a request on our regular agenda, Items 10 and 11 has been asked to be moved to the end of the agenda, so I would suggest -- or
like to move that we put 10 and 11 behind No. 17 on our list. And with that I would move that we adopt the revised agenda as stated.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird, I would
ask -- I was supposed to come back with you today on the summer intern program, so I would like a decision on that and we do have a letter in front of us from the Meridian Senior Center
that I would like you to --
Bird: So, you want to add two items to the Mayor's --
De Weerd: To my department report.
Bird: Okay. I would so move if the second agrees.
Rountree:
I agree.
De Weerd: Thank you so much. It's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda as amended. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED:
ALL AYES.
Item 5: ESGR Statement of Support:
De Weerd: Last week we talked to Charlie Brown and Max Beerdon about the employer support for the Guard and Reserve Statement of Support and we have
asked them back tonight for a signing of that support. I would also like to recognize our representative Mark Snodgrass, who came here to show his support for this endeavor that Meridian
is entering into and also his support of the military. So, if you would like to join us.
Beerdon: Yes. Could we have Chief Warrant Officer Severson join us?
De Weerd: Yes. I
would like our chief of police to, please, introduce Officer Severson.
Musser: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, members of the audience. Chief Warrant Officer Myron Severson
is a Marine Corps chief warrant officer serving out at the Gowen Field Marine Corps reserve company, which is a tank company, and he is also a member of the Meridian Police Department
serving as an elementary school resource officer and has the rank of corporal within our department. He is, to my knowledge, our only serving member in the armed forces at this point
between the Reserves or the National Guard in the City of Meridian and I asked him to be here this evening to receive due recognition as such, as part of the proclamation that we are
having and because of the support that we have from the City Council and Mayor in that behalf. And thank you, Myron, for being here.
De Weerd: Thank you, chief. Thank you Officer
Severson.
Beerdon: Those of you who don't -- are not familiar with the employer's support of the Guard and Reserve, I'd like to read the Statement of Support for the Guard and Reserve
that the Mayor is going to be signing on behalf of the City of Meridian. It says: We recognize the National Guard and Reserve as essential to the strength of our nation and the well
being of our communities. In the highest American tradition, the patriotic men and women of the Guard and Reserve serve voluntarily in an honorable and vital profession. They train
to respond to the community and their country in time of need. They deserve every support of every segment of our society. If these volunteer forces are to continue to serve our nation,
increased public understanding is required of the essential role of the Guard and Reserve in preserving our national security, their members must have the cooperation of American employers
in encouraging employer participation in Guard and Reserve training programs. Therefore, we join other employers in pledging that employment will not be denied because of service in
the Guard or Reserve, employee job and career opportunities will not be limited or reduced because of service in the Guard and Reserve; employees will granted leaves of absence for military
training in the Guard or Reserve consistent with existing laws, without sacrifice of vacation and this agreement and its resultant policies will be made known throughout our organization.
And it's signed by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Mayor De Weerd. And if you could sign one afterwards for each one of your departments we'd appreciate that very much, and for those
of you who haven't had a
chance to see the statement of support and also in Idaho we have what we call a three star program, depending on your level of support for employees, you get one, two, or three stars,
and I would like to present on behalf of the Idaho Committee for the national support of the Guard and Reserve Mayor De Weerd a three star decal to hang on the city hall and one for
each one of the departments.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Beerdon: Thank you so much. And thank you, Council.
Item 6: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of April 27, 2004 City Council
Regular Minutes:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PFP 04-003 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval of 1 condominium plat on 1.24 acres in a L-O zone
for Riverbirch Courtyard Condominiums by N.M. Enterprises – south of East Overland Road and east of Celebration Avenue:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval:
CUP 04-007 Request for a detailed Conditional Use Permit for Riverbirch Courtyard Condominiums as required by the Development Agreement for Resolution Business Park for a medical /
dental office use in an L-O zone by N. M. Enterprises – south of East Overland Road and east of Celebration Avenue:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PFP
04-002 Request for Preliminary / Final Plat approval for the re-subdivision of Lot 3, Block 10, of Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 2 into 3 building lots on 2.63 acres in an R-4
zone for Bridgetower Crossing/Gallery Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP – northeast corner of West Belltower Drive and North Ten Mile Road:
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law for Approval: REVISED AZ 03-029 Request for annexation and zoning of 26.48 acres from RUT to R-8(PD) zones for proposed Sheridan Place Subdivision by CMD, Inc. – north of
East McMillan Road and east of North Locust Grove Road:
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: REVISED PP 03-035 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 50
building lots and 15 other lots on 15.34 acres in a proposed R-8 (PD) zone for Sheridan Place Subdivision by Doug Campbell – north of East McMillan Road and east of North Locust Grove
Road:
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: REVISED CUP 03-060 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential use with reduced
setbacks, lot frontages, house sizes, and increased block length for proposed Sheridan Place Subdivision by Doug Campbell – north of East McMillan Road and east of North Locust Grove
Road:
H. Affidavit for Correction to Sanitary Sewer Easement with Holder Properties (T-Mobile Project):
I. Development Agreement: AZ 03-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
70.64 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Settlement Bridge Subdivision by Capital Development – 2205 East McMillan Road:
De Weerd: You know, this comes at a time when one of
our largest deployments in the State of Idaho is looking to go join the efforts in Iraq and so the timing couldn't be better. We might have Officer Severson as one employee in our city
employees, but he's one of many in our city that serve in a Reserve or a Guard unit and we want to also recognize and honor those efforts of all of our citizens and appreciate you being
here with us tonight. Okay. I would also like to welcome Troop No. 174. They are from the Sunnybrook LDS Ward and we appreciate you joining us here, and wish you luck in getting
your merit badge. Item 6 is our Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda as published and for the Mayor to
sign and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7: Department Reports:
A. Mayor’s Office:
1. Economic
Development Coordinator:
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Okay. Item 7 is Department Reports. The first item is from last week. Did you have any questions regarding the information that you were presented?
I don't know if you also received information from our accounting department. They did a general breakdown of the budget that was set aside of 215,710, the two and a half percent increase
in February of 104,695, the longevity awards would result in a remainder of around 108,000 dollars. Fifty thousand we will be dedicating to the downtown traffic study and so that would
still remain about 60,000 dollars.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess do we need to approve the agreement or the --
De Weerd: I would like to put this out,
advertise for a professional service contract.
Nary: Okay. Well, then, I would make a motion to approve the economic development coordinator position as has been previously presented
by you and your office.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve. Is there any further questions or discussion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr.
Bird.
Bird: Now, this motion is just strictly to put it out for an RFP, request for proposal, and, then, will this -- this is going to be a contract, not an employee?
De Weerd: That's
correct.
Bird: And is it going to be on a year-to-year basis or --
De Weerd: Yes, it is.
Bird: Okay. You answered my questions.
De Weerd: Okay. I would --
Bird: I thought
that's what it was, but I just wanted it out clear.
De Weerd: Along with that is a workstation and that sort of thing. Is that also part of the motion?
Nary: Yes.
Bird: That was part of your proposal.
De Weerd: Yes, it was.
Okay. Is there any further questions? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
3: Meridian Senior
Center.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, you also have in front of you a letter dated May 12th from the Meridian Senior Center. They have had the opportunity to complete the replacement of
their old roof. Unfortunately, because of the cost of materials, that cost exceeded what their expectation was and they have fallen short 4,000 dollars. They have talked to Councilmember
Bird and is there anything you would like to add?
Bird: Madam Mayor, you have pretty well covered it. As normal on a lot of jobs, from the time they got the bid until they got on
the job, material had went up on them. So, 4,000 will cover it and it will also put that new flume up there that is badly needed. It was flat wore out. So, I hope that we can -- I
know we have got the money within the Council's budget that would cover it and I would certainly hope the other councilmen would agree to get this 4,000 dollar check so they can pay
their bill.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Bird. As you all know, from the announcement I e-mailed to you and also we talked about last night or last week, we did receive a grant supporting
the Meridian Senior Center for 100,000 dollars for all the needed repairs and that grant was successful in receiving that, so that will help with much needed projects in their kitchen,
bringing it up to ADA standards, and both the ramping and the bathrooms. So, are there any further questions? So, I would like a motion to authorize cutting them a check to help with
these expenses.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve a 4,000 dollar check to the Meridian Senior Center Association to be taken out of the
Council's funds.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve the amount of 4,000 dollars to be given to the Senior Center to cover the cost of their roof repairs. Any further discussion? Mr.
Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
3: Summer Intern Program
De Weerd: Okay. I thought maybe the HR director would
be back here talking about the summer intern program. We did have a discussion to narrow the list that you got last week. The focus would be on high school or college students that
are Meridian residents. Our P&Z department will be asking for a high school student as noted. They are asking for 600. The IT has some additional monies that they can put where they
will need an intern for 1,000 dollars. Public Works is very dedicated to getting their GIS system up to date and that is a high priority for that department, so many of the departments
kind of gave their -- their needs over to Public Works, so this can be up and running. They will use one full-time intern and that's at 3,750 and the police department would like 600
dollars for a stipend for an intern. The summer interns I will be using will be a stipend. With the stipend you do not pay taxes on, so that seems to be the direction that we are going
for this work.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: How much are your stipends?
De Weerd: My stipend did cost out at what I had in the memo at 1,950.
Bird: 1,950.
So, in other words, we are looking at about a total of 78, 79 hundred bucks for all this.
De Weerd: Mine is covered within my budget.
Bird: But it's still an added deal, even
though it is covered. I just -- because I'm like Mr. Nary, I don't want to see it 15 or 20 thousand dollars for interns. I'd like to keep it down. I have no problem with what you
have got right now personally. And let's make sure that this is a program that is going to work. I think it is going to work.
De Weerd: I think we can have a good basis by the time
we have our budget workshops in July to really gauge the success of this program.
Bird: I think this program will be very very successful if we work it right and I don't see any reason
we won't work it right and if you need a motion, I would make a motion that
we approve these summer interns on the specified salaries and stipends that you stated.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the summer intern
program. Is there any further discussion? And that is in the amount of what is not budgeted currently at 6,000 dollars.
Bird: That's right.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Clerk.
Roll-Call:
Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 8: (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Thank you, Council. We
did not move any items from Consent Agenda.
Item 9: FP 04-030 Request for Final Plat approval of 30 single-family residential building lots and 6 common lots on 9.01 acres in a R-8
zone for Baldwin Park Subdivision No. 8 by Capital Development, Inc. – North of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road:
De Weerd: So, Item No. 9, FP 04-030. I will start
with staff comments.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the -- it's, actually, the first final plat to come through on the revised Baldwin Park Subdivision. As
you may recall, they took the -- kind of the remainder of the first preliminary plat that came in and added this property down here and did a new preliminary plat, so this is the first
final plat to come in on that portion of it. This is Cedar Springs over here. Venable Lane ends about right here. So, currently, the access is out to the west, but, eventually, they
will have access through here and, then, down to Venable Lane. There is the final plat. The final plat substantially complies with the approved preliminary plat. They did add one
common lot for a street buffer for the landscaping, but that was the only change that was made and staff recommends approval.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any questions for staff?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Was the applicant in agreement or he would like to provide comment.
Yorgason: My name is Dave Yorgason with Capital Development as the applicant. We are in agreement with the staff report and just request approval tonight.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Yorgason:
Thank you.
De Weerd: Any questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Don't want to give him a hard time?
Bird: Well, we do want to do that, but better not.
De Weerd: Thank you, Dave.
Yorgason: Well earned. Thank you. Okay. Counsel?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve FP 04-030, final
plat for Baldwin Park Subdivision No. 8.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 9. Is there any further discussion? Okay. Mr. Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 10. We are entering into the Public Hearing process part of our
agenda. By ordinance we do require that we swear in anyone wishing to provide testimony during any these of public hearing items, Items 10 through 14. If you will be joining us in
providing testimony, if you would, please, raise your right hand, even the applicant. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God? If so, say I do.
(Affirmative answers.)
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Items 10 and -- I'm sorry.
Powell: Madam Mayor, they asked -- they requested to be moved to the end of the agenda. They had a conflict in meeting times.
De Weerd: Okay. Does Council have any problem with
that?
Bird: We approved the revised agenda.
Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 04-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.27 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Packard Acres
Subdivision No. 3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC – south of East Ustick Road and east of North Locust Grove Road:
Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 04-006 Request for Preliminary
Plat approval of 20 single-family residential building lots and 2 common lots on 5.273 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3 by Packard Estates Development,
LLC – south of East Ustick Road and east of North Locust Grove Road:
Item 14: Public Hearing: VAR 04-002 Request for a Variance for reduction of the setback of the existing house
on Lot 21, Block 5 from 20 feet to 13.55 feet for Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC – south of East Ustick Road and east of North Locust Grove Road:
De
Weerd: Okay. I'm sorry. I was sleeping during that part. Okay. Item 12, 13, and 14. I will open the public hearings on AZ 04-005, PP 04-006, and VAR 04-002. And we will open the
public hearings with staff comments.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a new preliminary plat that comes forward as part of the Packard Acres Subdivision. As you
can see on the zoning map, this is an in-fill property. This is the last five-acre parcel here and there is one five- acre parcel remaining to the south of them. The project is comprised
of 20 building lots and just to point out, this is Wingate Lane from the Sharp's house going north. This is the subject property. As you can see, there is a stub street here, a road
that goes through here, and, then, a stub street there. The subdivision does consist of 20 building lots and two other lots. Those are open space lots. One is located right here,
it's primarily a drainage lot, and the open space lot is located adjacent to Wingate Lane. The property is shown as medium density residential on the future land use map and they have
requested to be zoned R-4, which is consistent with that designation. They are proposing a gross density of 3.49 dwelling units per acre, which is also consistent with the medium density
residential zoning -- or Comprehensive Plan designation. The minimum lot size on the lots is 8,000 square feet. They have not asked for any reductions to the standard R-4 zoning.
This is just a straight plat. The open space as it stands is 4.9 percent. Code does require that it's five percent. Staff has added conditions to the -- to the proposal to bring that
back up to five percent. This does come forward with a recommendation for approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. They heard the item on April 15th. Pat Tealey testified
in favor of the application and
some of the design aspects. Dale Sharp did testify with concerns regarding Wingate Lane, as did Helen Sharp. Justin Hall testified on behalf of Packard Acres Homeowners Association.
They did have concerns about the 13-foot setback on the existing home. That's under a separate application. I'll go through that briefly. This is an existing home. The very tip
here is a little over 13 feet from the edge of right of way. Let me see if I have a close up of that. Here is the house. So, the tip of that building is there. This is at an odd
angle, so it's kind of -- you have got to twist yourself around. But this is the side of the house that would be closest to the street and it would be 13 feet. As you can see, the
garage is somewhat recessed and somewhat angled. So, as we go back up to the site plan, there is the garage. You can see the existing driveway right there. So, it's kind of angled
away from the road and is somewhat recessed. Regarding that variance request, if you look -- if you go 20 feet back, which would be the standard R-4 setback for a garage, they have
a total of 106 square feet of building area that encroaches into that setback. If you look at a 15-foot setback, which we do allow for side loaded garages, which this is, basically,
side loaded. It's kind of turned away from that, then, they only have six square feet that encroaches into the setback area. Getting back to the summary of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, Craig Groves, the developer, responded to the concerns and summarized the open space lot features. The key issues of the discussion and questioning by the Commission included
Wingate Lane, the width and access issues to the subdivision, and also the open space lot design and access location. This is the -- staff originally had some concerns about the open
space not being very usable right up against Wingate Lane. What they have proposed is a fairly open fencing -- it doesn't show up too well. I'm sorry. This would be an open split
rail fence along Wingate Lane and, then, a meandering path through that open area, with some nice green area and, then, this would be a standard open space fencing on the other side
near the homes. The one change to staff recommendation that the Planning and Zoning Commission did make was to allow the split rail fence against Wingate -- or adjacent to Wingate Lane.
The outstanding issues before Council -- again, there is a variance that is -- accompanies these applications. If you choose not to approve the variance, then, you have a couple options.
If you want the developer to change the road design, then, you probably shouldn't act on the preliminary plat. If you want him just to remove the house, then, that would be another
option. So, just for your consideration regarding that issue with the variance. Any reference to the revised preliminary plat, it's dated April 13th, '04, and it was received by the
city clerk on the 19th of April. With that, I will end staff's presentation.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions, Council? Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant here? We have 15 minutes
for the applicant and so you have already been sworn in. Please, state your name and address.
Tealey: Pat Tealey. 2501 Bogus Basin Road, Boise.
De Weerd: You don't have to use
the whole 15 minutes, though.
Tealey: Well, I don't plan on it. That's okay. As stated by staff, this application was heard before Planning and Zoning on April 15th, approved unanimously
with conditions.
We agree with all the conditions placed by Planning and Zoning on the development. This is the last phase of Packard Acres Subdivision. It is presently owned by the development company
and represents 20 buildable lots on 5.27 acres. We did submit a revised preliminary plat prior to the Planning and Zoning meeting, which met the five percent requirement for the open
space. So, that has been taken care of. There was some concern about the placement of the open space during the Planning and Zoning hearing. Basically, if you're -- they didn't feel
it was in the proper position, but when viewed as a whole -- in the Packard Subdivision as a whole, this is, actually, pretty centrally located to a lot more of the homes and it's not
on one side of the development. What I mean is that we are surrounded by other portions of Packard Subdivision that are all part of the same homeowners association and they will all
benefit from this open space. And each one of these lots in here will become a member of the homeowners association, which, then, provides them access to the swimming pool and the club
house that is part of the Packard Estates Homeowners Association. Other than that, if you have got any questions, I would be glad to answer them.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Tealey.
Any questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Okay. We have several people who have signed up to testify. Is David Battaglia here? Would you like to join us? Okay. Please
step forward. And I saw you raise your right hand, so just state your name and address. You might want to pull up the -- thank you.
Battaglia: My name is Dave Battaglia, 2527 East
Lockmeadow Street, Meridian, Idaho. 83642.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Battaglia: I am a homeowner that is a block away from -- I don't know whom to address.
De Weerd: Just address
the Council.
Battaglia: I'll address the Council here. Great. Okay. I'm a homeowner that is in the subdivision. Our subdivision consists of 214 homes. The homes, if I do remember,
are about four and a half years old total and they are up to year today. My concern -- and I think there has been others. Council should have received an e-mail sent out by a homeowner,
Lieutenant Michael Garshak. Can I say that? I guess I did. But, anyways, from a concerned homeowner who could not be here tonight, because of guard duty. But he and I and others are
concerned that the house that we are asking for 13 foot setback -- or 13.5 foot setback -- can I walk that way? Am I --
Powell: Sir, there is also a laser pointer right there you can
use.
Battaglia: Thank you. This 13-foot setback right here, it's going -- just for those who don't know, the sidewalk is going to be going right along here. This home -- all of
the homes on this street -- if we could go back one. All of these homes on the street right here -- this Lot 20 in question -- or 21. Excuse me. All of these homes are north-south,
north-south, north-south, north-south. This home is an east-west, east-west, east-west. I'm not sure, not being a builder, what a side entrance is, but a side entrance on a home --
if it's coming off Wingate into that subdivision, is that considered a side -- side entrance? I'm not sure. I thought if the home is facing any direction, which this is a Wingate home,
that means the side entrance should be coming in on this into the house, not coming in on a side, meaning a curve. But I'm not a builder, so I, honestly, can't say one way or another.
If it's a side entrance and the Council is going to approve a 15 foot setback or 16, whatever it is that was just said about ten minutes ago, then, I thought a side entrance should
be coming in this way. And, again, that's new to me -- and new news to me on side entrances. It doesn't meet CC&Rs. We don't have split entries out of the 214 homes, plus the 20 more
lots that are coming in here. We don't have garages that go down. The roof pitches in our houses are all -- do we have a -- this roof pitch here will not meet our CC&R guidelines.
I feel, personally, as a homeowner in Packard Estates, I purchased in Packard Estates for the resale value. I feel that this home is going to be an eye sore, even with the developer,
who is working on trying to make it look nice, there is no way this can meet CC&R guidelines. Thank you. I didn't know we had a time. Anyways, in conclusion, secondly, Wingate is
a concern of mine as just a good neighbor homeowner and I think someone will be discussing Wingate. Thank you for your time.
De Weerd: Council, do you have questions?
Bird: Madam
Mayor, I do.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: The existing home -- that existing home comes off of Wingate Lane right now?
Battaglia: Yes, sir.
Bird: Okay. So, it does have a right
to Wingate --
Battaglia: To Wingate. Yes, sir.
Bird: Thank you.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we did place a condition that it would have to move its access to
Meadowgrass, the street just to the south of it.
De Weerd: Okay. I guess my question is has your homeowners association talked about that house?
Battaglia: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay.
And is what -- the testimony you provided what their determination was? Did you share their feelings?
Battaglia: I'm not currently -- yes, to answer your question. But, currently, just for the record, I am not the president or board member at this time. It's the developer that is.
But, yes, we shared it across the board with at least 15 homeowners that are in the same concern.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Battaglia: If that's a concern.
De Weerd: Any
further questions? Thank you very much.
Battaglia: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Dale Sharp. Please state your name and address. You can pull that mike down a little bit.
Sharp:
Dale Sharp. 2445 Wingate Lane. And I do have concerns about the lane there and if you're going across Wingate Lane, how are we going to get out -- access there? Are you going to block
us off while you're crossing that Wingate Lane there? Where ever -- right here. Because our access is right here and we go right up there. And also in the previous phase the fire chief
said that you had to have 20 feet for safety reasons for emergency vehicles. Now, we are saying we don't have to have it. Why do we have this exception? And, also, now we want another
-- and I agree, that access for this house is not to be on Wingate Lane anymore. It is part of the subdivision. Wingate Lane is private. So, we'd have to access here and you shouldn't
have another exception, 13 feet there, it should be 20 like everything else. And as far as the fence is concerned, it should be more than the split rail fence to keep people from getting
onto Wingate Lane or using -- they will be crawling over it and onto Wingate Lane. It's just an invitation to use Wingate Lane. And that's some of my concerns. But we do have very
definite concerns how we are going to get through there, because last time you had a two foot drop off and we couldn't get across that on Challis.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Sharp.
Is there any further questions? Okay. Thank you. Helen Sharp. Thank you. Please state your name and address.
H. Sharp: Helen Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, Meridian, Idaho. Mayor,
Council people, and staff. My real concern is I'm not opposing the subdivision, I'm not opposing annexation, again, I am opposing crossing our private Wingate Lane. According to our
1913 road agreement, it says -- and I quote: Use of all the owners of the said tract with equal rights to the use of the same. If you make that part public, they are not owners. I'm
sure that ACHD has an agreement, but ownership is not the same as having an easement agreement. We have an easement agreement with Nampa Irrigation on the south side of our property,
but it does not give them ownership. It is very specific who should use Wingate Lane, which is a private lane. It was established in 1913. The people on the west side donated the
land and I think this is a recorded document and
until the residents of Wingate Lane change it, it should be enforced. We would like to say we'd like to have our private lane respected, as you expect to have your private property
expected -- respected. I'm also talking about, as my husband has mentioned, the 20 foot. My concern is why did they put in that fence for 15 feet, knowing that the requirement was
20? You would think that you would want consistency. We know that the City of Meridian is very adamant about consistency with their signs after Kentucky Fried Chicken. We think that
you should be consistent on our lane, that if someone with an emergency vehicle needs to come down, they should have the right to have the 20 feet. I think the open area, rather than
just going in front of it, is now what we call the Riecker property, should extend all the way from Challis all the way down to our property to make it worthwhile. And, here again,
I think that we need to consider those of us who live on Wingate Lane. We have been keeping it up and if they are owners, they should be helping with the maintenance, and the last recording
we have they did not. But I'd like to see -- I'd like to see the sale agreement that shows them as owners. It is very specific and some say this contract was written in 1913, it's
pretty broad, and I'm sure in 1913 you could be -- get by with a handshake, but you can't right now. But it's very specific as to who was to use that lane and that was the owners.
Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Helen. Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Mrs. Sharp, help me with the 20 feet.
H. Sharp: Well, the 20 feet of the -- the lane.
Rountree: The width
of the lane.
H. Sharp: Yes.
Rountree: Okay.
H. Sharp: So, part of it -- the part that's there now for Packard Estates II is 20 feet, but, then, when you go from Challis down
with 15.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any further questions? Thank you. Okay. Mike Spink. Mr. Spink, were you part of the swearing in process?
Spink:
Yes.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Spink: My name is Mike Spink, 251 East Front, Boise. I was the attorney in the litigation that was filed by Mr. and Mrs. Sharp
with respect to the use of Wingate Lane, in which represented by counsel, they raised all of these issues and I believe more. In that case Judge Tom Neville eventually entered judgment
against the Sharps on all of the issues
relating to the use of Wingate Lane and those matters have been judicially decided and they are really no longer at issue. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions for Mr.
Spink? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to offer testimony on this application? Okay. Mr. Tealey, would you like to comment?
Tealey: Do I have to state my name again
--
De Weerd: Please state your name.
Tealey: For the record, my name is Pat Tealey, 2501 Bogus Basin Road. As far as the variance, we are asking for a variance from the 15 foot setback
that is required -- or can be allowed in the R-4 zone per the city ordinance 11-9-2-3B, which states a 15 foot front yard setback may be permitted for residents, provided that it is
designed with living space for it that projects any distance in front of the area proposed for parking. The 15 foot setback applies to the projected living space required parking shall
setback 20 feet. This is a side entry garage. We are denied access -- or we have -- excuse me. We have stated that we won't access Wingate Lane. We are not denied, but agreed not
to have access onto Wingate Lane. So, the house will, in fact, access off Meadowgrass. The CC&Rs, as mentioned by Mr. Battaglia, are not in place yet on this subdivision. Certainly,
the CC&R's are in place for Packard Estates and Packard Acres Subdivisions. Plus, the fact is a matter probably most likely taken up between the homeowners association and the developers,
rather than a city council. We will -- Mr. Sharp's concerns, we will provide adequate access during construction. The people -- people will cross a fence no matter where it is, as
far as the requirement that we agreed to -- or the -- what we wanted was the split rail fence along Wingate Lane, just to maintain a more open space, so we aren't crowded in by a six
foot cedar fence that forms a wall along the east side of the open area. We felt that it was best to go in there with a split rail fence to maintain that openness. As far as people
getting back and forth across the fence, if they want to go up Wingate Lane, all they do is go around the six-foot fence and walk up Wingate Lane, then. The fence really is of no --
won't prohibit any -- any of that action, if, in fact, they want to get onto Wingate Lane. ACHD has said repeatedly and the City of Meridian has agreed with the crossing of Wingate
Lane with the public road. That issue has been settled quite a while ago. And as mentioned by Mr. Spink, has been addressed in the courts. The requirement of Mr. Sharp -- or Mrs.
Sharp wanting 20 feet for Wingate Lane, Wingate Lane originates at Ustick Road and proceeds some -- and I'm just going to use a rounded number -- some 1,500 feet south as a 15 foot private
lane. It was increased to 20 foot adjacent to Packard Acres, so that ACHD could get to their drainage pond. That's the only reason that it's the 20 feet, as it is -- as it is next
to adjacent Packard Acres. Then it goes back down to the original 15 feet as it goes through our subdivision. There was not a requirement from the city fire department for that thing
to be 20 feet. It's just not true. And, like I say, the first 1,500 feet of that Wingate Lane off of Ustick is 15 feet in width. With that I'll stand for any questions.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Mr. Tealey, you testified that -- two different ways here and, for the record, I understand that the city does not enforce
CC&Rs and those sorts of things, but you did testify previously that this was part of the -- this subdivision would be part of the same homeowners association as the current subdivision
and now you have just testified that there is no homeowners association and so what's really going to happen here?
Tealey: What's going to happen is exactly what I said. There is
a current homeowners association for Packard Estates I through IV, and Packard Acres I and II. Now, the CC&Rs have not been recorded yet for this development, so when those CC&Rs are
recorded for Packard Acres No. III, they will, then, become part of the homeowners association and the architectural details of the remodel will be addressed at that time.
Rountree:
Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Currently, is the homeowners association made up of residents in those subdivisions or is it still under the control of the developer?
Tealey: It's in control of the developer. The developer still maintains that control.
Rountree: Okay.
De Weerd: I guess just a follow up to what Councilman Rountree was asking.
Whatever CC&Rs you set most likely will have consistency with the rest of the Packard Estates CC&Rs, but you were commenting that this would be brought up to the code of -- or the expectations
of the CC&Rs?
Spink: Could I be allowed to address those questions as the attorney for the developer?
De Weerd: Council? Okay.
Spink: I have drafted --
De Weerd: Please state
your name and --
Spink: Michael Spink again.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Spink: I had drafted the CC&Rs for this phase of Packard Acres, the final phase, and it's not a separate set
of CC&Rs, you have a single association. There is a master
declaration that was recorded in 1998 or 1999 and as each phase has been brought on, there is just a one-page addendum to the declaration. It adds in the lots so that they are included.
They are included within the homeowners association. And in the language for this declaration for this one section there is language that allows the house that existed at the point
that the property was acquired.
De Weerd: So, this won't be expected to be brought up to the standards that are being asked to the rest of the homes that will be built there?
Spink:
It will -- it will be the house that it is. It will have to meet the same -- it will be a member of the association, it will pay dues, it's, obviously, a structure that is what it is,
but the developer, it's my understanding, has agreed to provide substantial landscaping along the lane to take care of the issue that it does encroach slightly into the normal setback.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, I guess what I had heard is architecturally it would be altered and that's not what I'm hearing you say.
Spink: I don't know what will happen to the house
architecturally. I can only speak to the fact of how restrictive covenants are typically expanded as you bring in new phases and how it actually happened in this case and I can't tell
you anything else about the house.
De Weerd: Okay.
Tealey: If it came across wrong, I apologize. That's exactly what I was trying to say. However, architecturally, the developer
has agreed to remodel the thing. Now, to what extent I don't know. So, the -- whether or not it ties in with the rest of the CC&Rs totally architecturally, I can't say that one way
or the other. I know they have agreed to remodel it and it will -- and it will be part of the homeowners association.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Tealey,
I think I have seen this picture enough, I think I'm looking at Wingate Lane and Challis; isn't that right?
Tealey: That's correct.
Nary: Now, if -- I'm just looking at this picture,
but it appears that it was a solid fence that goes all the way -- am I looking north in this picture?
Tealey: Yes, you are looking north.
Nary: So, I'm looking at -- that's what I thought. And I'm looking at this and it appears to be a solid fence all the way on the Packard Estates side, that's the west side of that fence,
as far as I can see it looks to be solid.
Tealey: Yes.
Nary: Okay. And, obviously, right there just at Challis it's solid. So, it would appear to me when I -- if we back up to
the other picture of -- if we put -- if we put a split rail fence there, if that's Challis to the north --
Tealey: Right here?
Nary: Right there. And this is Meadowgrass right here.
Tealey: That's correct.
Nary: So, if I put a split rail fence along this lane right here, which is not what the Sharps want, this is the only spot that's got a split rail fence and
the rest of it's all solid.
Tealey: That's correct.
Nary: Well, why would that be good? I mean other than the fact that it's nice for this little spot, but it doesn't -- it's not
complying with the rest of the look of the whole subdivision. It looks -- to me it looks more out of place than if you made it solid like the rest, but other than it may make this area
seem smaller, because there is a solid fence there.
Tealey: That's correct. That's the reason we wanted to do it. Now, the rest of that fence that goes to the north borders lots
along Wingate. This -- the reason we wanted basically -- we will leave the fence there, if you want us to. We thought it would look better with a split rail and a wrought iron fence
on the west side of it to make the open area look better. We have already built a six-foot cedar fence all along here. We want to take it down and put a split rail up to make -- yes,
to make this open area look much better and more open and we will follow it up with a wrought iron fence along this side here. If you don't want this split rail fence, we will just
leave the fence, we don't have to do anything, then. It won't cost us anything. We just think it will look a lot better for the open area.
Nary: Okay.
De Weerd: The problem is,
it might look better, but we have an irrigation canal that they have buried and it looks like a road and people will use that. You know, the solid fence would be -- would better distinguish
that that's not a road people want them to use.
Musser: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes. I'm sorry, chief.
Musser: In support of where we are at and in reference to Councilman Nary's question to the developer at this point, is part of the standards that we went through with the P&Z review
prior to the Commission, this is considered an open area and looking at what my contribution is to the standards that we are looking at, following the precepts of crime prevention through
environmental design, this is an open space -- a conductive open space that's near residential areas and trying to avoid an alley concept with a solid wall on one side and encourage
a little bit more direct use or observation of this area, that's why we have the reduced fences and with them open, because it is a much larger area and it's just not a specific alleyway.
It does incorporate additional expanse and, therefore, we were trying to apply more of a park concept to it and provide for the passive guardianship by having it open on all sides for
view and encouraging use in that immediate area. To do so otherwise leaves us with a wide open area that becomes a no man's land that potentially will see increased graffiti in that
area on it, it encourages people to just kind of take over and utilize it for, you know, malicious activities and that was part of the -- you know, the concerns that we had when we first
addressed this one little strip itself, because of the width and the nature of the design, in conjunction with what we had to look at with Wingate Lane. So, part of the developer's
dilemma that he's in right now is a result of your police department.
De Weerd: Well, thank you, chief. I guess my comment would be to move the open space, so that solid fence is
alongside, like all the others, the lots, and I can understand why, because that makes the existing house on a very large lot, but you're setting it up because of your design. They
can move those lots so that that solid fence is alongside residential and put the open space where it's more usable, because it's kind of in an odd place anywhere and it's inviting people
to use that private lane, in my opinion.
Tealey: If I may comment. We did have a conversation with the police department and worked out this compromise. This open area needs to be
viewed in the context of the whole subdivision. This isn't just on an edge of a subdivision that stands by itself, this is all going to be part of the homeowners association private
area for the whole Packard developments, which surround this. And, plus, we have right over here there is another dedicated 20 feet of open space that appears on the adjacent plat for
Packard Estates. So, that's the reason for the open area being where it is.
De Weerd: And I could see it as an amenity if that private lane wasn't in the middle of it and you would
be inviting people to that private lane and I don't think that's the purpose of the private lane, so -- and it's inconsistent, I guess -- I'm a little bit confused by what you're saying
is it's part of the package, when that existing house is not going to really be required to have the same standards as all the other new houses.
Tealey: The only standards that won't
be required of that house may be something architectural. I don't know how they are to remodel the thing. So, yes, other than that exception of that one lot in there not being, as
it stands now, architecturally the same as the rest of the houses, I don't believe that should represent any kind of problem. I mean you do a subdivision where you have a house on a
five acre lot, you don't tear down the
house to make it look like all the others, you leave that house as one of the lots and remodel it and sell it. I mean it happens all the time and there is nothing new about that.
Nary:
Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Tealey, did I hear you say that on the other side of this lane is open space, too?
Tealey: Yes. This strip right here. Twenty feet along
there. We envision --
Nary: Is it developed?
Tealey: Yes. Packard Estates.
Nary: No. I know that. But I mean is this open space here developed?
Tealey: That 20-foot strip
right now is just landscaped is all. It's just -- I think right now is all it is lawn right now. We envision, believe it or not, Wingate Lane going away in ten or 15 years or five
years or whatever -- however long some of these -- somebody still wants to access that thing from Ustick Road. As soon as that need goes away, that will go -- Ustick -- Wingate Lane
will go away that there will be a nice open space there.
Nary: Well, if this is part of a package, like you have stated, then, what's the package? The other 20 feet over here? Is that
the package that you want us to think about that this is not just a no man's land of grass and a few trees and a path, but it's, really, in conjunction with this or something else in
Packard Acres?
Tealey: What I was saying is that this area right here is not just isolated with this five acre development here, it is in the middle of a lot of the -- of the rest
of the developed Packard Estates.
Nary: Okay. And so if I look at this big picture, this is the existing house, this is the roadway that we are talking about, and the area we are
talking about is right here; right?
Tealey: Correct.
Bird: And go right across there.
Nary: This piece here?
Bird: And, then, go across the street.
Tealey: Yes.
Nary: And, then, this piece here that looks like dirt?
Tealey: Yes.
Nary: Okay. What other green space are you talking about? I don't know how old this picture is, but I don't
see any. So, what other green space? Is there some over here or up here or something?
Tealey: There is some green space up on the north end of the subdivision, but --
Nary: Okay.
Tealey: -- basically, it's where -- let me see. This right in here with the pool and the club house right down in here. It's a way to get --
Nary: I'm sorry, Mr. Tealey, but
I mean that is a no man's land. I mean there is no connection to anything. There is nothing to the south, there is nothing to the east, there is nothing to the west, it's just one
little strip with a walking path to that street and connects this street to that street and that's it. Which is okay, but don't try to tell me that this is some part of a big plan,
because it isn't there.
Tealey: Well, nobody said it was a part of a big plan. What I said is it meets the requirement of the five percent open space as required in --
Nary: No.
You said it was part of the plan. You didn't say it just met five percent, you said it was part of the package and there is no package. There is no nothing here.
De Weerd: Is there
any further questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Not a question as much as -- a statement as much as a question. I don't -- I think we need to stay with the solid
fence for one reason, we -- the debris and stuff that goes on out there seems to blow into Wingate Lane and regardless of what Mr. Tealey thinks about Wingate Lane, it hasn't gone away
as a private lane that I know of. Five years from now maybe it does, but I don't think so. And to my knowledge and being out there not too long ago, that piece that he said was landscaped,
I don't think is even grassed up, greened, I don't believe.
Tealey: It's just grass. There is no trees or anything on it.
Bird: It's not landscaped, it's just been planted with
grass.
Tealey: Correct.
Bird: Well, it's greened up since I was out there. So, I have a real problem. They are asking for a variance, which I don't think is fair to the other homeowners to do that, particularly
if you're going to -- if you're going to leave a house in there, at least bring it up to the standards that you have got in the rest of the subdivision. That's my statement.
De Weerd:
Okay. Any further questions for Mr. Tealey? Thank you. Okay. Council?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess my only comment is -- I mean I don't have a problem
with annexation and I don't think that what they are asking for in the zone or the number of residences and the like are inappropriate, but I have somewhat of a concern with the variance.
I do agree with Mr. Spink and what's been stated, I mean we aren't the enforcement authority for these CC&Rs and this is sort of a difficult situation, because we can't created an enclave
by leaving that one little piece out with this house and I don't want to do that, but I am concerned and bothered by the lack of design here. The open space here is poor. There is
no -- there is no integration to this -- to the rest of this subdivision and I think that is important and I think if it were better designed to where the open space is, what the relationship
of this phase is with the remainder of the subdivision, would be a much better project and that's, I guess, my problem, is, overall, some of the things they are requesting are reasonable,
but there is really not much thought put into this in making it a part of the remainder of Packard Acres.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other comments?
Rountree: Madam Mayor? I agree with
Councilman Nary in terms of the annexation. I think it's a good in-fill, I think it's a good density, it's consistent with the surrounding area. I have a little stronger feelings,
I think, about the variance than maybe Councilman Nary expressed. I don't see any compelling reason to accept the variance. We have heard tonight that there is an agreement to architecturally
modify this home. If that's the case, then, get it in compliance with the city requirements in terms of setbacks. Again, I'll state we have no authority to enforce the CC&Rs, but I
suspect that that probably would be something that a good neighbor would want to do. Having said that, Madam Mayor, I'd move to close the Public Hearing.
Bird: I would second it.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Items 12, 13 and 14. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Hearing no discussions -- further discussion, I would move that we approve AZ 04-005, the annexation
of Packard Estates Subdivision No. 3.
Wardle: Second.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve AZ 04-005. Any further discussion? Mr. Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 13.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Before I make
this, I have got a question of either Mr. Nary or the attorney here, preferably the attorney. On the preliminary plat, are we -- are we -- if we approve that, are we -- we are not approving
the variance of any type? That is a separate complete item, even though we -- their preliminary plat as it stands now shows the different setback.
Holinka: Madam Mayor, Members of
the Council, that is correct, the variance is a separate application unto itself. The preliminary plat does show the existing house that will be on there, but it is a separate application,
the variance is.
Bird: Okay.
Powell: Madam Mayor, before the motion is made, can I ask that Council clarify, just so we have it on the record. I suspect the issue will come up
with substantial compliance and slightly jogging that road and I just -- if you could address that. Does that make sense? If you don't -- if you decide not to approve the variance,
then, they are going to have to move the road and I just wanted -- it's an opportunity for Council to say whether or not they want the road moved, I suppose, so that I don't have to
make this determination later.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess my thought is -- and I don't know what the rest of the Council thinks. I think we need to remand this back to Planning
and Zoning for the plat and -- because I do think it is a design problem and that they are going to have to either move the road, they are going to have to redesign the house, or they
are going to have to redesign the open space. But any one of those three things, it's going to be much more significant -- at least right now to me seems much more significant than
a slight modification of the plat. If we grant the variance, then, one of those three things is going to have to happen or all of them may have to happen, but I guess for me I would
prefer to remand it.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: And that was what my question was regarding was -- because I have a real problem approving the preliminary plat
as drawn right now, because I can't support the variance, and so I can't -- honestly, with the design of the preliminary plat I can't support it, because I can't support the variance.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Might I suggest that we act on Item 14 and see where we end up with that particular item and once we do that, then, we
have a little clearer picture on what to do with Item 13 and if you need a motion to that effect, I so move.
Bird: We can't do that. Madam Mayor, I don't believe we can, because
if you pass the variance and, in turn -- and you can't do -- on the variance without the plat. The plat has to come first.
De Weerd: Yeah. There is variance needed if you don't
have a preliminary plat.
Rountree: Correct.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Just, I guess, to clear up my position, so that we can move along whichever
way we need to, I don't agree that the variance -- I don't agree with the variance and so if we need to remand this to Planning and Zoning, I also -- even though we certainly haven't
-- or aren't able to vote on it, would certainly make that a stipulation from the
Council, that our opinion -- at least my opinion -- and I heard three other opinions -- was that the variance is unwarranted in this situation.
De Weerd: My opinion doesn't count,
but you have it unanimous up here. It would appear that it would be best to remand back and if that is the desire of Council, I would entertain a motion.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd:
Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move to remand Item 13, PP 03-006, the request for preliminary plat approval for Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3, pursuant to comments of the Council and Mayor
this evening and the public testimony in regards to revisiting both the open space, the existing home and its compliance and compatibility with the remainder of the homes in Packard
Acres No. 3, as well as Nos. 1 and 2. The potential for whether a variance is necessary or the roadway alignment is appropriate or could be changed in regards to that and whether
the open space is both in an adequate location and if it is whether or not the design of it is appropriate and compatible with the surrounding property owners, including the Wingate
Lane. I think that covers all of the issues we have talked about.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to remand Item No. 13 back to the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Is there any further discussion? Okay. Mr. Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay.
Item 14 seems obsolete, since there is no plat. Madam Attorney, do we still need to have a motion?
Nary: We would deny it, because there is no plat.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Well,
do I have a motion, Mr. Nary?
Nary: Madam Mayor, I'd move that we deny Item 14, VAR 04-002 for Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3, because there is no approved plat.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to deny Item 14. Do we need roll call? Mr. Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 04-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.06 acres from RUT
to L-O zone for Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – Northeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Girdner Lane:
Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 04-008 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 8 commercial building lots on 3.06 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – Northeast corner of South Eagle
Road and East Girdner Lane:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is the applicant here on Items 10 and 11? Okay. Well, I will -- I will get to you in just a moment. Since the applicant
is here tonight, I will go ahead and start the Public Hearing, open Items 10 and 11, for Southstone Subdivision. I'll start with staff comments.
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the
Council, this is also kind of a five acre in-fill property. As you can see, the white property that's in the midst of the Sutherland Farms Subdivision, that was a planned unit development
as it was approved. The property has access onto Eagle Road currently. This portion of Eagle Road is not a highway, just to remain you, it's just an arterial roadway. I wanted to
provide you with the proposed preliminary plat as it was originally approved for Sutherland Farms. The area -- the parcel in question that we are talking about today is right here.
As you will notice, the collector road comes in just south of the subject property and, then, there is light office to the north of it and light office to the east of it and light office
to the south of it. I do want to let you know that there is currently an application to replat or do a new preliminary plat on this location here. It would make it all residential,
instead of -- I'm sorry. It goes over further. It goes all the way over to there. It would take out the office component. The Southstone Subdivision -- getting back to that one.
Sorry to confuse the matter with Sutherland there, but the Southstone Subdivision is proposing eight commercial building lots on just a little over three acres and they are proposing
L-O zoning. The lots range in size from about 6,600 square feet to close to an acre, 32,000 square feet, and these would accommodate a variety of building lots. They are primarily
shown as the building pads for the lots that goes out to the street. This application does come forward with a recommendation for approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The applicant's representative Dave McKinnon did testify in favor of the application and no members of the public testified against it. The Commission did modify one condition to require
a cross-access agreement with the property to the north and as I mentioned before, that's also proposed as office. That was their use exception within the planned development. So,
even though it's zoned R-4, it will be zone R-4, it is proposed for light office uses. And the Commission also required that they move their access a little bit further to the north,
so that they could share an access and they have done that. This is a modified preliminary plat. And staff had had a requirement for a
shared parking agreement. It was really just intended to be the cross-access agreement. They just misused the term, so that was removed. And here is -- here is where it gets tricky.
When the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, they anticipated that the consistency matrix for the Comprehensive Plan that they had recommended approval of would be
approved by City Council. Mr. Rountree -- or, Councilmember Rountree, I have to say that during the comp -- the consistency matrix hearing you asked me a specific question, you said
does this involve a policy change and at the time I said no and there was one policy change and the policy change was to allow light office for residential properties that were on arterial
roads that were less than three acres in size to request a light office zoning, recognizing that some of these larger properties do buffer or can be used to buffer some residential properties
when they are on an arterial. So, that was the one -- not blatant -- or, let's see, not specific -- I don't know what I want to say.
Rountree: Didn't quite tell the truth.
Powell:
I didn't mean to do that. I got out here and the next day I thought, oh, no, now what. So, I did want to apologize for that. The others were much clearer. But there are a few things
for us to consider and so I wanted to -- I can raise those with you. These come out of the Comp Plan and this is just the general description of the Comp Plan, that it's an official
policy guide and that in a general way it reflects how the community may be developed. There is also a section where it talks about how the land use map depicts desired future land
use categories and their location within the impact areas. There is -- the depiction, even though we have it property by property, is conceptual. And we have talked in the past about
kind of pushing lines and nudging lines a little bit when you have adjacent zoning that is light office. Well, in this case it's not the adjacent zoning, because it was done through
a PD and they didn't have -- at that time staff had them keep the R-4 zoning. Lately, I have been trying to get the correct zoning on these use exceptions, so that these issues aren't
-- don't come up as often. So, here is a case where this property, as Sutherland Farms stands right now, is completely surrounded by L-O uses or light office uses, so there are also
two Comprehensive Plan policies that kind of talk about this in a general way. Locate new community commercial areas on arterials or collectors in such a way as to compliment with adjoining
residential areas. And, then, apply transitional zones to buffer commercial and residential uses, to allow uses such as offices and other low intensity uses. So, again, these are --
there are a couple things for us to consider -- for you to consider tonight that would allow this to go through. If you don't feel comfortable with this, then, we probably need to add
a requirement -- or, I'm sorry, you may want to consider adding a requirement that they do get a Comprehensive Plan map change. Those would seem to be the options. Staff is still recommending
this, it does make sense in this case, and I think that there is a little bit there for you to consider tonight. With that, I will end staff's presentation.
De Weerd: Well, Anna,
as I stated in the director's meeting, item number two is not a problem with Council. Is it? The exercise we had with Espiron.
Powell: Oh, yeah.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor. One of the questions I have, Anna, is in the minutes from the April 15th meeting, on page three, I believe it's Wendy Kirkpatrick; is that
correct?
Powell: Yes, sir.
Wardle: States: I did want to point out with the consistency matrix not having been approved, that this applicant is, essentially, following the matrix
through the process. If the matrix is not approved by Council, this application will lose its ability and it would die, essentially. Is that -- I mean -- and, then, it goes on to say:
So, just keep that in mind, but the director's determination that it was okay for this to follow the matrix through the process. So, I understand the exercise you just took us through
about L-O and all those things. My question is, since I'm reading this in the minutes of Planning and Zoning, if we were to consider approving this project, we would be, essentially,
outside the bounds of our Comprehensive Plan; is that correct?
Powell: Not necessarily, I mean that's -- that's why I brought up these issues about the guide and the -- that it's conceptual
approval. We have talked about extending these. Now, there is not a resident -- there is not an office component on the Comp Plan next to it. It's a test for you all tonight to see
how -- I suppose how we want to treat this. One clear option is to just require them to do a map amendment. The other is to, I suppose, revive the Comp Plan matrix or change the text
to allow this sort of thing, leave the matrix out, but do a modification to the text to recognize some of these properties. We do -- most of the support we had going into the matrix
was for light office uses on limited size properties, three to five acres or less, where they are dealing with kind of development coming in around them and not quite sure what to do
with their property.
De Weerd: So, essentially, this is not -- it is not consistent with the Comp Plan.
Powell: The Comprehensive Plan shows medium density residential.
De Weerd:
So, that answer was --
Powell: Depending on how you want to interpret --
De Weerd: Boy, you are a politician.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Then, just
a follow-up question, Anna. Since we didn't approve the matrix and since this body works on precedent, were we to approve this project, essentially, we would be setting a precedent
for light office in residential uses.
Powell: Yes, sir.
Wardle: Okay.
De Weerd: Not an answer to my question.
Nary: Cross-examination.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant
like to come forward. Please raise your right hand.
Hobbs: I was in the swearing in earlier.
De Weerd: Oh, you were?
Hobbs: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, please, state your
name and address.
Hobbs: My name is Chris Hobbs. I'm at 1412 South Bender in Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Hobbs: And I was asked to stand in for Dave McKinnon this evening.
He had a conflict with another meeting in -- for another city. He was going to try and get down here, but I was asked to stand in if he couldn't make it. We agree with the staff's
recommendation that the approved -- especially given that the properties to the north and the south are zoned for commercial uses and also that access to the Eagle Road makes it an excellent
commercial property. It would be a better use than, really, as a residential property and it just makes more sense, given the other uses next to it currently, that it be commercial
property. So, we ask for your recommendation. If you have any questions I can try to answer them.
De Weerd: Do you have any questions, Council? Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor,
I guess just a -- more of a comment in the sense that I'm not really commenting on the application or for the layout of the plat or any of those things, we are really talking about a
policy change and so from the applicant's point of view my comments are more directed towards the general policy, rather than this specific individual project.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Any further questions? Thank you. We are in a dilemma.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Following up on Council Member Wardle's cross-examination, it appears to me, Anna, that what we have got is you have found a couple of policies that might
be -- fit to approve the project. I think what we are all either hearing or saying or what was even discussed at Planning and Zoning was that it makes sense to allow, essentially, a
mixed use type of project along an arterial like this, having both the residential and these buffer zones and all those things, but we just don't have, really, language to -- I'm just
afraid that it sounds like we could be approving something that we might be sorry for later, because the precedent that we would be setting would be something we would be uncomfortable
for and, as we heard in the prior testimony, people really pay attention to us and what we do once and how we don't do it again or that we be consistent and that's, I guess, what my
fear is although I think those policies are pretty good, it seems like a stretch and I guess I don't know another -- a better way to say that. It seems like a little bit of a stretch
and there is better ways to accomplish this project, whether it's through a text change -- I recognize a map change is much more complicated, but it seems like a text change that's a
little bit better with a subsequent map change would make more sense. But, you know, we are sort of relying on your expertise in telling us that we are not going to be sorry that we
just chose to follow those couple of policies that you found and that later on we are not going to have somebody say, well, we want to change ours, too, and we don't need to change the
book. Am I reading that correctly?
Powell: Yes. And I have felt more comfortable with the previous ones where we nudged, because we had an existing zoning there that you could say
you were conceptually applying with. I don't know if you remember Office Jet Subdivision, but right across from it there was office property right across the street. Just for the more
holistic discussion, it really raises the question -- and I wasn't here when Packard went through, but this problem was really created when Packard went through, because there is no
way that it would ever have been appropriate to put residential on this once Packard Estates was approved the way it was approved. So, probably we need to be sensitive as staff to start
looking at some of these issues as these use exceptions come through on the planned developments. The intent, I think, of -- in the 1970s when planned developments allowed use exceptions
was that those use exceptions would be internal to the property and used by those folks that were on the property. Here, they are catering to the edge of the property and have affected
the surrounding land uses a little bit, so, you know, if you're doing a use exception, should they come back and amend the Comp Plan map, I mean that's another question or -- because
it kind of affects other people around them once they do that. So, it's kind of -- this one has brought up a number of issues. And that was just a discussion. I think I answered your
question before I launched into the discussion. Sorry.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I mean it seems like we are somewhat on a dilemma here. I guess for me I don't know that we really have very solid footing to approve this project, because there is some inconsistency.
It makes sense. It's a reasonable project and it's reasonable along an arterial to have what they are proposing, but I guess the precedent to me people is -- is exactly what's happened
here. A project comes in like this and later on we simply change it -- we just change it around and, again, we have never changed the map, we have never changed the text to really fit
that, we didn't with the PUD and now all of a sudden we are kind of stuck. I don't know whether it's better to continue this and fix the Comprehensive Plan in the interim or simply
deny this and make these folks start over, which I don't necessarily like either.
Powell: I feel somewhat responsible in that we didn't talk to you more about the Comprehensive Plan
matrix that this project was relying on, so in -- I would prefer that you direct staff to -- what I think I'm hearing is do a text amendment for the Comprehensive Plan to discuss just
this one policy change, get that done, and table this application, because I don't think it is the fault of the applicants or that another redesign or use would be necessarily appropriate.
I do kind of think that this is a little bit of staff's -- we could have done better with the matrix in talking to you all and recognizing policy changes and garnering support and all
those things, so I would feel more comfortable with that option.
De Weerd: Does the applicant have any comment? If you do, you can come and say it into the record. Please state your
name for the record.
Hobbs: Chris Hobbs.
De Weerd: Thank you
Hobbs: Admittedly, I don't have a lot of experience yet with the exact application of the Comprehensive Plan and I
don't know -- my understanding what of a Comprehensive Plan was that it was the plan and that the actual zoning was the actual regulation that applied and I don't understand exactly
how that is set up with the City of Meridian, but given your plan -- it's always okay to change your plan if you find later that it makes sense to change it. So, certainly, like you
say, it makes sense for this to be commercial property. Does that make sense?
De Weerd: I guess right now our Comprehensive Plan does not support this and a land use amendment would
be a lot lengthier than a text amendment and so -- and that's what staff is suggesting, that they look at this particular use or allowing it in text and at some point clean it up with
--
Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if I might frame the question for the applicant a little better. The question tonight is whether or not to just table it for a length
of time or to deny it. The only advantage to denial would be if your -- your client had an out clause with being denied, so that he could disinvest himself of the property if that's
what he wants to do at this time. Otherwise, it's probably in your interest to just let us table it. Okay.
De Weerd: I guess, Council, maybe we should continue it until next week
and the applicant can have a chance to talk that through and that decision can be made next week. Then, the applicant can deal with staff and maybe give you an idea of the direction
they would like to go.
Powell: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: That being said, Madam Mayor, I move that we close the public hearings --
Bird: No. No.
Wardle: Oh.
Bird:
Continue it.
Wardle: I'm sorry. Continue the public hearings on Items 10 and 11 to next Tuesday.
Bird: May 25th.
Wardle: May 25th.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's
been moved and seconded to continue Items 10 and 11 to May 25th, 2004. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 15: Water, Sewer and
Trash Delinquencies:
De Weerd: Item 15 is the water, sewer or trash delinquency. This is to inform you in writing, if you so choose, that you have the right to a pre-termination hearing
at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, May 18th, before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and to defend the claim made by this city that your water, sewer and
trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. Your service will be discontinued on May 19, 2004, unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest
his or her water, sewer, and trash delinquency? Hearing none, they are hereby informed that they may appeal and have the decision of the city reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District
Court pursuant to Idaho State Code. Even though they appeal, their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn-off list is $17,938.82. Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the turn off for May 19, 2004, for a total $17,938.82.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded
to approve the shut off list. Any further discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you call role.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. call
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De
Weerd: Okay. There is just -- we have our special joint meeting workshop tomorrow night at the church, United Methodist Church, and I guess the clerk and I would kind of like to have
a better idea -- we thought we would open with an official roll call, accept the report, and, then, close that portion of the meeting so minutes do not have to be taken.
Nary: Madam
Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes. Mr. Nary.
Nary: I don't think I was the only one. I guess I didn't realize that we were actually having a meeting until today. I thought it was just a public
information session and I did plan on being there, so if we are not going to have much of a meeting, that's fine, but I wasn't -- I wasn't thinking until today that we were actually
having an official meeting. I hadn't planned on being there for the whole time, so --
De Weerd: When we had the discussion with the consultants, it was discussed at that time to show
an official statement of support and that we would ask the MDC board and Council to meet and -- during the public presentation.
Nary: I'm not saying my perception wasn't wrong, I'm
saying that's what I thought.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Perception is everything. Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: That was also my perception and I was certainly surprised to
receive the public notice today and had scheduled myself for another meeting tomorrow and was not --
even though it's an important issue, planning on attending the meeting. So, Bill's
not alone.
De Weerd: Well, how --
Rountree: Well, we can work on making that unanimous, but I will be there at least for a portion of it.
Bird: And I -- yeah, it is unanimous, because I have
got a grandson that's graduating from pre-kindergarten or something, I don't know what it is, but I will be there.
De Weerd: Well, we can at least officially open, accept the report,
and close and, then, you can stick around or otherwise.
Rountree: That's fine with me.
Bird: Are you going to do that at 7:00 o'clock?
De Weerd: Yes. Mr. Clerk, do you have
any further questions on that? No. It was more me. I did give you a copy of the ordinance that I had told you would be passed by the City of Boise -- or Eagle or had been shared with
me that it would be passed and so it wouldn't be an issue. I know we had that discussion with the rural fire commission. The Eagle City Council did not pass this, so our concerns about
the area of impact and the impact that it has on our fire protection district and that sort of thing continues to be a concern. I guess I did talk to Councilman Bird and we thought
we should have a meeting with Rich Green, the chairman, Kenny, Joe, who attended the area of impact meeting with the county last week, and decide what we can do. I guess what I would
like Council's support on is to ask our attorney to look into state code to see how taxing districts can be diminished or maintained, you know, by annexation. I don't know what state
code does do. I know that our Western Ada Recreation District is not affected when another city annexes their district property, but the fire district seems to go away. So, there is
some real inconsistencies there and I would like our attorney to take a look at that.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: The public hearing on the particular
item is still open and I think it's continued until next week -- or their next P&Z -- county P&Z meeting, so that probably would be good, put it in terms of testimony and have someone
from Council and/or the fire district be there to present testimony. It seems to have more weight with planning and zoning than just a simple letter, so -- but I think we need to include
-- maybe amend our previous letter with that.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I believe the reason that it's got away with is we have let it get away. Eagle is different than Boise. When Boise annexed this district out -- Whitney fire district, when they
annexed into there, they already had a fire department, the same as Meridian has, and takes it over. Eagle does not have a department. The city of Eagle does not have a fire department.
It is a separate taxing entity. So, when they annex land, they don't have the right, in my opinion -- and I'm not a legal eagle by a long shot -- but in my opinion they don't have
the right, because they are not a fire taxing district, the city of Meridian isn't -- or Eagle isn't. We are. Boise is. I think we just sit back and I think it's time now that the
rural, with our help, does do that. And I concur with Charlie in the fact that either they get John Fitzgerald up here to testify before the deal or one of them to and we can certainly
back them, but it's their place to go forward and do it with our help and I concur with the Mayor that we need to have Mr. Nichols from our side look into it, too.
Item 16: Ordinance
No. : RZ 04-003 Request for a Rezone for .17 acre from I-L to O-T zones for Brandon Wright by Brandon Wright – 631 West 1st Street:
Item 17: Ordinance No.____________________:
AZ 04-003 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 70.64 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed
Settlement Bridge Subdivision by Capital Development – 2204 East
McMillan Road:
De
Weerd: Okay. Well, if you all are in agreement, I can ask Mr. Nichols to do that and, like I said, Keith and I will get together with the fire department and the rural district's chairman
to further discuss it. I'm sorry, I superceded the agenda. Okay. Items 16 and 17, Ordinance No. 04-1078, would you, please, read that by title only, Mr. Clerk.
Berg: Thank you,
Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 04-1078, an Ordinance finding that the owner of certain real property Brandon Wright has made a written request for rezone of the
zoning classification for real property located at 631 West 1st Street, Meridian, Idaho, and that lies within the boundaries of the City of Meridian from I-L, Light Industrial District
Zoning District, to OT, Old Town District, as defined under Meridian City Code, Section 11-7-2L, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith,
and directing the city engineer to add said property rezoning designation to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, also read
Ordinance 04-1079 by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 04-1079, an Ordinance finding that John and Jeannie Tulk Trust and Capital
Development, Inc., the owners of certain real properties generally located on the east side of Locust Grove Road and on the south side of McMillan Road in Section 32, Township 4 North,
Range 1 East, Meridian, Idaho, to be known as Settlement Bridge Subdivision and which lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of
Idaho, have made a request for annexation in writing to the Council and that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated Medium Density Residential District (R-8)
and declaring that said land, by proper legal description as described below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, repealing all ordinances, resolutions,
orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith, and directing the city engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the Clerk of the
City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada county recorder, auditor, treasurer, and assessor and the State Tax Commission
of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215.
De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard these two ordinances read by title only. Is there anyone in
the audience who would like to hear it read in it's entirety? That's such a dangerous question. Hearing none --
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: I would move
the approval Items 16 and 17, Ordinance No. 04-1078, rezone for Brandon Wright and Ordinance No. 04-0179, annexation and zoning for Settlement Bridge Subdivision with suspension of
rules.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinances on Items 16 and 17. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you, please,
call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Just one final item. We did bring in front of you the issue of a mid
month draw. We did get a ruling back from our auditors that it would need to be taxed, it would be considered a mid month paycheck, and so at the director's meeting today it was decided
not to do that and so I just wanted to update that for your information. So, is there any further information for the good of the order?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. I
would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Bird: So moved.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:59 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
________________________
_______ ______/______/______
MAYOR TAMMY DE WEERD DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
_____________________________________ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK