Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 11-03Meridian Citv Council Meetinct November 3, 2010 A Council meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:05 p.m., Tuesday, November 3, 2010, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, President David Zaremba, Charlie Rountree, Brad Hoaglun and Keith Bird. Others Present: Jaycee Holman, Bill Nary, Bill Parsons, Caleb Hood, Warren Stewart, Scott Colaianni and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X David Zaremba X -Brad Hoaglun X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird X Mayor Tammy de Weerd de Weerd: I will go ahead and call this meeting to order. Welcome to the City Council meeting. For the record it is Wednesday, November 3rd. It's 7:00 o'clock. We will start tonight's meeting with roll call attendance. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance de Weerd: Item No. 2 is our Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Larry Woodward with Ten Mile Christian Church. de Weerd: Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Larry Woodward with Ten Mile Christian Church. And I still want to say Cherry Lane. We invite you to, please, join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection. Larry, thank you for joining us tonight. Woodward: My pleasure. Our gracious Heavenly Father, we come before you tonight and thank you for the blessings that you have bestowed upon this community. I thank you for these men and women who lead our city and ask that you grant them wisdom tonight as they have their deliberations about events and actions that will affect not only our businesses, but our families and our homes for years to come. There are not many city councils that open with prayer anymore in our country and I think the fact that we get national recognition as being one of the best cities in the nation is a attribute to this practice. I'm reminded that at the Constitution convention Ben Franklin stood up and he says I -- I want to remind everyone that God governs the affairs of men and he Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 2 of 29 suggested that before each meeting that they implore the assistance of heaven before they get on with their business and that one of the clergy in town become -- come forward to officiate in that service. Ben Franklin was right 200 years ago and this Council is right today, in Jesus' name, amen. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda de Weerd: Thank you, Larry, for -- you and Betty for being here this evening. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda. Hoaglun: Madam Mayor? de Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun. Hoaglun: On the agenda for this evening under ordinances under 9-A that ordinance number is 10-1463. And 9-B is ordinance number 10-1464. And with that I move adoption of tonight's agenda. Bird: Second. de Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as printed. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Consent Agenda. A. Cooperative Agreement Between Valley Regional Transit and the City of Meridian for Annual Dues and Service Contribution B. Personal Services Agreement Between the City of Meridian and Laurie McElroy for Yoga Classes C. Budget Line Item Reallocation for Lakeview Golf Course Capital Improvements for $6,000.00 de Weerd: Item 5 is our Consent Agenda. Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, on tonight's Consent Agenda we have no changes, so I move approval of the Consent Agenda and that the Mayor be authorized to sign and Clerk to attest. Bird: Second. de Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. If there is no discussion, Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 3 of 29 Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. de Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Items Moved From Consent Agenda. de Weerd: Council -- Councilman Rountree, did you want to discuss the item under the Consent Agenda, Item 5-C? Rountree: We can. I'm just pulling up now the accounting that you received today, I believe. We had information from the members and groups at the golf course who have pledged, provided, created about that 11,000 dollars -- a little over 11,000 dollars in funds from tournaments, garage sales, those kinds of activities, to be used primarily for the cart paths and some indication that they wanted some of the material to be used for sand traps. As you recall, we were asked to match that donation, yet our discretionary funds are much less than that amount, to the amount of about 10,000 dollars a year. Last week it was suggested that we look at a not to exceed 6,000 dollars to match that local effort out there and, in fact, we just passed the Consent Agenda that included that amount of money to be moved towards the golf course and to be accounted for with improvements to be made on the sand traps and cart paths. So, though we can't match the entire request, I think we have done a significant contribution there. I will update the Council that the millings of some of the asphalt work around the city have been deposited on the golf course parking lot, probably something on the order of 400 yards, is way sufficient to do what they need to do. With the additional funds they maybe able to do much more cart path work than originally anticipated and I believe they should be really close getting everything done out there with that. I appreciate the Council's consideration of this. I'm sure that the folks out there will appreciate the match that the Council is moving forward with. I would also like to recommend that we write a letter to Ada County Highway District for the donation of those millings and, actually, the hauling of that material to the golf course. It was a rather long night all night Sunday night with trucks going in and out of the subdivision and depositing that material there, but I think the neighbors were all informed that that was going on and it certainly did go on most of the night. Fortunately, I slept through most of it. de Weerd: Thank you. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? de Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would just add to that comment. It's evident that they are already putting that to work. They have pretty much installed one portion of the new golf cart trail and it looks like they are working on it with vigor. That's nice to know. Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 4 of 29 de Weerd: Very good. Rountree: Oh. One other point. I did hear from one member of the group who actually was part of the tournament process and participated in all the events that the funds raised were not necessarily funds to assist the golf course operator out of the pickle that they are in, but the fact that the members out there and the folks that play out there routinely desired to have these things done and took this upon themselves to get it done. Again, one of those efforts that are consistent with Meridian and our ability to get volunteers to come forward and get projects that are good for our city done and I really do appreciate that grass roots effort to accomplish what's been accomplished out there, particularly with the economic issues that are facing all of us. Item 7: Action Items. A. Continued Public Hearing From October 26, 2010: AZ 10-002 for Barletta Subdivision by Russell & Karen Hunemiler Located at 3299 W. Davis Lane Request: Annexation and Zoning Approval of 5.94 Acres with an R-2 Zoning District B. Continued Public Hearing From October 26, 2010: PP 10-002 for Barletta Subdivision by Russell and Karen Hunemiller Located at 3299 W. Davis Lane Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of 2 Building Lots and 2 Common /Other Lots on 5.94 Acres de Weerd: Well said. Okay. Thank you. Okay. On Item 7-A we have -- and 7A, B and -- A and B. We had a continued public hearing. I will ask staff to introduce this item and, then, we will ask Becky to come up. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. If you recall at the last hearing this item was -- the Barletta Subdivision. The applicant was requesting annexation and zoning of a two lot subdivision within the city. At that time they had asked for a waiver of city water services, asked for a waiver for tiling the service ditch and the Ridenbaugh Canal. Council gave staff direction to draft some appropriate DA provisions and bring them back for you this evening. I sent out a memo to the city clerk on Monday morning and hoped that you would receive those in advance by tonight's hearing. They informed me that you -- they would, indeed, give it you early, so I -- my understanding you have had a chance to go over these. I have them up on the screen for you, too, this evening to kind of refresh your memory. I won't go through all of them, but I will hit the major joints here. The first two DA provisions are regarding the sewer hook up -- or city services hook up and B is relinquishing or removing the well and the septic system when services are available and, then, also the last DA provision we did hold the developer to no more than two buildable lots and that if that property were to redivide -- or resubdivide in the future that they would have to comply with the UDC requirements and provide sewer, water, and a public street system. I have received Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 5 of 29 verbal commitment from the applicant -- applicant's representative that they are in agreement with these provisions. If Council feels there are any additional DA provisions that are required, I would ask that you state that tonight, so that we can include that in the DA if you feel so inclined -- if you feel inclined to approve that request tonight. Our last outstanding issue -- and we didn't get any clarification from Council -- was whether or not you were in favor of waiving the tiling of that service ditch. It's a little ditch that serves the property. He uses it for irrigation now. The way staff had it in anticipation if this goes forward, in the staff report staff had recommended that that become, basically, a water feature within the open space lot. I think the applicant's amenable to that, but I did want to point that out that we didn't get that clarification, so I'd just ask for Council to provide direction to staff on that as well. And with that I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. de Weerd: Thank you. Counsel, any questions? Bird: I have none. de Weerd: Okay. Becky. Only about the item that Bill just brought up on the open ditch. McKay: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario. It's just a small ditch. It's only like about that deep they have used to irrigate. They want to continue to use it. I guess they would have the option of either making it an amenity, like Bill's recommended or they could pipe it if they chose not to do that. But we are in agreement. de Weerd: Okay. Any questions from Council? Hoaglun: I do have one quick question, maybe more for Bill and Becky, but the 300 feet, is that when the sewer line comes up Ten Mile? Is that 300 feet or does it have to be moved any? Is that -- 300 feet sometimes is just kind of a common number that we throw out, but is it an actual number that when it comes up Ten Mile, then, they are going to have to have -- that time frame starts to connect? Stewart: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Hoaglun, the master plan -- the sewer and water master plan anticipates that eventually Overland Road will cross Ten Mile headed to the west and that there will be a stub street coming off of that section of the new road and that this property will be served with utilities that will come down that stub street -- or -- yeah. So, when that occurs we would anticipate that they would be hooking up to that. Hoaglun: And just to double check, if I might, Madam Mayor and Warren. Then, that's within the 300 feet, it's not like 800 feet and we are going to ask them to connect up to 800 feet when we say 300 feet. Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 6 of 29 Stewart: Yeah. That is -- that is correct. We -- I mean the stub street will come down within 300 feet and eventually as the development of the parcels to the south of them brings it down that way this stub street will connect up to them. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. That's all I had. de Weerd: Anything else? Thank you, Becky. Council, any additional information needed on this item? Is there anyone in the public who would like to provide testimony on this item? Rountree: Madam Mayor? de Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we close the public hearings on Items 7A and B. Zaremba: Second. de Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close 7-A and 7-B. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. de Weerd: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve Item 7-A, AZ 10-002 and for staffs clarification, in that annexation and DA indicate that it's the Council's preference that the water feature be included with this project as the use of the delivery ditch. Bird: Second. de Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Okay. Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Madam Mayor? de Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move we approve Item 7-B, preliminary plat 10-002. Hoaglun: Second. Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 7 of 29 de Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-B. If there is no discussion from Council, Madam Clerk. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. de Weerd: All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. C. Public Hearing: TE 10-025 Normandy Subdivision by James Patterson Located at 4145 S. Locust Grove Road Request: Two (2) year Time Extension to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on the Final Plat de Weerd: Item 7-C is a public hearing on TE 10-025. I will open this public hearing with staff comments. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This subject property before you tonight is on the west side of Locust Grove between Amity Road and Victory Road. This property was annexed and preliminary platted back in 2006 with 109 residential lots and seven common lots. This is the second time extension request before you this evening. They are requesting a two year time extension. One note for you. Really, staff is recommending approval of the time extension. One issue came about as we did research from our previous approvals and we noticed during the hearing in 2006 Council had recommended approval of the plat and the annexation request with the requirement that a DA be required. The property was actually annexed and the DA was never executed. The applicant -- we received comments from the applicant. He is in agreement with executing the DA, but he was asking Council to waive the development agreement fees. When this property -- back in 2008 we initiated a new fee schedule and, then, we had proposed to Council a 303 dollar fee for the preparation of a DA, Council approved that fee applicant. The applicant contends his annexation and plat was approved in 2006 prior to the adoption of that fee. He's not in disagreement that there is a requirement for a development agreement, he just asks that since there has been a loop or a lack of a DA that he be held to those standards back in 2007 and not have to pay the fee. Other than that, there are no outstanding issues before you and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. de Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Any questions from Council? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none right now. de Weerd: Thank you. We are beginning to think that the economy is getting really good, because we see faces we haven't seen since the growth years. Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 8 of 29 Schultz: I hope so. I hope so, Mayor. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Matt Schultz, 2127 South Alaska here in Meridian. The Schultz Company here on behalf of James Patterson, the owner of this property. Back in 2006 when we submitted it, a private development group had a contract to purchase the property from Mr. Patterson and we got it platted in early 2007 and we were looking back through the minutes recently when I saw this development agreement and Iwas -- what was that and Mr. Zaremba actually at the hearing made a recommendation that we tie some building elevations into a development agreement, that's really how it came about. At that time it was kind of on the edge whether Council was doing that or not when we submitted. By the time we got it approved Council was wanting to tie some building elevations to the development agreements and -- but at that point when it was approved, basically, all work stopped on the project, the economy kind of slowed down, we forgot about the development agreement and I apologize for not following up on that. So, here we are after the second time extension remembering the development agreement and we'd certainly like to get that done and wrapped up in the next 60 days, as staff recommends. There is two issues to tie to that development agreement. One is building elevations that we submitted that, frankly, were from down the road in Tuscany Village, say we are going to do something similar to this. They are nice looking houses and we'd do something similar to that. The second condition is tied to sewer. Back in 2006 when we were going great guns, Public Works was putting conditions on a lot of different plats down there to build the off peak pump stations due to some bottlenecks downstream. Since, then, we have relieved some of that bottleneck, but I do understand that Public Works is -- has a capital improvement project to put that last section of Black Cat trunk down Victory Road, hopefully here in the next, you know, few months and I understand it's about to bid here in the next 30 to 60 days. We'd like to participate in that, as the condition says, in a proportionate share per acre, but we'd like to get into that development agreement a dollar amount, you know, we will pay this amount per acre and I think with it going out to bid here in the next 30 to 60 days, that's going to be -- talking to Public Works, that's going to be very doable. So, we'd like to get the DA submitted and before we execute it, plug in that number and that way we have some certainty moving forward with -- with how -- how the property develops and what fees are needed as we move forward. The third thing on behalf of the owner James Patterson, we just would ask for a waiver of that DA fee, if possible, so it is simple and, secondly, since it was a condition back when there were no fees for DAs. Irregardless, we want to move forward, we'd just ask for that waiver if possible. Thank you. de Weerd: Any questions from Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I just have a question for Warren, if he can speak to the sewer. Stewart: Yes. Back when the development was approved there was off peak lift station required. Since it didn't go through that off peak lift station was never built and we are currently engaged in a project doing redesign for the Victory gap project, which we refer to, and the design is -- it's been submitted to DEQ for their approval. Once we get their approval it will go out to bid. We don't know what the actual of that is and currently the Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 9 of 29 agreement that's between all the property owners is that they will all pay a percentage share of that based on the acreage that they have for development. We don't know that actual dollar amount. We know the percentages, but we know the acres that are included in each one. So, it's up to you whether you want to just make it a -- their pro- rated percentage based on acreage or whether you want to wait until we get the actual dollars and plug in a number. Schultz: If I may. We would be willing to submit that DA here in the next week and just, as it gets reviewed and the bid gets done before it gets signed off by you, we plug in that number. You know, either way. I mean it just -- it sounds like it's all going to happen approximately at the same time anyways. The timing is good. Stewart: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the one caveat to that would be we will know the bid price, but we will not know the actual final construction amount for awhile. Schultz: Estimated I guess we could put in there. I understand it will be between a thousand and two thousand per acre. That's kind of the ballpark number that they are throwing around preliminarily and that's very fair and I appreciate the city taking on the gap project that I believe Kastera was going to build and, then, when the economy dropped it didn't get built and, then, that gets it done and, then, as developments come in they pay their proportionate share and it's a great way to get it done. Thanks. de Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council -- oh, I'm sorry. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to provide additional testimony on this item? Council, any additional information needed from staff or the applicant? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? de Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would just comment on waiver of the DA fee, vaguely it would be my recollection that at the time that this application originally came through we assumed that there was a portion of DA fee included in the annexation fee, I think, and it was since that time that it was made a separate fee and I certainly would be amenable to waiving it in this case. One person's opinion. de Weerd: Okay. Any other comments? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question for Mr. Nary. The desire of the applicant to have a figure in terms of the cost per acre in the DA, yet we won't know what that cost per acre is until that project is done, even though we have a bid amount. Any suggestions on how that could be addressed in the DA? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Rountree, Iguess -- I don't want to come back with an amendment to the DA, because, then, there is another Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 10 of 29 fee. I think if we -- if we outline in the development agreement the formula that the parties are agreeing to and the methodology and use the -- the estimates as an example of that, then, if it doesn't exceed that, then, we should be fine. If it does exceed that, then, we could certainly come back to the Council if we do need to amend the development agreement and the Council could consider at that time whether to waive that fee as well. That's the only way I could think to at least try to capture as much of it up front, so that we really aren't coming back to amend it to exceed whatever the amount that we believe it might be. I don't know if Mr. Stewart has a better suggestion or Mr. Parsons. Stewart: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Rountree, you know, we do have a formula for that and it's based on acreage, so you know, our thought is that we -- and we have some estimates, so we could -- we could include as an estimate of that cost, we could include the formula based on the number of acres that they have we could, basically, tie theirs as a percentage, your percentage of the project is this amount, it's based on the number of acres that you have compared to the rest of the people who are participating. With an estimate of the cost they would have a ballpark figure, but without -- you know, that's pretty much the only way that we could not have to come back. If we put an actual number there and there happens to be a change order for whatever reason, then, it's not accurate anymore. But the percentage will always stay the same. de Weerd: Mr. Schultz. Schultz: Mayor and Council, that -- that sounds totally appropriate if we have an estimate and, then, subject to final -- final costs, you know, to be verified, that's -- that's a great way to do it. Thanks. de Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anything further, Council? I would entertain a motion to close. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we close the public hearing on Item 7-C. Zaremba: Second. de Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close Item 7-C. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve Item 7-C, TE 10-025 for the extension of time for signature on the plat to two years, the waiver of the DA fee, and that the DA include a statement for the provision of payment of the sewer project, include an estimate amount of what that cost will be subject to a final verified cost. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 11 of 29 de Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hoaglun: Madam Mayor? de Weerd: Yes, Mr. Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Just to check with the maker of the motion. Was the recommendation for the DA, does that include the previously approved elevations? Was that part of the staff recommendation? Rountree: That would be -- that would be part of the DA. Hoaglun: Okay. Rountree: That was the intent of the DA originally and I -- they didn't provide or indicate they would do something different, so yes. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. de Weerd: Okay. Any additional comments, questions? Okay. Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. de Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. D. Public Hearing: TE 10-026 Blackstone No. 2 by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. Located at 4700 W. Aspen Creek Street Request: Approval of a 24-Month Time Extension to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on the Final Plat de Weerd: Okay. Item 7-D is a public hearing on TE 10-026. I will open this public hearing with staff comments. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is another time extension before you this evening. This is a small in-fill project. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of West Cherry Lane and North Black Cat Road. Currently it is a vacant lot. That project came before you in 2007 as a three lot in-fill project. It was an original plat within the Garden Spring Subdivision. It was Lot 5, Block 1. The applicant came before you. At that hearing Council had recommended -- approved the annexation -- or the rezone and the plat contingent upon a DA. In that DA they were held to three buildable lots and elevations. Before you right now are the elevations that were tied to that project and are included in that recorded DA. Based on Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 12 of 29 what we currently have on approved -- approved for this project and given the fact that nothing in the ordinance has changed substantially since this project's come through, staff is recommending approval of the two year time extension without any additional modifications. Staff did receive written testimony from the applicant and they are in agreement with the staff report. There are no outstandings before you and staff would be happy to answer any questions you may have. de Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Any questions from Council? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? de Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: At the time there was some discussion -- the lot, actually, was originally planned in the subdivision as a storage lot for RVs and stuff like that and I think Planning and Zoning Commission and Council agreed to breaking it up and changing the use of it, but there was quite a bit of discussion about finding a way to connect the off-site property just to the south of this, so that it would not need to access Black Cat. Did that discussion go anywhere or was that dead on arrival. Can we resurrect it or should we? Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Zaremba, you're correct, that was certainly a topic of discussion at the hearing. I was involved during both -- at least the Commission hearing and Commission was -- had discussed the possibility of extending that common drive to that property. The issues that arose at that hearing came about if -- based on our ordinance, the UDC, no more than four homes could be served from a common lot. So, if there were to be three homes there, then, this property could develop no more than with one home -- the current home that it has on and so he would be stuck with a half acre lot along Black Cat Road. Given the fact -- mean also there were also discussions that that property could petition the homeowners association and get some kind of easement to Thorn Creek Street and use that local street access and maybe possibly have an assisted living or a day care developing on the site. But certainly that was a topic for discussion. Planning and Zoning Commission -- I don't know what was discussed at the Council hearing, but I know Planning and Zoning Commission went ahead and forwarded on a recommendation that the three lots -- that access only serve the three lots and I think that was Council's concern when they came before you and that's why you had requested the development agreement that no more than three homes develop on the site. But maybe the applicant could shed some light. When Ipre-app'd with the applicant on the project there was -- we definitely had a long conversation on how they would serve that lot, because we certainly have a little on enclave there adjacent to this residential subdivision and certainly it's not the only lot out there within the city that's like this, but we certainly, as platted, we need to look -- Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 13 of 29 look to a resolution for this. So, you can see it is annexed and zoned within the city. It's currently a residential district. A day care center or even assisted living facility could -- could come in with a rezone and possibly do something on that property, but at this point there aren't any plans that I -- I haven't spoke to any -- any property owner regarding his property at all, so it's certainly something that we need to be mindful of moving in the future for this property. Zaremba: Thank you. Parsons: Sorry for the longwinded answer. Zaremba: No. That's okay. Thanks. de Weerd: Any other questions? Bird: I have none. de Weerd: Clint. Good evening. Nice to see you. Boyle: Good evening, Mayor and Council. Clint Boyle with Landmark Engineering Planning. Business address is 332 North Broadmore Way in Nampa. For a minute there I thought I was going to be able to stay in hibernation for a little while longer and not have to address Council, but it is good to pop my head back up every now and then. Just briefly, we are in agreement with the staff comments and I appreciate Council Member Zaremba's questions on that outparcel and that outparcel -- without diving into a lot of the history, has quite an extensive history and the developer, my client, actually has approached that property owner on a couple of different occasions trying to purchase that piece of property historically and they could never come to an agreement on -- on the purchase of that land, so he was trying to compile that and come in with -- with alarger project. That never occurred. So, initially, my client had looked at some of those options that Bill was mentioning with daycare and some different things on there on that corner. Had discussion with the staff here at Meridian on some different options, but could never come to agreement to purchase that from that property owner. So, from that point forward he moved forward with a three lot subdivision with the common drive, realizing that that particular property owner, then, would have to look at options, as Bill mentioned, in coming out onto Thorn Creek if in the future he developed that property and it became something other than residential. As Bill mentioned with a common drive, the code right now only allows for up to four homes. The difficulty that we have in serving that piece becomes a fire code issue and with the design of our subdivision we had to also accommodate a turnaround, a hammerhead turnaround for the fire department if we extended that further into that parcel to the south that just complicates that issue with the fire department, so that's another reason that you're not seeing something extended there, but I just wanted to let the Council know that the developer of this particular piece of property that's in front of you tonight made an effort, actually, to incorporate that on a couple of different occasions and they were unwilling to sell that property to them at the time. That's the best I know on it. Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 14 of 29 Zaremba: Thank you. de Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council? Bird: I have none. Boyle: Thank you, Mayor and Council. de Weerd: Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to offer testimony on this item? Hoaglun: Madam Mayor? de Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move we close the public hearing on TE 10-026. Zaremba: Second. Bird: Second. de Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 7-D. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Hoaglun: Madam Mayor? de Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I would move approval of TE 10-026 fora 24 month time extension to October 1st, 2012, without any additional conditions of approval. Bird: Second. de Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the time extension request on Item 7- D. If there is no discussion from Council, Madam Clerk, wilt you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. de Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 15 of 29 E. Public Hearing: TE 10-027 Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. Located South Side of E. Victory Road and East of S. Eagle Road Request: Approval of a 24-Month Time Extension to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on the Final Plat de Weerd: Item 7-E is also a public hearing on TE 10-027. I will open this public hearing with staff comments. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The subject property consists of 16.96 acres. It's currently zoned R-4 in the city. The plat before you this evening -- or the time extension represents a plat that consists of 48 residential lots and seven common lots. This is the second request for a time extension for you. Brief history on this, try to convey this for you this evening. When this property was annexed in 2006 it was in a different configuration. There was a little more property. It was comprised of four or five acre lots that were platted with the Golden Estates property in the county and the applicant came before you, proposed a 60 lot plat with six common lots. That's the plat that's represented on the left-hand side of your screen. Now, what's happened -- what's transpired since 2006 until this evening, one of those five acre lots located in the southwest corner has sold and so the property has downscaled in size a little bit. So, now their plat actually consists of 16.96 acres and 48 residential lots and seven common lots. The increase in common lots was due to the requirement of the previous time extension that required them to comply with the ten percent open space, which they were in agreement with. One thing to mention, this property -- when this project was reviewed it did not have any elevations tied to it, nor a DA was required. Staff is not recommending elevations to tie elevations to the plat this evening. What we have done is required an additional condition of approval that they amend their CC -- when they go to craft or draft their CC&Rs we have conditioned them to include our design criteria from our design manual and incorporate those into their CC&Rs. We have received written testimony from the applicant, they are in agreement with those conditions of approval. I would like to mention to Council that we also received written testimony from one of the adjoining neighbors. She was not in opposition of the two year time extension, she was just concerned with the amount of debris and junk that is perceived to be on the property. I would inform Council that staff went out to the site this morning to review the property. It still appears to be -- to have some vehicles and some debris on the site. I did contact code enforcement and got a report from them, which I have included for you to review. It looks like Dean has followed up with both the applicant and the owner of the property. It looked like back in early -- in May and April of this year they were -- they seem to have reached an agreement and they were -- it was amicable and there was -- a lot of work was done on the site as far as clean up. did ask Dean to go back out to the site and follow up with that, but I did want to go on record and let you know that we are still looking into that. But as far as what the records indicate, it looks like the applicant is making strides on cleaning up the property. With that only -- with that outstanding issue there are no other issues before Council and, again, staff is recommending approval of the two year extension with the conditions of approval -- with new conditions of approval and with that I would be happy to answer any questions you have. Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 16 of 29 de Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: Madam Mayor? de Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: For Bill. With the modification of the DA, can we require that that DA be signed by a time specific in order to establish the two years? And I'm also thinking that since it's a -- it is a code enforcement issue that we add in the DA that it be -- that the -- all of the violations of city code be eliminated and be eliminated by a time certain or tie it to the ability to execute the DA. Some way to get it taken care of and some way to keep it from happening, because I'm guessing it will be a continual problem if it's going to be unplatted -- undeveloped for several more years. Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Rountree, tonight is -- just to step back. We are not -- we are not recommending a development agreement, we are just adding additional conditions of approval. So, we can certainly add that, that they need to clean up the property in accordance with our ordinance and put a time frame on that. I think that would be appropriate. What I have done for you this evening, too, is demonstrated a slide to show you what it looked like in 2005 in our aerials and what it looked like in 2007. You can certainly see the difference in as far as the accumulation of junk on the property. Speaking with the applicant this evening and code enforcement Dean Beaupre, he did inform me that based on the conversations had with Dean prior to coming to Council hearing he did inform me that some of that construction equipment has been sold off and is no longer on the site and they had reach an agreement that that equipment would be straddled along the eastern property boundary -- or their western property boundary, so that the adjoining neighbor couldn't see the junk or the debris. He also -- Dean also informed me that he received several receipts of haul away from the application coming in and hauling away construction debris and mounds of dirt from the site. It's my understanding that the construction equipment was there to facilitate the improvements of the subdivision if and when they were to move forward with that construction. I'll let the applicant -- maybe he can shine a little light on it, but we can certainly -- if it's the pleasure of the Council to have all that equipment removed off the property we can certainly put a time frame on that as a condition of this time extension. As far as the CC&Rs, I wasn't sure if you wanted us -- a time frame as far as the CC&Rs, as well as to have some kind of draft before us -- before staff or was it just regarding the junk? Rountree: Specifically about getting in compliance with our ordinances and we have issues with construction yards being in places where they are not supposed to be. And know it's an issue that you have dealt with specifically around town and I think by allowing it to occur in an R-4 zone just makes it that just much more difficult to enforce it in areas where one would think they are appropriate, but still aren't in terms of Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 17 of 29 commercial activity and that sort of things. So, I'm just concerned about getting it in compliance. Parsons: Councilman Rountree, I'll pass your sentiments onto code enforcement. de Weerd: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come comment? Good Evening, Darin. Fluke: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Darin Fluke, JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, representing the land owner and applicant on this application. Bill did a good job describing the application, what was originally approved and what we are seeking now. There was a five acre parcel that was sold off and with this single family dwelling and it will just remain that way. As far as the code enforcement issue goes, this was -- I learned of it just this afternoon, you know, I saw the letter from the land owner to the east. I was not aware of the issue. I did speak with my client, the landowner, this afternoon and, essentially, the background is this: This is the same developer of Sutherland Farm across the street, which if you recall back in the day was an actual farm for raising race horses and they had a fair amount of equipment on the farm and as it developed and after they bought this property a lot of that heavy construction equipment simply got moved over here, because that's where the closest big piece of land was and so there has been an enforcement action initiated. My client is complying and -- with city's requirements on that and moving the equipment off as he can, as he sells it, as far as conditioning this approval to remove that equipment, that's certainly not a problem. Where we are contemplating the first phase is -- would encompass where all this equipment is. So, it will necessarily be moved by the time we go to build that project. So, a condition would be appropriate. We are fine with that and if you have anymore questions I would be happy to answer those. de Weerd: I don't know if I heard it could be there and prior to it. You can't have an equipment yard in an R-4 zone. Fluke: Madam Mayor, agreed, and I think my client's position on that would be that he's not running a construction company out of there, that's the personal equipment that was own by Sutherland Farm, Inc., and equipment that they used on their various properties. So, they don't operate a commercial construction yard out of their, that's simply where their personal property is being stored and at the time that it was moved there you will recall that this property was in Ada County and not within the city. We did request annexation and that was approved at the time the preliminary plat was approved by the city. So, they are not running a business out of there. They are working to get the equipment off the property. It's not like they have people coming every day and leaving with equipment and coming back at night, that's not the situation. It's, basically, sitting there right now in storage. So, they will -- I mean they are moving it off as fast as they can. de Weerd: Council, any questions? Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 18 of 29 Bird: I have none. de Weerd: Okay. Thank you. I do have one person who signed up, Harold Krasinski. Sorry. Sign up as neutral. Would you like to provide testimony at this time? If you can, please, state your name and address for the record. Krasinski: Okay. Madam Mayor, Council Members, my name is Harold Krasinski, 3475 East Falcon Drive in Meridian. de Weerd: Thank you. Krasinski: We are a neighbor just south of that yard there, actually, just got done discussing and I -- I agree with what Darin said, it's not -- it doesn't appear to be a construction business. I guess we have noticed all the equipment and there have been some piles of dirt and concrete, I believe, that were stored there. My guess I don't have any personal -- strong personal feelings about it. The area had -- the previous owners had had horses there and there have been cows. We got a tractor on our property and a couple of other things. So, if it doesn't fit the code, then, certainly it probably needs to be moved, but we don't live close enough that it really annoys us, so I guess don't have any strong opinions one way or the other about how the agreements proceed. The only -- I guess the only other thing is originally the subdivision was going to be on both sides. We are actually at the end of the cul-de-sac on East Falcon Drive that had split the subdivision and I guess the southern property had been sold off and there is a family there and they have got some horses. Part of the original -- and I believe that there was going to be a developer's agreement on that that the -- the cul-de-sac was going to be developed with a sidewalk and I don't know what you call it -- planters -- plantering the parkway, whatever it would be called, that appears now that would be different because it no longer encompasses both sides of the cul-de-sac and I believe I have spoken to Darin a month or so ago and they were going to do the sidewalks and the improvements on the north side of the road and I guess end at our property. Our property encompasses the cul-de-sac there, so I'm not sure exactly how that would be landscaped and developed. de Weerd: Okay. Very good. Krasinski: Pardon me? de Weerd: We will. Krasinski: Thank you. de Weerd: Thank you so much. Okay. Any further testimony? Darin, would you like to respond? Fluke: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Darin Fluke. JUB Engineers again. Harold's correct, we are going to install curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the north side of Falcon Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 19 of 29 from his property along our frontage on Falcon. I don't have a drawing in front of me, so can't -- well, Harold's property is the -- is the purple tag there and if you go just left of that -- so, south and west where Falcon starts to curve, that's where the sidewalk will start and it will extend to the west along our frontage on Falcon. We just won't be doing what's south of Falcon now, because that's no longer frontage o the project. And the project still does include parkways with five foot sidewalks. de Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question about the sale of the five acres. Does that -- does that remaining in the city was the annexation complete into the city and, if so, shouldn't the plat incorporate that five acre parcel? Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Rountree, as you can see here the property is annexed and zoned in the city, so you are correct. The way we look at things -- I guess the way the ordinance is set up is when you come in -- the applicant hasn't officially submitted a final plat on the property. So, what has happened is we look at the plat and we look -- when he comes in with a final plat we look for substantial compliance. This northern portion that's remaining substantially complies with what he -- what -- his preliminary plat. Certainly he could incorporate that one lot into the city. Certainly he's created a conundrum for us that the property doesn't have sewer or water, because now we have property out there that's annexed in the city without sewer and water connection. Certainly should ask him if that was the case, because I'm sure his sewer plan -- his construction drawings at the time probably showed sewer and water coming through Falcon Drive. I remember that conversation with him. So, I didn't know if that's maybe -- was that his agreement -- his sales and purchase agreement when his client sold the property with that owner? That may be something he can shed some light on, but as far as lot size, dimensional standards, it appears they meet. The only think it looks like that they may be lacking is curb, gutter, sidewalk and city services. Rountree: I guess my point is is if it's annexed into the city and they spread it off as a lot, the lot should be in compliance with all the ordinances. It should have curb, gutter, and sidewalks and it should have access to sewer and water. Correct? Parsons: Correct. Rountree: Okay. de Weerd: Any comments? Fluke: I would just point out that we didn't split the lot, it's a preexisting platted five acre lot as is, with a dwelling on it, so it's true that it was annexed into the city, but it wasn't split in any sort of formal process, it already existed as its own entity. Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 20 of 29 Rountree: But it existed as a preliminary plat that was annexed into the city, with the conditions that it meet all of the city ordinances and requirements and you, then, pulled it out of that preliminary plat -- you haven't, but the owner has and sold it. So, it seems to me that it either comes in compliance with city ordinances or it goes through a deannexation process. One way or the other it's got to be made right. We can't just have that five acre island out there that -- what do we do with it when they decide they want city services and they are in the city? It causes me some issues. Fluke: Madam Mayor, I can't speak to that, other than to say if that's how you would typically handle a parcel that had been annexed into the city and, then, did not develop, then, I would agree that's what -- what ought to happen is it ought to be deannexed or they ought to -- the owners have to hook into the services. It's a perfectly legal lot the way that it is. It's big enough to have an individual well and septic system on it, but I get what you're saying. I'm just -- and I see that the dilemma that's been created I'm not sure what the answer is now that we have a separate owner. They were not interested in being a part of the time extension, as I understand it. I did tell my client that the easiest thing to do would probably be just to get a time extension for the entire preliminary plat as it was platted or -- and, then, come through with our phases of final platting like we would typically do, but that was not the way that it went down. Rountree: Well, on the surface it sounds real easy, but ten years from now it's a real problem for the city. So, I, personally, would like to see this continued and get some resolve to that -- in those questions, so we don't have this as a future problem. That would be my recommendation. Bird: Madam Mayor? de Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: That would be my recommendation, too, because I'm like Councilman Rountree, we -- that was platted in as a whole group and, then, all of a sudden they decided to take five acres out and no plans or anything else and want a time extension. I think we need to get to the bottom of it farther before we pass on this time extension. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? de Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: In support of what has already been said by other Councilmen, I would also say if the property changed hands after deannexation happened, it's already encumbered with the rules that go along with that annexation. So, I agree that something needs to be done with it and at this moment I would side with a continuance while some discussion is had. Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 21 of 29 Fluke: Madam Mayor, perhaps I could save us all the time by just recommending that you condition it, so that that piece of property either goes through deannexation or hook up to sewer and water concurrent with the last phase of the subdivision, which is how it would have happened anyway if it would have phased -- you know, everything on the north side of Falcon first, then, come and done this phase last, that's exactly how it would have played out anyway. So, if you would -- you know, I could save us all another hearing by just saying put a condition on it saying that that lot and block or by address will be deannexed or provided with sewer and water at -- concurrent with the last phase of the project. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I also wouldn't lose site of curb, gutter, and sidewalk. I think that's part of it also. Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just to elaborate a little more on what Darin speaks to. Obviously, with the five acres being removed, that home wasn't contemplated with that plat. So, that was never a topic of discussion at the hearing. Councilman Rountree brings up a great point. I take responsibility, Idid the staff report, should have got that. What I would suggest that we condition the -- meaning if we are going to write in a condition for deannexation, that will require an application. That would require 2,100 bucks from somebody to come in and ask the petition be removed from the city. I don't see this property owner wanting to go through that process or spend that kind of money. It would be my recommendation that the applicant -- we continue this project, give the applicant a chance to talk with that property owner, see if his client's willing to do curb, gutter, sidewalk and hook up that existing home when the final -- final plat comes in or the final phase comes in -- the final plat and everything comes in, we have curb, gutter, sidewalk, sewer and water to the property at -- we typically require with an annexation request. Just two cents. Rountree: And my concern is -- Madam Mayor, is that the property owner has kind of been put in limbo on this thing and I don't think just conditioning an action on this is going to solve it, because I agree with Bill, we could make that condition and five years from now we could be waiting for an application from somebody and -- and/or have somebody decide they want sewer and water out there and not be able to do it economically. Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, my comment on that -- I'd like to see it continue. I mean Darin, you know, gives a solution, but at the same time we are dealing with a new property owner and I don't think we should be surprising them and doing things right now that they are unaware of and they are going to be impacted. So, I think we need to continue the discussion, continue this item, and bring them into the discussion, so everyone knows what's going to happen gai,ng forward once a decision is made. Fluke: Three things to that, Madam Mayor. One is the project did contemplate that house remaining. It would be sitting on the largest lot next to Falcon Drive. So, the house always was intended to remain and always was going to be hooked up to sewer and water. The second thing is I would think the condition would be tied to my client to Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 22 of 29 handle the deannexation and/or hooking it up to the services. And the third thing is I would just ask the Council to consider what would you do if this project had expired, you would be in the same boat that you're in now, except for you'd have four five acre properties that are in the city with a house on them and with a landowner who isn't going to want to come in and apply for deannexation. I would assume that would be a city initiated process at that point anyway to do the deannexation. So, you can take that for what it's worth and if we need to continue it to discuss this some more we can, I just think it can be solved without that. Rountree: Well, Madam Mayor, if we are going to point, counterpoint, it could be a city initiated action to require curb, gutter and sidewalk down Falcon. Fluke: Madam Mayor. As an off-side improvement? Rountree: No. It's -- it's in the city and it's part of the preliminary plan. Fluke: Right. And they intend to build curb, gutter, and sidewalk on Falcon. Rountree: On three lots. Fluke: Yeah. Adjoining the project. Rountree: Madam Mayor? de Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we continue this item until we can get staff and the applicant to work through issues and bring back a solution. de Weerd: I think I need a date certain. Rountree: I would suggest that it be November 23rd. Zaremba: I would second that and ask that we add to it the requirement to get the south property owner involved. de Weerd: You want that as part of the motion? I think that's been part of the discussion. Bird.: Just continuing it. Rountree: We are just continuing it. They are going to have to discuss it with somebody. Zaremba: Okay. All right. Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 23 of 29 de Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue this item to November 23rd. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. de Weerd: Bill, do you need any further detail on what Council's hoping to come back -- or at least looking to come back? Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my understanding, if I could paraphrase for everyone, work with that property owner to get them involved and let them know that they currently have property within the city that doesn't hook up to city water and sewer as part of the original plat and need to coordinate with this property owner to decide how we can get a resolution, whether they want to proceed as part of this plat or deannex from the city. Does that sum things up? Thank you. Rountree: Thank you. Item 8: Department Reports. A. Planning Department: Discussion on Idaho Transportation Department's (ITD) Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Regarding State Highway 20/26 and State Highway 44 De Weerd: Okay. We will move to Item 8-A and turn this over to Caleb. Hood: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. If it were a couple hours later and we had like Jonathan Seal in the audience, too, I would swear it was 2006, but here we are, 2010, almost the end of it, too. So, yeah, it's good to see some familiar faces in the audience. But the -- the topic of discussion tonight is the STIP and TIP and specifically two projects that aren't in those two documents, U.S. 20-26 and Highway 44. Just a little bit of history. ITD did remove funding for right of way acquisition for U.S. 20- 26 and State Highway 44 from the STIP this last summer. In September the COMPASS board voted to delay action on the FY-11-15 TIP, so that city staff, ITD, COMPASS, could all sit down and see if there is some way to come up with some dollars to keep those projects in the program. I do want to clarify there weren't ever any dollars for either of those projects for construction, but there have been some substantial amounts for environmental and design and corridor studies for the past ten -- back to 1999. So, ten, 11 years they had some money set aside in their five year plan -- four and five year plan for work on these two roadway expansion projects -access management projects. ITD did go forward and adopted a STIP earlier this year, this fall, early fall sometime. What they did was they opted a STIP that didn't include district three. First time I had ever heard that, that they went ahead with the STIP for the rest of the state and ours stayed what was on the books. So, we are working under two different programs and the books don't balance. It's awhole -- it's a big mess. But there is a subcommittee that's been meeting for the past six weeks or so -- this is just after the COMPASS board Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 24 of 29 action to delay action on not approving a TIP for this current cycle, so we could get some alignment and some understanding between the TMA and district three. ITD headquarters as well. So, we have what we think is an interim solution. It's -- I don't think anyone's real happy about it, but the solution that we have come up with does put some money -- about 50,000 dollars -- 50,000 dollars for each project into the TIP and STIP for the next four years -- five years. Excuse me. That money would be used for corridor preservation purposes only. If a right of way comes up that would otherwise be developed and they need to do a protective buy, that's what this money could go towards. This isn't a lot of money. You're not going to buy a lot of right of way with 50,000 dollars a year. And, in fact, on 20-26, really, there wouldn't be any property that would be a protected buy, because we -- we have preserved for it, we have thought about this and we'd preserve for the right of way necessary for it. We can't buy it yet or ITD hasn't bought it yet, but we have required developers to setback the appropriate right of way that's going to be necessary. But it does keep the project in the program and on somebody's radar screen and you could potentially, if there is cost savings for other projects, you could roll it into this one and maybe make a substantial purchase. A little more background, maybe. Up in Middleton there is the bypass that they are looking at. They have got a couple developers that their development agreements are going to expire if they don't do something, i.e., buy the right of way they need for the 44 -- I think they call it the bypass. But some other extension of it. So, they are trying to keep those developers, you know, happy and in compliance and keep this option on the table, so that would be a potential use of funds. The cost estimates, though, on those projects far exceed 50,000 dollars a year. That being said, ITD has what they call OPRE, it's kind of their hierarchy of what they will allocate funds towards. So, operation preservation, restoration, and, then, enhancements or expansion. So, expansion being at the bottom of that. We don't have any expansion projects in this area, except the storm water pond and it's tied to an expansion project, but it's really not an expansion. So, anyways, we are already starting off at the bottom of the priority list and, then, these are two pretty expensive projects and they don't know where the funds are going to come from to construct it. So, ITD's concern is we don't want to spend money on -- we don't want to spend right of way monies on these, because, then, the clock starts ticking when we have to construct something and we haven't talked about where that money is going to come from and we certainly don't have it, we don't have it identified, so we'd rather not buy the right of way, because we don't know how we are going to construct the darn thing. So, that's kind of where our discussions are at this this point. You know, we have tried to think of other solutions, you know, no one was willing to pull other projects in district three and it doesn't seem fair to take something from north Idaho, so we can do something down here, they wouldn't look too kindly on that. So, that's something that we wanted to propose to ITD, I just don't think that will probably fly with their board, but -- so, we tried to look, you know, at our projects and say what would we take off the table instead of these and that just didn't go very far. So, I originally sent this a-mail to my COMPASS board members and I think I see cc'd Councilman Rountree on it, just because it is going to be a recommendation that's going to be forthcoming, I believe. The recommendation from this subcommittee hasn't officially been made yet, but we are just crossing T's and dotting I's at this point, but I think that's going to be the recommendation to the full COMPASS board, I just wanted to share that Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 25 of 29 with you all before it gets -- goes too far along and see if maybe you had any other thoughts on that. So, that's my staff report and I'm not quite sure what else you want to hear, so that's -- I'll just stop there, so -- de Weerd: Council, any comments? Rountree: Madam Mayor? de Weerd: Yes. Rountree: One of the excuses I heard for ITD taking these projects off the program was that there hadn't been -- they hadn't been able to advance right of way acquisition, because the environmental documentation had not been completed and that that was the responsibility of COMPASS, who had taken that on, and that that may change. I'm not clear on all of the excuses, but there is many. Just help me with the status of the environmental documents on those two projects, who is responsible and are they done or are they not done and -- Hood: There are both of those environmental -- and I'm most familiar with the 20-26 one than the 44 one. I haven't been actively involved. But what I have picked up from some of these other meetings is they are about at the same level. The access management plan for 20-26 has been approved, but with all the stimulus projects they got leap frogged. It was everything that was going towards. construction FHWA has been reviewing, so there is still a backlog of older environmental -- environmental documents done just waiting for FHWA review and approval. So, because of all these other projects that they have had to review ahead of these projects that don't have any solid construction dates, they go to the back burner. As far as who's responsible for following that through with FHWA to make sure that the documents do get reviewed and approved, commented on, COMPASS has kind of taken that over, but the funding flow through ITD -- I mean for both of those projects and a consultant's been hired. So, you know, there is that triangle there where I think they are all kind of working on it, so I can't fully answer that question. Certainly COMPASS takes more responsibility for -- for following up on that and seems to know the status of the project more than ITD staff, but couldn't tell you what agreements they may have amongst themselves to follow up on that. Rountree: So, the answer is that documents have been completed at least for review by FHWA? Hood: Right. Rountree: And -- Hood: I can give you a timeline. Rountree: -- somebody needs to build a fire under them, then. Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 26 of 29 Hood: Right. And that's part of the discussion and right now the timelines that we are guesstimating for when they would get to them and review and approve them, are probably not this next year, but the following year. So, somewhere around two years is what they are hearing from FHWA. So, it's -- it's not going to be immediate and anyway, so -- de Weerd: And, then, you will have to redo it, because it's out of day. Rountree: Exactly. Hood: I had not heard that excuse or that reasoning for taking it out. Certainly the history with spending the money on these projects hasn't been good. They sweep a lot of projects at the end of the year, because it hasn't progressed at an adequate speed. But, you know, they have spent some money and those studies and the environmental and stuff, but -- but it does get swept and that is something I have heard from ITD is we are trying to program in all this money and, then, we sweep it at the end of the year and allocate it to something else anyway, so that's not even putting your money towards to begin with, so -- Rountree: I have a comment on what they are proposing. As a space holder I think it's a good idea. The idea that they don't want to spend money on right of way once they get the environmental stuff approved or match right of way acquisition or hardship acquisition or whatever opportunities they have to buy right of way, because they don't know when they build is -- is foolish. If they can buy right of way and they don't have to look at the project for 20 years and, then, they can write justification of why they haven't done anything. So, that's not a very good excuse. Hood: And we have talked about that. I think -- Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree and the rest of the Council, I think really what it comes down to is not necessarily that clock it starts ticking like the feds once you start spending money on the right of way, although that is something that's brought up. But it's more that this hasn't really been vetted through the ITD board to say this is a priority project and that we are going to start investing in it and start buying the right of way and, thus, construct it. So, I think that's the bigger discussion that needs to be had, quite honestly, is we think these are both priority projects. Nobody knows where the funding is going to come from, but we do think you should start chipping away at this thing, because it is top three or four in the state or whatever, but those are -- those are the discussions I guess from headquarters that they say, well, it's a priority for you, but we don't know where the money is going to come from and our board hasn't said these are priorities and start buying right of way, Rountree: That's because they don't have any priorities, but that's okay. de Weerd: Any other comment from Council? Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 27 of 29 Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I would just comment that every time we hear about this there are a lot of twists and turns and same thing with some ACRD projects and Valley Regional Transit projects. And I just have to say I appreciate that Caleb is paying attention to all this stuff and really looking out for us. I appreciate what you do. Rountree: I will second that. de Weerd: I will third it. Hood: It's not real fun, but -- you know sometimes, but it is -- de Weerd: We thought you had a blast. Hood: If there is anything that comes up that I can share -- I'm not quite sure what level of detail you all want sometimes in some of these things, so if you want me to come I can. If not, tell me to go away, so I'm -- whatever. So, thank you. Appreciate that. de Weerd: Thank you. Rountree: Thanks for the update Caleb. Item 9: Ordinances. A. Ordinance No. : An Ordinance Amending Title 11 of the Meridian City Code as Codified at Title 11, entitled the Unified Development Code of the Meridian City Code (ZOA 10-002) B. Ordinance No. : An Ordinance of the City of Meridian Amending Meridian City Code Section 3-4- 1, relating to Outdoor Sales and Temporary Uses Definitions; Amending Meridian City Code Section 3-4-3(A)(6), relating to Exceptions to Licensing Requirements for Temporary Uses; Amending Meridian City Code Section 3-4-3(C)(8), relating to Garage Sales; Adding a new section, Meridian City Code Section 3-4-3(C)(9), providing standards for Temporary Construction Sites; Providing for a Savings Clause; and Providing an Effective Date de Weerd: Okay. Next items under Item 9-A and B, we have ordinances 10-1463 and 10-1464. I will ask Madam Clerk to, please, read these by title only. Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian ordinance number 10-1463, an ordinance amending Title 11 of the Meridian City Code as codified at Title 11, entitled the Unified Development Code of the Meridian City Code and providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing an effective date. Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 28 of 29 Holman: City of Meridian ordinance number 10-1464, an ordinance of the City of Meridian, amending Meridian's City Code, Section 3-4-1 relating to outdoor sales and temporary uses, definitions, amending Madam City Code, Section 3-4-3A-6 relating to exceptions to licensing requirements for temporary uses, amending Meridian City Code, Section 3-4-3C-8, relating to garage sales, adding a new section, Meridian City Code, Section 3-4-3C-9, providing standards for temporary construction sites, providing a savings clause and providing an effective date. de Weerd: Thank you. You have heard these two ordinances read by title only. Is there anyone who would like to hear them read in their entirety. Seeing none, Council? Bird: Madam Mayor? de Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve ordinance number 10-1463 with suspension of rules. Hoaglun: Second. Rountree: Second. de Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 9-A. Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. de Weerd: Item 9-B. Bird: Madam Mayor? de Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve Ordinance 10-1464, which suspension of rules. Rountree: Second. de Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 9-B. Madam Clerk. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. de Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council November 3, 2010 Page 29 of 29 de Weerd: Do I have a motion to adjourn? Rountree: So moved. Bird: Second. de Weerd: All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: In record time. de Weerd: Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:22 P.M. (AUDIO__I~CORDING-ON. FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) ~~, MA Y de WE ~ DATE APPROVED \ ~ ~~, ~l , ~' ~: - ~ JA1~~EE . HOLMAN, CITY CLERK SEAL - ~~oM o \ 9Q ~~S T 1 S~ . ~ `\~ ,', '9 `OQ, \,\