Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 08-12 Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 The Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:15 P.M., on Tuesday, August 5, 2003, by Mayor Robert Corrie. Members Present: Mayor, Robert Corrie, William Nary, Keith Bird, Tammy de Weerd, and Cherie McCandless. Others Present: Bill Nichols, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Brad Watson, Anna Powell, Joe Silva, Kenny Bowers, Dean Willis, and Will Berg. Item 1. Roll Call Attendance: __X Tammy de Weerd _ X__ Bill Nary __X Cherie McCandless __X Keith Bird __X__ Robert Corrie Corrie: I will open the regular City Council Meeting, Tuesday, August 12, 2003, at 7:05 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. We'd like to have roll call attendance, please, by the City Clerk. Corrie: Before I move to the second item on the agenda, I would like to make a presentation tonight to a gentleman who has done a lot for Meridian. He was on the Planning and Zoning Commission, he was also the head of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and I thought it would be fitting and proper if we do something for him tonight. If I may, I would like to have Malcolm MacCoy come up and, Malcolm -- but Malcolm has been a great supporter of Meridian. As I said, he still is, he always will be, and we want to give Malcolm a little token of our appreciation. First, this is a picture -- it's not just of me, but it's of you, standing there before the Council to give our time capsule and we had the different things we were going to put in there and I noticed that you helped in your contributions on that, too. Then, I'd like to present Malcolm with the key to the city and a plaque. It says the key of the City of Meridian, presented to Malcolm MacCoy for his outstanding service and dedication to the city and citizens of Meridian. Thank you so much. 2003. Malcolm, congratulations. MacCoy: This place astounds me, because I have been here 10 and a half years. As many of you know, my whole work has been, like the rest of you, just pitching in and doing it and getting the job done. I never looked at doing something like this and I really appreciate that, you, Mayor, and the City Council, and all you people that are involved in this, because, to me, it's -- I'm a Hoosier from Indiana. That's where started out years and years ago and have lived in about 26 different states and I have felt that in the end my last choice was the best coming to Idaho and I think it was a great choice. Thank you. Corrie: You're welcome, Malcolm. Thank you very much, Malcolm. I would also like to give the Council an opportunity, if they'd like to say anything at this point, thanking him and -- Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 2 of 72 De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess since I have worked alongside of Malcolm with Planning and Zoning, as a Kawanian, and I think there is a number of other items, Malcolm has definitely left his mark and a legacy here in Meridian. I would like to congratulate him for the award the Mayor just gave him and thank him for all his contributions. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I echo Tammy's words and I appreciate what Malcolm has done. People like him is what comes in and makes the community what the community is and this is stuff that gets the people to move to Meridian. I certainly appreciate everything he's done and he's -- he doesn’t have to be out front, he does it behind the scenes and everything else, so I appreciate you, Malcolm. McCandless: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. McCandless: McCandless: Malcolm, when I was elected to the Council four years ago, you were the one that was always there for me and I appreciate -- anytime I had a question I could always -- I knew I would get a right answer from you and I thank you for that. You introduced me to a lot. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yes. I guess the last thing I'd like to say is, you know, a person like yourself, Mr. MacCoy, is what this community needs, people that willingly volunteer their time. It is a very thankless job many times. Without people like you, our community couldn't succeed and we are much better for you being here and for the work that you did for the city. Thank you. Corrie: Malcolm, you're a rare man in Meridian and you have got a great wife and family, so -- thank you. Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Corrie: Okay. Adoption of the agenda is second. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 3 of 72 Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: We have had a couple of requests on the agenda. 5C and 5D needs to be -- or C and D in the Consent Agenda need to be pulled to 5C and 5D and that will go right along with Number 6 regarding the Clearbrook Subdivision and that is, I believe, all the requests we have for changes. With those modifications, I would move that we adopt the agenda. Nary: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded that we adopt the agenda with the changes. Any further discussion? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess on our -- when we have done this before, five has been under six, so we can talk about the reconsideration first. If we can just reverse the order of five and six. Corrie: Okay. We can do that. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Clerk. Nary: This is the adoption. Corrie: Oh. I'm sorry. Been gone a week and forgot how to do it. Okay. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. July 22, 2003 Approve minutes of City Council Regular Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PFP 03-002 Request for Preliminary / Final Plat approval of 3 building Gaudry Seegmiller lots on 1.55 acres in an L-O zone for Subdivision by Gordon N. Anderson – southeast corner of East Gala Street and South Millennium: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03-023 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an ancillary drive-thru for a full-service bank facility and for a temporary bank D. L. Evans Bank facility in a C-G zone for by D. L. Evans Bank – 2560 East Fairview Avenue: Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 4 of 72 F. Change Order No. 1, Waste Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan Update: G. Change Order No. 1, Dissolved Air Flotation Thickener Project: Corrie: Consent Agenda. Here we go. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda, with the exception of taking Items C, D, and moving them to the regular agenda at 5C and 5D, and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on proper papers. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to adopt the agenda as amended. Any further discussion? Okay, the Consent Agenda Mr. Clerk. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Consent Agenda is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 4. Department Reports: A. Public Works Department: 1. Tabled from August 5, 2003: Discussion of Silverstone Corporate Center Well Site, Well No. 23 – Brad Watson: Corrie: Department reports. Public Works Department. Brad Watson. Watson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council Members. It's not on your computer, but I put in your mailboxes yesterday morning a copy of a memo that I wrote to you and a copy th of a letter that Sundance Investments wrote to me, dated August 8. I called them after our meeting last Tuesday and related the instructions that you had given me and they th responded with this letter on the 8, which was in agreement with what I understood the instructions to be. I don't really have much more than that. I would be happy to answer any questions. On my memo I did insert a possible motion that you might make, other than that I have no further comments. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 5 of 72 Corrie: Okay. Questions from Council? All right. Thank you, Brad. Any comments there? If not, I will entertain a motion, if you so desire, for the agreement of the $70,000 per our request. Is that what it was, Brad? Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve the purchase of the land for the well, water well, for the amount of the $70,000 from Silverstone Development. Nary: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to agree to the $70,000 price for Well Number 23 Lot. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. Mr. Attorney, would you make sure we have got that -- okay. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES B. Planning and Zoning Department: 1. Request for Waiver / Reduction of Fees for Silverstone Business Campus PUD Application: Corrie: Next is the Planning and Zoning Department, request for a waiver of reduction of fees for Silverstone Business Campus PUD application. Anna. Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, the applicant has requested a waiver of fees and the Zoning Ordinance does give the City Council the authority to do that. Their fees for the planned unit development would be approximately $40,000. I believe that the last time they came through they paid -- they have indicated that they paid -- they based the fee on their largest building, which was 60,000 square feet. They are asking to again do that, which would give fees of $3,932.85. Corrie: Thank you. Discussion? Questions? Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, what is the department -- what do you guys -- do you have any problems with reducing the fees or -- Powell: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Bird, it seems hard to justify a fee of $40,000, but that's certainly the case. It seems a reasonable methodology. We don't have a real Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 6 of 72 good way of evaluating whether or not it's sufficient or not. It would seem to be -- that's about the best information I can provide. Bird: $37,000 increase. Powell: I indicated that they wouldn't mind having that extra money to distribute amongst themselves, but we felt that that wasn't appropriate. Corrie: Is there any comment? De Weerd: That was recorded. Powell: I did follow it up with they didn't feel it was appropriate. Corrie: That wasn't bonuses or anything like that. No. No. No. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess the one part I have is that to have a difference of $36,000 tells me that we have to reevaluate how are fee structure is. Powell: Yes, sir. I would agree. Nary: Do you think the 4,000 covers our cost -- Powell: I would agree and -- and, as I said, I don't have -- we are not sure the methodology used to create the fee structure. Probably it was done not anticipating the huge projects that we have got, so it's very difficult to come up with a fee schedule that adequately reflects the difference between a very small project, a medium size project, and an extremely large project, such as some of the ones we have been seeing. I will put that on my list of items. Nary: The list is pretty long. Powell: And I'm hoping you're going to help me with the priority -- prioritizing that list. Nary: Now -- but just so I'm clear, if I understand Mr. Larsen's letter, he's saying the basis of this is the same method we used previously. We are not changing anything that we didn't previously grant to them for this type of development, is that right? Powell: Well, I'm -- and I'm -- I'm not quite sure. I believe that the other one came in under a different fee structure and perhaps they only paid the one for the Preliminary Plat and it may have been structured on that. I'm not sure that the fees were actually waived last time. I don't believe you waived the fees, anyway. Perhaps Mr. Larsen or Mr. Anderson can give a better idea. Last time they came in with several other Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 7 of 72 applications, this time it's following up, and it is kind of playing tag with the Preliminary Plat. Corrie: Give your name and address, please. Larsen: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Cornell Larsen. Address is 210 Murray Street in Garden City. Previously on the previous Silverstone Corporate Center, what we did is we submitted a conditional use application for two specific buildings. I believe the fees were based on those two buildings. In this case, we did not have buildings put together to submit, so we were trying to figure out what was reasonable and fair and said, well, we picked the largest building we had shown on the Site Plan, that that was where we would start. It probably won't be the building we will start with, but it was a reasonable place for us to start and we are open for suggestions. We thought that the $40,000 number was a little bit high for the process. Corrie: Okay. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess -- and maybe this is for Mr. Larsen or Mrs. Powell. I mean we have another corporate center that wants the building across the street. Have we had application that we need to reassess whether or not -- whether we have done the same thing or whether or not we have to do the same thing? I guess I just don't want to get into this thing where we have to revisit this. The intent of these fees is to cover the cost of review and so I just wanted to make sure we are covering our costs and that I certainly think Silverstone can pay for the cost that it takes and maybe $40,000 is a little much, but does across the street have the same issue? Powell: My understanding is that that was not an issue at the time that the application was accepted. They have already gotten their PUD approval, I believe. Yes. Nary: And did they pay fees under the same structure that now Silverstone would like relief from? Powell: I don't believe they did. Nary: Did we change the fee? Powell: Well, the fee schedule did change a bit and it did -- the code currently says that if you turn in combined applications, that you only pay the fee for the one. I think that that's how some of these were -- just the Preliminary Plat fee was charged, instead of the PUD fee, where they didn't specifically know how big the buildings were going to be in particular. A lot of them show the layouts and the square footage of the building pads, but they don't have the buildings themselves identified. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 8 of 72 Nary: So, that makes it sound like to me this is different than what you asked for previously. You were able to combine them differently, that's something you did across the street at El Dorado, so why should we do this differently? That's what I guess I -- that's what it sounds like to me. Am I mistaken? Larsen: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Nary, across the street they did the same thing on the El Dorado project as they did on the Silverstone Corporate Center, the first corporate center project that we brought. Nary: So, why can't you do this piece like you did your first piece? Because it sounds to me like you're asking to do something differently. Larsen: We did not submit all the applications together. We submitted a plat and an annexation Rezone request separate from in the PUD. When we met with staff we looked at the uses that were being asked for and they decided that it would be in the best of everybody to go ahead with the PUD, so we have filed a PUD application as well. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I can understand the point that Councilman Nary is making, because it's not these two business parks, but we have other ones that are kind of starting to come on line or in the planning process. We also have the family center at Crossroads and how it was done there. I would echo his concern that whatever we do here -- and I think it sounds unreasonable, but we want to make sure that it's consistent and it's what has been asked of others. It's something we feel comfortable to continue to ask and so I don't -- I don't know. I think we can all agree that it seems high, but I would like to see some thought on what it should be, so -- and that's pretty much going to be what we do from here on out. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Just it appears to me, from what you have been saying, the reason that it's high is because of the method that you choose to present it. The reason it wasn't as high at the last one was because of the way you grouped the buildings and grouped the process together to not have to pay such a high fee and in this one, for whatever reason, you have chosen to do it differently than that. I guess I'm concerned that the fee -- the fee is being partly driven by the methodology you choose to develop. I'm not really that -- I guess for me personally I'm not that interested in providing that relief. That's your choice on how you develop your property. You, obviously -- there is a method or ways that it can be done differently to save the expense. What I'm afraid is that we are going to be involved in granting waivers of this type all the time, like we have been working on in Planning and Zoning in other use issues, that it becomes the Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 9 of 72 exception that swallows up the rule. We never have anybody paying what we think the fee should be, everybody pays fee they think they want to pay, and as you drive on how it comes forward and how the fee gets determined, we may need to look at our fee structure, but it appears to me that -- I guess I'm not real supportive of a waiver. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I think that with the fees, regardless of whether you put in 10 homes or 10 buildings or one building, your fee structure should still be the same. If you paid three or 4,000 last time, our fees haven't jumped $40,000, unless you're going to put that many -- unless you applied for that many buildings at this time, which I don't think you did. We have got to be consistent, like Councilwoman de Weerd said, we have got, -- you know, we have got these two big commercial developments and we have got other coming on line. We have got to be consistent, whether you apply for four buildings or one building, it should -- it should, per square foot, the fee should be the same. I mean it -- and we need to make sure that we get our costs out of these. We have got to get our costs of them and that should be a priority of Planning and Zoning to sit down and get their fees up to date, if they need to get them up to date, and get that taken care of. I just -- I just don't see how we can be charging one development something and the other one something else. I just -- per square foot, it should be the same. Powell: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Anna. Powell: To respond to Council Member Nary's statement, I'm not sure that it's changing methodology on the application's part, as perhaps a change in methodology in interpreting the -- how the fee should be collected. I want to support the applicant a little bit in saying that I think there is a -- there has been some inconsistencies in my staff and we will work to get that hammered out as far as how that's interpreted. The fee structure is not terribly clear. We will work on that and I will work with the finance director and the clerk's office to try and come up with some better methodologies on calculating those fees. Corrie: We better have a better template than so far. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: Then, it might be helpful to have that information before we can really make a decision on this request, because I feel that we don't have any information to base a decision on. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 10 of 72 Powell: Mr. Mayor, Council member de Weerd. I think that would be acceptable. We would ask permission to go ahead, accept the Planned Development application, and begin processing it, so it can catch up with the Preliminary Plat and, then, hold off on collecting the fees until we can come up with a suitable methodology. Corrie: Does that sound reasonable? Larsen: That's great. Thank you. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Does that mean that if we don't agree on waiving that fee, then, you're going to pay $40,000? Is that what you're agreeing to? Larsen: I assume we will. Nary: Okay. That's fine. As long as you know that's what -- okay. Larsen: Because we need to process the PUD, so -- Bird: Yes and, then, we can – Item 6. Request for Reconsideration and Re-opening Public Hearings for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision PP 03-007 / VAR 03-012 by R.K. Development and Briggs Engineering: Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Item 6 is moved to 5 and 5 to 6. A request for consideration of reopening Public Hearings for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision development by Briggs Engineering. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess since my name is in the letter, I will just tell you that the applicant has requested reconsideration from the denial and I would be willing to make a motion to put that back as a Public Hearing. It was my understanding that the design that we received was the best we were going to get and didn't get any clear indication from the applicant that -- and we were looking -- that there wasn't any other alternatives and I know we have had another request for reconsideration. That was a pretty major change. This is relatively minor. I think all the other concerns about the development were addressed, so I would be willing to put this back on the table and have it, as long as the applicant's willing to re-notice and we can look at the new plat design. Nary: Is that a motion? Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 11 of 72 De Weerd: Well, yes, I guess I would move to reconsider or reopen the Public Hearings for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision, PP 03-007, and VAR 03-012, by R.K. Development and Briggs Engineering and I don't know to what date that I'm sure that would be in the clerk's hands. Nary: Since we have got to notice it, I guess we don't have to set it to a date certain. De Weerd: Okay. That it's re-noticed and -- Corrie: We can do that. Bird: Are you including the other two in this motion? De Weerd: I included both the Preliminary Plat and the variance. Bird: Okay. Nary: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yes. Just, again, to reiterate what Council member de Weerd said. I know Mrs. Powell last week said she doesn't like to encourage these reconsiderations, but I do think as we discussed last week, there are some very limited circumstances for reconsideration and do think this fits that criteria. It is a fairly small change. It really is -- the change we were talking about very specifically in the hearing, so I do think it fits what we had previously discussed as reasons to grant such a request, so I would support it. Corrie: Any other discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Motion carried. We will set the date. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: PP 03- 007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building lots and 7 Clearbrook Estates other lots on 11.65 acres in an R-4 zone for Subdivision by R.K. Development, LLC – west of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road: Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 12 of 72 D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: VAR 03- 012 Variance Request for a to block length requirements for a Clearbrook block on the south side of Clearbrook Street for Estates Subdivision by R.K. Development, LLC – west of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road: Corrie: Next is -- well, I guess we will have to do C and D. Nichols: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think you need to at least pull those findings completely, since you're going to rehear the matter. Corrie: Okay. Do you want a motion for that? Yes. Bird: C and D. Corrie: Pull C and D. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I would move that we pull Items 5C and D from the agenda, which is PP 03- 007, the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on Clearbrook Estates Subdivision, as well as Item D, Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Denial of VAR 03-012. Nary: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 7. Resolution No. : Approving Addendum to Exhibit “E” Rural Firefighting Equipment to the Meridian Rural Fire Protection District Firefighting and Life Preservation Service Contract and Joint Exercise of Power Agreement: Corrie: All right. Now, we are at Item Number 7, Resolution Number 03-406, approving addendum to Exhibit E Rural Firefighting Equipment to the Meridian Rural Fire Protection District Firefighting and Life Preservation Service Contract and Joint Exercise of Power Agreement. Bowers: That's a long title. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 13 of 72 Corrie: Yes, it sure is. Bowers: Good evening, Mayor Corrie and City Council Members. For our Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Meridian and the Meridian Rural Fire Protection District, whenever we purchased a big ticket item, we always want to put an addendum to our Exhibit E in our -- on our joint powers agreement basically saying who purchased it. How much money it is, so both sides will know who owns the property. I would stand for any questions you have. Bill Nichols and John Fitzgerald have gone through this and we would like to have the Council -- have the Mayor sign it and City Clerk to attest. Corrie: Okay. Any other questions of Kenny? Do we have the Resolution here? Okay. Would you like to read the resolution by title only? Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Resolution 03-406, a resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian setting forth certain findings and purposes, authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign into on behalf of the said municipality, the amendment to the agreement entitled Addendum to Exhibit E, Rural Firefighting Equipment of the City of Meridian -- Meridian, Meridian Rural Fire Protection District Firefighting and Life Preservation Service Contract and Joint Exercise of Joint Powers Agreement. Corrie: Okay. You have heard the reading of the Resolution by title only. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have it read in its entirety? Okay. Hearing none, Council? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I move we approve Resolution 03-406 and ask the Mayor to sign and Clerk attest. Bird: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve Resolution Number 03-406. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Resolution Number 03-406 is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Bowers: Thank you, Mayor, Council. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 14 of 72 Item 8. Resolution No. : Approving the Computer Usage Policy: Corrie: Thank you, Kenny. Number 8 is a Resolution Number 03-407, approving the computer usage policy. Have you all had a chance to read that resolution? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I did notice one term in the policy that I would suggest that we consider amending and I'm looking at Subsection 9C which is entitled internet and e-mail activity and C says dial-up internet accounts are to be for city business only. Employees are not to use city-owned dial-up Internet accounts for home or personal use. The term dial-up is very specific -- a specific term used in Internet access and we don't always -- we won't always continue to use dial-up as a methodology of access the Internet, so I don't know that we need to use that term. I think all Internet accounts are to be used for city business and employees are not to use city-owned Internet accounts for home or personal use anyway. I think we could eliminate the term dial-up, since it has a specific meaning and, really, it keeps the same meaning of what's intended, so if no one has an objection, I would just move to strike the term dial-up out of that section. Otherwise, everything else is fine. Corrie: Okay. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: Is this -- were any changes made to this document? I guess there were a couple things that I didn't remember. Well, I know they weren't discussed. Is this what we had seen when it was presented to us? Berg: She's not here, but -- Corrie: Okay. Berg: Mr. Mayor, if I may, the department heads discussed a couple paragraphs that were added. It dealt with passwords, Section 4, Paragraphs F, and G, and it was asked at their department meeting and Stacy referred to the audit that suggested some changes and that was added according the suggestions of that audit. Those were added to the policy that you had previously seen. Those were new items. She's referred that you knew of that request from the audit. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 15 of 72 De Weerd: I guess I understand this kind of safeguarding for data-sensitive departments, but I don't know if it would apply for all areas. It seems pretty cumbersome, you know, so I don't know if at your department head meeting was there a discussion, was there concern from the department heads on -- Corrie: There was some, but I think they all agreed that what the audit came out, they would like to see it happen. De Weerd: Okay. Corrie: And for their own protection, too, so -- isn't that kind of what you got out of that, Will? Berg: Yes, Mr. Mayor, it was pretty much agreed that we would follow whatever the audit suggested and that -- Corrie: That would protect them as well. Berg: Yes, I did voice my opinion that it seemed pretty quick to try to remember all those passwords. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess working in a place where we have that system -- and 60 days is a little shorter than what I have been used to, but what I think at least I have seen in my experience is it becomes pretty second nature. It's not -- it seems cumbersome at first, but I think the intent is to still limit access from any site, not just ones that are safety sensitive or data sensitive, but, actually, any sites, since it's a network system if you can access in from one area, you may be able to hack into another. I think that's the reason. Since it's only the last five passwords, I know with the Ada county criminal system it's even more cumbersome than this. I mean most of it really is -- this stuff gets pretty second nature and it's not too complicated. Corrie: They agreed it would be -- McCandless: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. McCandless. McCandless: On Page 7 under violations, it's been brought to my attention that Section B, any employee who violates this policy, they would -- several people have said they would like knowing violate this policy. Also on Section C, officers, employees, agents or representatives of the City of Meridian who knowingly create -- in other words, somebody could get on their computer and inadvertently hit the wrong button or Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 16 of 72 something and get into something that they didn't mean to get into and come right back out of it. They could -- you know, they could be blamed for getting into something that they shouldn't have been getting into on a city computer. If they go in and come right back out again, that means they didn't knowingly go in there. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: You're getting in legal terms. I think you may be right, but -- McCandless: Well, I don't know anything about legal terms, but -- Corrie: I don't either. Mr. Nary. McCandless: That word in those two sentences. Nary: Yes. I think both of them -- I mean I guess the problem you have is there is always circumstances that need to be investigated and decided. I think what Council Member McCandless says is very true, that this doesn't give any room. I know that from a lawyer's standpoint that's real nice to have, from a human resources standpoint it's not very practical, because this says any employee who violates this policy -- this says that if one employee were to send an e-mail once that wasn't a city thing, they shall be subject -- they must be disciplined and circumstances don't always warrant such a thing. Whether or not the section needs to say the employee who violates this policy may be subject to formal discipline, would probably make more sense and be more practical. Knowingly violate the policy certainly should be a consideration that needs to be taken into account and there may be some part of that investigation that makes that -- you will have to make that judgment call at some point. I think you certainly don't want employees afraid to use the equipment, because they are afraid to violate a policy that mandates that they will be disciplined if they do it wrong, even if they don't know they are doing it wrong. That doesn't make much sense. I would concur that we should probably amend Sections B and C to reflect that employees may be subject to discipline and they must knowingly violate the policy. Corrie: Okay. Sounds reasonable. Any other comments? Nichols: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I'd recommend if you insert the word knowingly, that you leave the shall, the mandatory discipline, because, if not, then, you could have one department not disciplining employees that knowing violate the policy because it would be a may be subject to and another department where they are. In order to keep it consistent across the city, if you insert the word knowingly as suggested by Councilwoman McCandless, that does prevent discipline for the inadvertent violations, but it does help keep the policy consistent from department to department. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 17 of 72 Corrie: Would you say that if they do it more than once or twice knowingly, then? Nichols: Well, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, if you insert the word knowingly as a modifier in front of the operative verb, then, I think that takes -- I think that resolves your issue. The deal here is -- I mean if a supervisor says, oh, I don't have to discipline, I don't have to even, you know, write it up in one department, where another one says I at least have to put a warning in your file, you want to be consistent. If you put the knowingly in, then, there has to first be some indication that the person knew what they were doing when they violated the policy. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: So, the reading, then, would be an employee who knowing violates this policy, for Subsection B, is that what you suggest? Then, for Subsection C knowingly would be in front of -- I think that's fair. That's fair. Corrie: Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. Who wants to -- want to read it? The title. All right. Okay. Mr. Clerk. Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council. Resolution Number 03-407, a resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian to provide for findings and to establish a computer usage policy for the City of Meridian, providing for following synopsis, objective definitions, computing privacy, software, hardware, server maintenance, computer access, and security backups, remote control, inventory, purchasing, internet, and e-mail activity, conditions to authorization, violations, notice to the public, website link policy, and policy updates and a question and answer section and providing an effective date. Corrie: Okay. You have heard the reading of Resolution Number 03-407 by title only. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have it read in its entirety? Okay. Council needs to amend that wording. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I would move that we approve Resolution Number 03-407, approving the computer uses policy as amended, Subsections 9C, eliminating the words dial-up from that section and Subsections 11B and C will now insert the word knowingly -- before knowingly violate in Subsection B and knowingly creates in Subsection C. I don't believe there were any other amended changes, and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. McCandless: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 18 of 72 Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded on the computer usage policy with the changes. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Approved as corrected. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 9. Ordinance No. : AZ 03-008 Request for annexation and zoning of 34.52 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for Birchstone Creek Subdivision proposed by Centennial Development, LLC – northwest corner of West Ustick Road and North Black Cat Road: Corrie: Number 9 is Ordinance Number 03-1036, request for annexation and zoning of 34.52 acres from an RUT to an R-8 zone for proposed Birchstone Creek Subdivision by Central Development, LLC, Northwest corner West Ustick Road and North Black Cat Road. At this time I would like to have, the City Clerk read Ordinance Number 03-1036 by title only. Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 03-1036, an ordinance finding that Marcella A. Bain Trust and Marcella A. Bain and Dale L. Bain, owners of certain real property generally located at the northwest corner of Ustick Road and Black Cat Road, Meridian, Idaho, to be known as Birchstone Creek 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 into 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. Corrie: Okay. Members of the audience, you have heard the reading of Ordinance Number 03-1036 by title only. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have it read in its entirety? Okay. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion on the ordinance. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve Ordinance Number 03-1036, the annexation and zoning of 34.52 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for Birchstone Creek Subdivision, with the suspension of rules and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 19 of 72 McCandless: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any other discussion? If not, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Ordinance Number 03-1036 is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 10. Continued Public Hearing from July 22, 2003: FP 03-038 Request to Packard Acres No. 2 amend conditions of approval on the Final Plat for by the City of Meridian – east of North Wingate Lane and south of East Ustick Road: Corrie: Item Number 10 is a Continued Public Hearing from the July 22, 2003, request to amend conditions for approval of Final Plat for Packard Acres Subdivision Number 2 by the City of Meridian, east of North Wingate Lane and south of East Ustick Road. At this time, I will continue the Public Hearing. I'm going to set some ground rules here. It seems that we have some letters that have been floating around that nobody got to talk and didn't get to talk long enough. I feel that they could probably talk for six hours and never say any more than they did before. We have heard a lot on this Packard Subdivision, so what I'm going to do is I'm going to give the city a chance to speak first, then, the developer can tell us what they want to say within five minutes -- and how many in here want more testimony on this at this time? I have two? Okay. Three. Okay. I'm going to give you five minutes apiece. If you have anything new to tell us, tell us. If you have already said it, we have had it. We have got it on the record already. Let's get the ground rules, let's go from then, for five minutes, I'm going to stop you, and that's the end of it, and, then, we will give it to Council. Okay. Staff comments. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The application, as you may recall, is to amend two of the conditions on a Final Plat for Packard Acres No. 2. As shown on the overhead, Wingate Lane is adjacent to the east boundary of this phase of the subdivision. I think the main reason that the Council continued it is you noticed if you read the minutes from the last meeting, really revolved I think around the question of the city's ability to place gates on a private lane. There was some question presented to Ms. Wyrick, who represented the developer at your July meeting, she was asked to go back to the developer, as well as possibly their attorney and get a little more information about their opinion on whether the city has the ability to actually gate Wingate, as compared to Challis Lane -- or Challis Road. This is an application that was initiated by the city we are the applicants on it. I think other than that, the case was made, I think in the application, as well as testimony at the last meeting, as to why we feel that the two conditions are not enforceable. We feel that it's in our best interest as staff, who is charged with enforcing this, to remove those two conditions, particularly the condition that says gates shall be placed on Challis and, then, the condition that says Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 20 of 72 the developer is responsible for repairing Wingate Lane if he or any of his contractors cause damage to the lane. Those are the two conditions that we are talking about and unless you'd like me to expand further, since it's a continued hearing, I'll just stand for any questions. Corrie: Okay. Council do you have questions of staff? Okay. Developer. Raise your right hand, please. Is the testimony you are about to give the Council the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Groves: Yes. Corrie: Name and address, please. Groves: My name is Craig Groves, 6223 North Discovery Way, Suite 100, Boise. 83713. Mayor, Members of the Council, as your staff indicated, this request to modify the Development Agreement came from the staff. They are looking for, I guess, some direction from Council on a couple of issues. I think some of these issues may not be able to be resolved at this forum and, you know, I'm not sure you need to do anything about the Development Agreement. I don't think that Packard Estates has violated the Development Agreement, and I don't think that your staff has done anything wrong. They are looking for some clarification that surround the issue of gates going on East Challis Street. I'm going to give you just a little bit of background. You have all this background in your possession now, but I want to point out a couple of things. The Development Agreement that was signed, in that Development Agreement this City Council adopted ACHD's recommendations that went back to October of 1995. The two specific conditions that ACHD adopted or recommended for adoption are condition 5.37 and 5.38 in the Development Agreement. Both of those conditions deal with East Challis and the gates. Condition 5.37 states: East Challis, as depicted on the drawing on file dated September 15, 1995, shall be dedicated, but not constructed across Wingate Lane until two properties south of the street crossing are developed and constructed and construction has been approved by Ada County Highway District Commission. The developer shall deposit the cost of constructing East Challis across Wingate Lane and removing the gates required below to the public right ways -- right of way public trust. This was discussed, as indicated, clear back to 1995. In 1995, one of the property owners along Wingate Lane testified at the Commission's hearing -- his name was Floyd Reichert, he lived, -- he resided at the time on Wingate Lane. His testimony, not in support of the gates, was as follows -- this was at an ACHD commission meeting. Floyd Reichert stated that it is not fair for him not to be able to use the public roads that are close to his property, consideration should be given to the future of the community to have an even flow of traffic through the mile section. He is not in favor of the two-gate system, which bars him from having access to the public road, that's right at his place. He stated that he is being penalized because someone wants to live in 1913. Discussion held concerning the possibility of connecting with one of the public roads to the west of the gate. Mr. Reichert stated that he would have to depend on the developer for the access. He does not own land adjacent to the road right of way. I bring that testimony up, because Mr. Reichert since has sold his property and that property is now occupied by tenants. When we went through our Final Plat Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 21 of 72 hearing and the City Council here adopted condition 20 and 22 that your staff is wanting to modify, condition 20 dealt with the gate issue and condition 22 dealt with the maintenance on Wingate Lane. Well, we submitted our construction documents to Ada County Highway District Ada County Highway District said we are not going to give you approval to start construction until we bring everybody together, because we believe that we need to cross Wingate Lane. On February 13, 2002 -- you have this in your packet -- there was a Public Hearing at Ada County Highway District. At that Public Hearing it was tabled or remanded -- I'm not sure what the exact terminology was, but what came out of that Public Hearing is we had a work session between all the neighbors along Wingate Lane and ourselves and the staff at ACHD, we had a work session on February 20, 2002. At that work session it was agreed that we would cross Wingate Lane with East Challis, and that the existing gate that was there -- gates at East Challis and East Meadow Grass, excuse me, would be taken down and we would install an electronic gate north of East Challis on the lane to help prevent traffic. Okay. The only person that would use that electronic gate would be Mr. and Mrs. Sharp and the tenants that rent the Reichert -- the old Reichert property. Those would be the only two people that would use that electronic gate or be able to use it. We agreed to that. th All the neighbors agreed to that. We went to the ACHD hearing on the 27 of February and they adopted that recommendation, they gave us approval to start construction, and we did. Now your staff -- and as far as maintenance on Wingate Lane and I will shut up, we have a controlled builder group in that community, we have the ability to tell the builders not to use Wingate Lane, which we have done and we have done that in writing with them and verbally. We installed a private -- private property, no trespassing, private lane, and no trespassing signs on both sides of East Wingate. When we started development of the site and did underground utilities, we called the owner's association at Chamberlain Estates and said, you know, we are going to be running our construction equipment through your community. There is going to be mud on the streets, we are going to take care of it, but bear with us, it's going to take, you know 120 days to build this project out. We did that so our contractors would not use Wingate Lane, the underground utility contractors. Now, I do understand from talking with some of the neighbors that there are other people using that lane. They still say that there are subcontractors using the lane. I will do whatever I can to stop that. They tell me that there are moving trucks using the lane and there are furniture delivery trucks using the lane. I don't know how I can stop that, other than do what ACHD and we all agreed to back in February 27, 2002, and that is to install an electronic gate north of East Challis, which we are willing to do, all we have insisted on is that we sign an agreement for maintenance and operation of that gate. Thank you. Corrie: Thank you. Okay. You ran two minutes over, so we are going to give the others the same set of minutes. Okay. Who wants to start? Mr. Sharp. Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Sharp: Yes. Corrie: Thank you. Name. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 22 of 72 Sharp: I'm Dale Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, and I want to refute what Mr. Groves said. We did not agree in that meeting with Ada County Highway District and my testimony will support that, that there was no agreement to that -- putting up a gate or crossing Wingate Lane. I want to say that Dixie Roberts and Billy Premo have conflicting schedules, so they couldn't be here to support this. In the opinion of many residents of Meridian and surrounding areas, any council member voting to amend these conditions to the Final Plat, lose their effectiveness and credibility for representing their constituents and managing the affairs of the City of Meridian. Secondly, you have made a mockery of the Public Hearing process for the conditions for granting the Packard Development was agreed upon and the conditions were established. Thirdly, the City of Meridian, along with the developer, and ACHD, should these conditions be amended, will assume responsibility for all safety and liability issues concerning Wingate Lane. Any injuries and/or property damages as a result of opening up Wingate Lane will be your responsibility. These conditions were agreed upon and should be enforced by you people and, as I said, if you read my testimony at the ACHD meeting, it will not support what Mr. Groves said that everyone agreed and they have violated our private road agreement by crossing Wingate Lane. It says it will be open and maintained and it is dedicated as a private lane for the residents of that lane. Thank you. Corrie: Okay. Mrs. Sharp. You haven't used up all your time, so you have ten minutes if you want to talk. H. Sharp: Thank you. Corrie: If you will raise your right hand, please. H. Sharp: I don't think I will need it. Corrie: Okay. Is the testimony you are about to give this Council the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? H. Sharp: Yes. Corrie: Thank you. Name and address, please. H. Sharp: Helen Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane. If I could reiterate what everybody else has said. We did not all agree to that gate across Wingate. If they would look at Idaho Code that's in Ada County, they cannot put a gate across a private lane. Here, again, we need to define whether or not that is now a private lane with a road to the north of it, which is Ustick and, then, Challis Road, which means there is a public road on either end. With a description of Ada County, it cannot be a private road. If it is not a private road, it needs to be made public, so therefore, it's part of the system and needs to be brought up to standard. This, of course, has not been done. We don't have a private lane as now and we don't have a public road. I think that needs to be addressed. One of the things that were brought up last meeting is that their hands are tied, you have to abide by what Ada County Highway District says, and they have the final say. If one would go to the law library or the public library and look up some of the codes. I have Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 23 of 72 one of the codes here that are in book 40, Chapter 13, that says -- and I quote in matters of urban renewal projects, the city involved shall make the final decision concerning approval of the project based on the overall plan of the city. Then, it goes on and, of course, I have looked in other areas, too, that says if it is new, the city has final, if it's existing, of course, Ada County Highway District does. As I mentioned before, which I really tend to elaborate on, is the hazardous condition. This, too, has been addressed by the private land usage that says if the servient -- in this case, the contractor is servient to us -- and they cause a hazardous condition, that has to be addressed and it has not. We are, of course, the dominant, we are at the end of the lane, and the original agreement, as my husband mentioned, of 1913 was developed for us originally, because of the properties. I think there -- as far as the maintenance, I find it kind of interesting, because if one would read -- in fact, it says prior to the issuing of Building Permits they were to bring the road up to what it was prior to before starting construction, the Building Permits were granted before this was issued. My argument is if they are going to check on whether or not the fencing or the other guidelines for granting Building Permits. They should do all, as they do with the plumber, the electrician, have a check-off list, they have gotten them all taken care of, it might eliminate some staff and some expenses, because it was not done in that order. Thank you. Corrie: Thank you. You're next. Is the testimony you're about to give the Council the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Gallagher: It is. Corrie: Thank you. Name and address, please. Gallagher: My name is Chip Gallagher. I live at 3020 North Wingate Lane in Meridian. How much time do I have? Corrie: Ten minutes Gallagher: I'm going to need about a minute. Corrie: So far you haven't used all that up, so -- Gallagher: This won't take long. Corrie: I haven't seen you up here before, I don't think, so you have got some of their time that they didn't use, so -- Gallagher: You know I just want to tell the Council Members I feel there is a certain amount of stress between the Sharp’s and the city over Wingate Lane. These people are doing what they feel is right. They have entered a couple of verbal agreements, the agreements have been broken, and they feel as if they have no one working on their side. I know they have tried the legal system and that has been frustrating for them. I would cut them just a little bit of slack. They are -- this is very, very important to them. I Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 24 of 72 was at the ACHD meeting where the developer and ourselves approached this first issue of crossing Wingate Lane. I asked for the continuance, so that the neighbors could get together and kind of work through the issues, better understand what was happening there, because it was our understanding that ACHD and the city had agreed not to cross Wingate Lane until such time that the properties to the south were developed. We were confused. I think ACHD was confused as well. They had a few board members that were present when the deal was made, a lot them have left. There was nothing really in writing that protected the lane. The developer is correct and so are the Sharp’s. In that working session, we brought up the possibility of putting a mechanized gate across Wingate Lane to allow Packard Estates to be cohesive and to also protect the families on Wingate Lane and to give the Sharps access to Ustick. The Sharp’s did not agree to that, so it wasn't a unilateral agreement. I guess I'm coming to you, having not been to the last Public Hearing, kind of pleading to you as our guiding committee here, not only protect the developer, to protect us. I have three children, the youngest of which is three. The lane is about 12 feet wide and the traffic since Packard Estates has been gone in has gotten ridiculous. The vehicles are larger, they are traveling at rapid rates, and somebody is going to get hurt. In summary, I would just plead with you to find a solution to protect the lane, protect the city's vision, and that's it. Thank you. Corrie: Thank you. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Gallagher. Corrie: Mr. Gallagher. This isn't charged against you, it's time that we are taking now. Gallagher: Oh. Okay. Nary: So, what do you think that is? I mean it sounded to me that some of the property owners -- I know not all, but some of the property owners felt the only way to protect the lane now, since we can't turn the clock back, was the gate. What would be the other alternative besides the gate? Gallagher: Well, there is probably only two. You either block Challis -- Nary: Which we can't do. Gallagher: Well -- okay. I take that -- I believe you. We put some sort of mechanism across Wingate Lane that gives the Sharps the same kind of accessibility that they would have if they had a private gate at their residence. Phone lines, so people can call in, they can mechanically open it from their home, they don't have to get up and drive all the way down to open the gate, those kinds of things need to be worked through. That was the solution that I think the people to the north of Challis felt was reasonable, but I Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 25 of 72 want to reiterate that the Sharp’s never really jumped on board with this, they have -- they are the ones who are really being damaged by what's happening here. To answer your question in a more concise manner, probably the gate on Wingate would be -- Nary: And to deal with the traffic issue on Wingate, that seems to be the only real alternative left is a gate, to have the traffic -- to keep the traffic from coming south down Ustick on Wingate Lane, having that gate on the other end to prevent access into Packard Estates is the only thing left. Gallagher: Well, you can dead end the lane, which would really be an injustice to the Sharps. I mean I don't think that's reasonable at all. Right. Yes. That's not -- I mean you asked what the alternatives are. Nary: Right. I understand. Gallagher: So, yes, we are -- I would say the gate is probably the most reasonable solution. That's my opinion. Thank you. Nary: Thank you. Corrie: Thank you, Chip. Gordon Cooper, do you have any testimony? I got it here that you're against it, but are you here? Oh, he's not here, Gordon Cooper? Gordon Cooper? Gordon Cooper was signed here as being against the -- okay. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony? Okay. Council, do we -- I guess we need to have -- Nichols: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: -- any questions that the developer -- Nichols: Mr. Mayor, I have some questions for Mr. Groves. Corrie: Okay. Nichols: Mr. Groves, was an agreement or outline of an agreement for maintenance of a gate prepared? Did you get that far? Groves: Yes, it was. Nichols: Okay. Can you tell me the general structure of that agreement? Groves: I have a copy of it if you would like it. Nichols: Well, that will be up to the Council, I guess, whether they want to see your -- Groves: The general structure of the agreement was just a maintenance and operation agreement for the gate and the lane. It required all the signatures of property owners Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 26 of 72 along the lane, ourselves. We were going to install a gate, and we were working with Chip in the design and construction of that. We were -- I felt we were being very flexible with the design and the quality of the gate. We have no issues and if the agreement for the gate would be signed, we would build it. Now, I have told other people on the lane that -- they said, well, the Sharp’s aren't in favor of this and, frankly, I have to refute th what Mr. Sharp said. I looked Mr. Sharp in the eye on February 20 and I said do we have a deal, because I'm done. I left with the impression that we have a deal. I can't speak for Mrs. Sharp, but I left with the impression that we have a deal, neither Mr. th Sharp or Mrs. Sharp showed up to the February 27 Public Hearing when this was adopted by ACHD, so if that's their excuse, I don't know. I felt like we had a deal. I told the other neighbors on the lane, you just go ahead and sign it, I will go talk to Mr. and Mrs. Sharp once you have signed it. To date no one has done that. Corrie: Excuse me. Is this gate at the Ustick end of it or -- Groves: It's roughly -- does he have a laser? Okay. Let me see where I’m. Okay. That's a drainage lot in Packard Acres No. 1. That gate would be roughly right there. Just north of -- just north of that drainage lot. Corrie: Okay. Any questions -- further questions from Council? Okay. Thank you. Step right up. We want to make sure that everybody has heard the last on this one, so we can -- H. Sharp: I have a question. My question is regarding this gate, especially when Ada County says you can't have a gate on a private lane. If they don't get all signatures for this gate, then, what are they going to do? Then, of course, there was the maintenance of the gate, too. Corrie: Yes. I don't know. This may end up in court yet. I mean if we can't come to a conclusion here that -- H. Sharp: Because in talking to the neighbors after the last meeting, I'm not sure they would get all people to sign for the gate. I said one question. Corrie: I'm not counting, so -- okay. Can you answer that question? Grove: If everyone signed the maintenance agreement -- or the gate agreement, other than the Sharps, then, I would make a diligent effort with the Sharp’s to get them to understand. Like I said before, I thought I had a deal with Mr. Sharp. You know, I don't mean to be difficult, and I don't want any more traffic on that lane than they do. I want to live up to what I have told them we would do. You know, what's really interesting about this whole process is that, you know, we are sitting here debating on whether ACHD can go across that lane. Well, let me tell you, I mean that's been debated forever. I mean there is no question that they can and they keep trying -- I'm done. Sorry. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 27 of 72 Corrie: That's good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. We are not going any further with this one now. Council, any questions with what you want to do here with -- any discussion in the Public Hearing or -- Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: Let me say something that -- Corrie: Sure. Bird: -- in defense of the Sharps and I understand why and it was before Mr. Groves come on board, everything with Packard Estates. Since he's come on board I think they have been a lot fairer and have kept to their word the best they could. I was getting calls weekly from the Sharps and I had no problem with that. I would run out there and what had been promised to them -- I mean you could not believe the mess that was up against the fences and stuff that the developer at that time was allowing from his -- and they were crossing the lane when they had made an agreement they wouldn't cross the lane and stuff like that. I see where the Sharps are a little doubtful of what is being said and stuff, but I think that they will find that since Mr. Groves has come on board and stuff that he has been fair and tries to live up to his word. You can't keep -- you can't keep everybody off of that lane. We'd like to, but in defense of the Sharps, they -- at the first they took it pretty hard. It wasn't -- the developer didn't live up to his Development Agreement at that point. That's all I have to say. Corrie: Further comments? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I mean basically what we have been asked to do is review two specific conditions on this Final Plat and the request by the Planning and Zoning Department has been to remove those two conditions. The ones I guess I want to look at first is condition 22. I appreciate Mr. Groves being here tonight. We had some questions for Ms. Wyrick the last time he's been able to answer those. I think the staff's position has been on condition 22 that, essentially, three-quarters of this condition no longer are current and there isn't really any enforcement mechanism to deal with them any longer from the Planning and Zoning end. The condition of the lane and whether or not Building Permits should have been issued back in 1998 or any other time, is a done deal. There isn't anything really to enforce at this juncture. If there is something in regard to that existing or construction damage and it is not being completed satisfactorily, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Department can't enforce that, the property owners need to enforce that. The question that I had the last time was on Condition 22, that the developers have agreed that no construction traffic will be allowed to access Wingate Lane. Mr. Groves has answered that question. They have attempted to limit that Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 28 of 72 construction traffic, that the -- some of the traffic that's coming down that lane are individuals from Packard Estates, moving companies, things that he has no control over, nor is he obligated to control. I don't see the necessity of condition 22 any longer and the reason we have this brought before us is because what has been requested by the Sharp’s, as well as the other property owners in that area, was for us to enforce that specific condition. It's not enforceable any longer. We can certainly leave the construction traffic language in condition 22, because that is a continuing obligation of the developers, but the condition of the lane that preexisted -- or what the condition was at the time of the construction initially, that's no longer an issue in my mind. On condition 20, regardless of what the Sharp’s think, we do not have the authority, in my opinion, to tell ACHD where the public street is. They have the complete authority over the streets once we have decided where the streets go in a Final Plat and that's all that condition -- that statute that Mrs. Sharp read, that's all that's talking about. Once the roads are there, that's the highway district's authority to deal with. The only way -- the only compromise left is this gate on Wingate Lane. It sounds inconvenient for the Sharp’s. I understand that. It sounds inconvenient, but you have to pick your poison here. You either have traffic and no gate or you have a gate and you deal with the inconvenience. We cannot turn the clock back any different. That's our only option left. If the property owners don't want a gate there, because of the inconvenience, then, they will have to live with the traffic. There is no alternative different than this. If they want a gate there, it will eliminate the traffic immediately. No one's going to drive down that lane to access those areas if there is a gate in the middle of it that they can't open. To me, from everything we have heard in a number of these hearings, this is just cutting off your nose to spite your face. I mean don't put the gate there, don't complain -- if you don't want the gate, don't complain about the traffic. You can't have it both ways so, I don't see -- the only thing we can either do is to leave the condition and recognize it's unenforceable, eliminate the condition, because it's unenforceable, or amend the condition to change the gates from Challis to Wingate Lane. If the neighbors aren't in favor of that, then, they don't have to have a gate, but there is nothing else we can do at this point that I can see -- or not even some of the folks can see to eliminate the traffic problem. That isn't going to change anything unless we put a gate there. Corrie: Any other comments on the record? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess I'm really torn on this one and I'm a little bit concerned about what we open up or a precedence that we set in revisiting conditions and taking them off and changing them after the fact. In listening to Councilman Nary, we do have a couple of choices and none of them -- the first two is leaving them as they are, they are not enforceable; removing them, which negates it -- doesn't make any sense. Changing them, that wasn't our decision, that was ACHD's decision, and they went through the public process. We have conditions in our findings that were changed after we adopted the findings. I don't know what the precedence is on that, what you do when another government agency and -- who is responsible for those things -- and I agree, I know Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 29 of 72 Mrs. Sharp has raised some issues in questioning that, but I have to go on our attorney's advice, because he is the attorney and he should know how law is defended and defined and that sort of thing. I would like to take Mrs. Sharp’s definition, but I'm not a lawyer and so I leave it to those professionals to interpret that for me. I guess my question -- and I don't know who can answer it, but when a condition and a finding is set and changed by that decision-making body that is not us, are we obligated to change the condition to match that, because it's unenforceable? We cannot enforce this. We can't enforce it and we can't -- we couldn't change it, they changed it. What do you do? Corrie: Mr. Nichols? Nichols: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, with regard to the -- it's the equivalent of a supremacy clause analysis. If a state law conflicts with a federal statute, the federal statute can control, it's supremacy of the federal versus the state. The issue here is who has control over these particular issues with regard to gates or no gates in Ada County. Here is the Highway District -- Councilman Nary correctly stated that once the city approves the plat, so that the actual location, width, design basics of the road, are done, then, at that point it's ACHD that has supremacy, if you will, over these issues of access. I mean we ran into that with -- if we want to vacate an alley, the city has a vacation process, but ACHD has the final say on whether that alley is vacated, whether a street -- stub street that's no longer stubbing into a property, you know, any of that stuff, ACHD has the final say. So -- and although I admire Mrs. Sharp's attempts to research these issues, you have to keep things in context and the statute that she read to you pertained to urban renewal, if I heard her correctly, and did not even really pertain to this particular issue. The issue of the dominant and servient estate, this entire subdivision, as I read that original 1913 agreement, was entitled to use Wingate Lane, because it was included in the definition of the dominant estate to which the lane provided access. The developer agreed to relinquish that dominant estate interest in the lane. The reason this is -- one of the reasons this is before you is because we kept getting issues, we would have the Sharps on an agenda to complain about these conditions not being met. It was either -- we either take the developer to court if we can or we get rid of the conditions or acknowledge that they are unenforceable by the city and that's why staff prepared this application, so you could tell us what it was formally you wanted to do. Have all of the parties show and make their case for what was the appropriate situation. I mean if you leave the provisions as they are and you go on record that they were unenforceable, staff doesn't have to worry about trying to enforce some unenforceable conditions, staff will accept that. If you remove the conditions because they are unenforceable because of the subsequent facts that you now have, then, that's permissible to do as well. I think you can remove conditions. It's more difficult to impose new conditions. You can certainly remove conditions when the facts warrant it. That's my opinion. Corrie: Any other comments? Discussion? Okay. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 30 of 72 De Weerd: I guess one more question for the attorney. The Findings of Facts or the decisions made by ACHD have changed since we adopted our findings. Then, the enforcement of those would be to that agency in putting -- in installing the gate, as was the condition that they put in there. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman de Weerd, if I understand you correctly, are you saying that because the ACHD conditions have changed, ACHD is the entity that would be the enforcing entity for those new conditions? De Weerd: That would be my question. Nichols: The answer to that is, yes, that's correct. Let me just throw one other thing in here. We have debated back and forth a little bit from staff in terms of when we prepare findings, including the findings or the report, conditions of approval from ACHD in our findings. Our philosophy has been that the City of Meridian findings, if you have picked up a set of findings you have all of the pertinent jurisdictions, conditions in that set, rather than simply saying comply with all ACHD conditions period. There were two reasons for that. One is so that all of the conditions are in one document so somebody could pick up one document and read them. The second one was that there may be the overall approval of the development application may hinge upon what an ACHD condition was at the time that you saw it, so that if they were going to change it, they would have to come back and at least run it passed you. At least show you that ACHD has changed this condition, we can't do this anymore, and I think that's been done a time or two. I think the development community would just as soon we say comply with all ACHD conditions period and leave it a one liner, because, then, if ACHD changes things, then, all they have to do is comply with those changes. That may have an impact on how you view things and it may limit the ability of the city to control various aspects of the roads. That is just background, that's one of the reasons we are in this one, is because we have had that philosophical decision to include those conditions in our findings as conditions. Corrie: Okay. Are we ready to close the Public Hearing for your decision? Okay. I'll entertain a motion as to such. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we close the Public Hearing on the request to amend the conditions of approval of the Final Plat of Packard Acres No. 2 by the City of Meridian. Nary: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded that we close the Public Hearing. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Public Hearing is closed. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 31 of 72 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Any further discussion on your decisions? The question is are you going to remove condition 20 and 22 or amended it? I will entertain a motion whoever wants to go from there. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess I'm a little concerned about removing findings that have already been adopted. I can understand to revisit them and make a determination on if they are enforceable or not. I think that those two conditions are unenforceable and staff -- through staff comments that that's -- that's a fair assessment. As far as the gates, I cannot see how we can enforce something that isn't within our purview, we can’t enforce a condition that was changed by the authorized agency to do that, and they did go through the process of doing it. I certainly understand the concerns of the people on Wingate Lane, from the Sharp’s on north, but -- and, as I understand it, there is a lawsuit that is going to determine some of this, but we don't know anything about that either. This is something that is not enforceable by the city and has to be pursued through ACHD. Corrie: So, we need a motion. Do you want to remove them? Do you want to say that they are non enforceable or how do you want to do it? See how the Council feels. De Weerd: Well, this one Council member just said I feel that it's not enforceable, but I don't feel comfortable removing them. Corrie: Okay. Then make a motion if you want to. De Weerd: My opinion. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I'm not sure if -- I don't know if we have got four that are agreeing up here about anything, so -- it appears to me the only thing that we could probably consider in condition 20 is to make it clear to the -- so that the staff has something in which to point to. Rather than having to keep these minutes in their desk drawer forever, that we amend it to reflect the fact that there are other findings of the highway district from February 27, 2002. That it's clear that's the reason we believe it's not enforceable so, that it's clear as to what the highway district did and that's where the redress for these neighbors are, it's with them. Rather than removing them, I guess I would suggest that we consider amending them to reflect the fact there is a subsequent decision by the highway district in regards to this plat. As for condition 22, we probably don't need to do Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 32 of 72 that. As I said, most of this doesn't relate to anything current. If there is an issue regarding returning the lane to its prior condition, that condition either has been met or not and if it hasn't, then, that's an issue between homeowners and the developer and not the city. The issue about the truck traffic -- or the construction traffic, that's a continuing obligation that Mr. Grove needs to continue to meet, which from what his testimony is he is meeting that. I guess I will see where this goes. What I will do is I will move to deny the request under FP 03-038 -- excuse me. I will move to approve in part and deny in part FP 03-038, the request for conditions of approval in the Final Plat for Packard Estates No. 2 by the City of Meridian. To reflect that on this Final Plat order, condition 20 but amended to reflect that the Ada County Highway District has made subsequent findings of February 27, 2002 in relation to East Challis Street and Wingate Lane and just leave it at that. That Condition 22, the request to amend or remove that condition, that we deny that request to remove it, and we leave it as with direction to the staff that there is no enforceability as to the preexisting condition of the lane. The only enforceable provision left is the condition -- continuing condition about no construction traffic will be allowed to access Wingate Lane. That counsel prepared Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order pursuant to that. Bird: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. I'm glad we have it on the record here. I don't want to try to repeat that. Any further discussion? Okay. Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All four ayes. Motion is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 11. Public Hearing: AZ 03-009 Request for annexation and zoning of 11 The acres from RUT to R-15 (PD) and C-N zones for proposed Courtyards at Ten Mile by Doug Campbell / Tom Bevan / DTE Developers – southeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue: Item 12. Public Hearing: PP 03-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 31 building lots and 5 other lots on 11 acres in proposed R-15 (PD) and C-N The Courtyards at Ten Mile zones for proposed by Doug Campbell / Tom Bevan / DTE Developers – southeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue: Item 13. Public Hearing: CUP 03-020 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for attached single-family residential with commercial in proposed R-15 (PD) The Courtyards at Ten Mile and C-N zones for proposed by Doug Campbell / Tom Bevan / DTE Developers – southeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue: Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 33 of 72 Corrie: All right. Item Number 11, Number 12, and Number 13 are Public Hearings on the Courtyards at Ten Mile by Doug Campbell. One is the annexation and zoning of 11 acres from an RUT to an R-15 PD and C-N zones for the proposed Courtyards at Ten Mile by Doug Campbell, Tom Bevin, developers. The PP 03-010, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 31 building lots and five other lots on 11 acres, and the CUP is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for attached single family residents with commercial and proposed R-15 PD and C-N zones for the Courtyards at Ten Mile. If -- hearing no objections, I will open the Public Hearing on 11, 12, and 13 and we will hear from staff first and, then, we will have the comments from people who have signed up to -- either or against or neutral on that. How many are here to give testimony at this time? One, two, three, four, five -- okay. Let's -- can you get it all done in three minutes or do you want five? Three? Three. I have been up since 8:00 o'clock Sunday morning, so -- okay. We will give the developer three minutes and, then the for and against three minutes and the developer has a -- answer the questions that are brought up by the people in the audience and, then, we will take it from there. We will start with staff comments first. Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a project for an annexation, Preliminary Plat, and Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development, as you said. It is located on Ten Mile and Pine. This property is currently in the county, but they are planning to build the new Baptist church there and, then, the railroad line runs there. It is noted as being mixed use neighborhood – mixed-use community on the Comprehensive Plan. Currently, there are a few homes located here, but it's the only development on the property at this point. You can tell from the surrounding uses it's largely R-4 here. This project was previously approved for medium density residential development, but I believe that conditional use has expired. I'm going to skip forward to our best Site Plan. This, actually, works fairly well just to describe the layout. The entrance is off of Ten Mile and, then, there is an exit out here on Pine. Have I got this right? Wait a minute. I'm confused. Okay. The entrance is here. Sorry. Then, it goes through the commercial area and, then, there is an entrance onto Pine also. These are the commercial buildings and they are proposing apartments on top of those commercial uses, largely retail on the first floor and, then, apartments -- lofts on the second. These are a series of four-plexes, but they are platted in two lots, so there are, essentially, attached duplexes, but they are four units to the building. Here you can see the layout of the Landscape Plan for the commercial areas. The buildings are fairly small in nature with the parking wrapping around and exiting there and, then, kind of a collector system here to get to those four-plex units. These are some elevations of the proposed commercial and, again, there would be lofts on top in these areas. More elevations. On the four-plexes, they have proposed a unique design. Again, there is a lot line going through here, so each -- this area would be two units -- downstairs and an upstairs. You can see the stairwell there. They would have a garage out front. There are actually two one-car garages side by side, so each unit in the building would get one garage, and it's angled so that you don't have a monotonous look out in front. You're not looking just flat on at those units. Then, here is a carport and another carport here, so each unit has a garage and, then, a carport for it. We worked carefully with the applicant to make sure that there was enough room here and enough backing out space Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 34 of 72 and, then, they have added some colored concrete -- you see those kind of curvy lines indicate different materials. This is how it would look and these are the angled garages out in front. They have added -- they added some vines here across the front to soften that look and they have also added some windows in the garage doors to soften the appearance there. There is also a vine system in the -- kind of the courtyard created by these -- between the two garages, so there are vines and some landscaping back there as well. I apologize for this plat. It's very difficult to read. Each of the commercial properties does have frontage on a road and, then, each of the lots has frontage on a road here. For the PUD, they are asking for reduced front setbacks. The city requirement is 20 for a garage and they are asking for 18 feet for the garage. The rear they are asking for ten feet, instead of 15 feet, and the side they are asking for a straight five-foot, rather than five foot per story. They are also asking for residential lofts to be placed above retail buildings and to allow the cul-de-sac street to be 497 feet. On the annexation, this portion would be zoned C-N and that's approximately 4.7 acres, and the remainder of it would be 4.5 acres and that would be zoned R-15. They do have a common tot lot in this area here. At the Planning and Zoning Commission, there were three members of the public that testified in opposition or expressed concerns and those concerns were largely about the traffic that would be coming from the high school down Pine Street to connect with Ten Mile. One member of the public did testify in support of the project. The Commission made some minor changes regarding the deletion of a couple of conditions approval, because there was no phasing proposed. Regarding the guest parking out in front of the four-plexes in these little areas here, they wanted to make sure that the applicant was aware that that could not be permanent parking, but that temporary guest parking was okay. The Commission did hear a lot of - - as I said, heard a lot of testimony about the traffic on Pine and they did have concerns about this, but they felt that it was within the purview of ACHD, rather than theirs. They did encourage the applicant to work with ACHD to come to some resolution on that intersection. With that, I'll end staff's comments. Corrie: All right, Counsel, any questions, or discussion with staff? Okay. The developer is next. Yes. If you can do it in three. Raise your right hand, please. Is the testimony you're about to give the Council the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Ralphs: Yes. Corrie: Thank you. Ralphs: Mayor and Members of the Council, my name is Rod Ralphs I reside at 2730 North Greenbelt Place in Meridian. I'm here on behalf of DT Development. We are the developers of this project. As staff indicated, we are in agreement on just everything. I did want to address the one issue as far as putting an all way stop there at the intersection of Pine and Ten Mile. I know there is some concern there. I have spoken with ACHD and I wanted to go over some of the things that they have given me on that. They have certain criteria that they look at before they will put in an all way stop there. Currently, there is just one stop sign there at Pine. The criteria they would look at before they would ever put in an all way stop at that site, keeping in mind that this is all Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 35 of 72 part of a five year plan where there is going to be a light and expanded lanes. In order for them to put an all way stop in there currently, it would, number one, have to be urgently needed. Now, if you talk the residents there, they would say that need is now. There are additional requirements, however, and the other one would be is they would look at five accidents or more in the last 12 months. They would exclude rear-enders, head-ons, or drug and alcohol related accidents. What they would be more looking at that point would be for any kind of turning accidents. The traffic count I think here is key and this is the one thing I would ask the Council to focus on when we are looking at an all way stop here. In order for them to generate an all way stop sign off of Ten Mile onto Pine, you would have to have 300 cars per hour per eight hours. Now, we have rushes in the morning, we have rushes in the evening at that location, we also have increased traffic for lunch where the kids are heading off to Albertson's and, then, also when school gets out. It's not consistent and it's not over an eight-hour period. Coming off of Pine onto Ten Mile, you would need 200 cars per hour per the eight-hour period. That count is not there. Now, these are preliminary findings and we have asked them to do a full site evaluation for that, notwithstanding their preliminary estimations. This particular intersection is on ACHD's radar screen and that's why they had some of this information so readily available to me. The other thing that they would look at is if the approach speeds to any of these intersections were in excess of 40 miles an hour or more. Currently, the Ten Mile speed limit is 35 and the one on Pine is 30, and, then, the other one that they would look at is if they had a bad sight distance. If you had some buildings right there at the corner or if you had a lot of mature landscaping, or changing in elevation, those kinds of things. Out of those five or six criteria, that I just gave you, other than the one that the residents there in the area would probably assert that they urgently need it none of the others would comply. Having said that, we are still waiting to have the findings come back from ACHD. There was also some discussion about putting a bus stop on the property to address some of the needs for the young ones coming across Ten Mile and getting on board. We are very reluctant to do that, not that we don't want to provide a bus stop for young ones, but right now if we were to do that on that side of Ten Mile. Where these children are coming from west of Ten Mile, that would require an unguarded or an unsecured crossing of Ten Mile to get to a bus stop that we provided. We are very reluctant to provide any kind of an attraction or any kind of a destination for these children while they are waiting for a bus. In the afternoon when they get off the bus, they have the bus there, it's got its flashers on, it's got its stoplights going, and they don't have that problem. The concern would be in the morning when they are trying to get to that bus stop. I have nothing further. I will just field any questions you might have or wait until after the other comments are made. Corrie: Questions? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: So, in your housing areas you're planning that that will have kids in it? Ralphs: Certainly. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 36 of 72 De Weerd: And have you talked with the school district on -- would they bus those kids? Ralphs: Councilwoman de Weerd, there are two school districts that have access -- or would have students coming from that. The first being Chaparral, which is a year around program, which there would be no busing provided. The other one would be Peregrine, which is a traditional year, and they would bus from that location. De Weerd: Okay. Where do they think the kids are going to walk? Ralphs: Well, we would have sidewalks around our property there and, then, you would also have sidewalks that are immediately to the north and west where that church site and where Mosher's Farms ties in. De Weerd: There are sidewalks there? Ralphs: Well, there would be one that comes to -- there is a sidewalk that comes south from Mosher's Farms, I believe just the other side of the drain there, and, then, our sidewalks would come there with the cut outs -- cuts and everything there at the southeast corner so, there is a gap of sidewalks for children going to Chaparral. De Weerd: And that's a pretty narrow gap with very busy traffic. Ralphs: That's correct. De Weerd: Correct? Okay. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Ralphs, I heard you say that this was on the five year plan for the highway district and it was intended to have basically more lanes and a light, but where in the five year plan is this? Ralphs: 2007 is the construction and at that point, there will be two phases, one from Franklin to just south of Pine and, then, the other phase is from Pine to Cherry Lane. Part of those improvements is to bring Ten Mile up to a five lane -- two lanes with a center turn, up to just south of Pine. Then, the light would go in and, then, Pine at that point would have three lanes, you would have a left turn lane there on Pine going onto Ten Mile and, then, you would have five lanes proceeding north on Pine to Cherry Lane. Nary: Then, would this development be contributing to that stop light and that intersection change or any of that? Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 37 of 72 Ralphs: You know, I don't know as far as what the impact fees are. I know that we are accommodating are sidewalks to accommodate their time frame. In fact, in your packets when you look at the comments from ACHD to one of the residents out there, they indicated that a lot of the changes that we would be proposing, it's hard to address those, because they are so short term and the improvements for these upgrades on Ten Mile and Pine are so near. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: Are you phasing this project? Ralphs: No. De Weerd: So, you wouldn't do the front part and leave the housing out until you had more adequate sidewalk and road system to support it? Ralphs: Actually, what we anticipate is that the residential would be developed first, just as a matter of time. The commercial could go at anytime, but just knowing what the commercial market is right now, we would expect the residential being developed first, not as part of any kind of a formal phasing program, but just that's what the market is indicating right now. Corrie: Okay. Any further questions? Okay. Thank you. Ralphs: Thank you. Corrie: We'll start with the four. I have got one name. Dave Fuller. Fuller: Good evening, Bob. I do swear. Corrie: Okay. Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Fuller: Yes, it is. Corrie: I'm going to ask you a question now and make sure I have got this together. You're -- right across the street on Pine is your property; right? Fuller: Ten-four. Yes. Corrie: Thank you. All right. De Weerd: Name and address. Corrie: Oh, I'm sorry. Name and address. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 38 of 72 Fuller: David S. Fuller, 890 North Ten Mile. I am right on the corner just north of this project. Corrie: I guess I know you. I forgot. Fuller: I support the project, because we need the development in the area. I told the developer the only thing I had against it was there was nothing that was three stories. If you remember the old three-story, project on my place but two stories are okay. A little bit of concern -- I talked to them about the roads, turn lanes, and the stop. The stop is going to cause more problems for the traffic and the hazard, because it will back everybody up there for, oh, probably clear back to the churches to Cherry Lane. The turn lanes and widening it out, it would be real nice if they could -- if they are going to develop the commercial maybe second behind the condominium section, if they could widen it enough -- the problem is there is we need to get Ada County out there and look at that. I mean they might know about it, but it's a real hazard -- there is not even enough room to walk around that intersection. I support the project, but as we heard in that deal when my project being considered, is there is sidewalks going nowhere. I don't care about sidewalks, let's just try to widen the shoulder of the road with gravel, so people can get out of the lanes of traffic, if we can, and I know I talked with Doug there a little bit about Mosher place and widening it so the people could at least walk down the road. I'm all for the convenience store, but we have got to have it accessible and it's up to you guys to try to work with the developer here to try to make it as accessible as possible and -- with right of ways. I would sure like to see the foot traffic be able to access it, but it's going to be real tough, unless we can come to some kind of agreement on that road right of way and Ada County can get involved with it -- I mean it's all right to do two or three years down the road. What about next summer, you know, that's just next summer. I support the project. I hope you guys can get the developer to make it accessible as soon as possible and that's all I have to say. Thank you. Corrie: Thank you. Okay. Let's go to the neutrals first and, then, we will have those against it. I have Joe Derosier. Is Joe here today? Oh, yes. Sorry, Joe. Is the testimony you are about to give the Council the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Derosier: Yes. Corrie: Thank you. Derosier: My name is Joe Derosier I live at 1162 North Lightning Place, north farther than the Valerie project towards Cherry Lane. There are others that are going to talk about the traffic issues and those decisions that were made before. My question to the developer is he indicated that the residential would go in first, but it wasn't going to be a phased project, it was going to be all completed -- or constructed at one time. What was the final construction date for all of the buildings to be completed? Because it sounds like to me that if the residential goes in first, we can wait two, three, four years for the commercial, because he indicated that it's going to based on what the market at Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 39 of 72 this point is indicating. The other concern that -- what type of retail does he plan on putting in there, if it's a convenience store or something like that, that's one thing, but is it going to be a bar? Is it going to be -- those are the types of -- what type of retail is he going to be putting into that project and those are the only two questions I have. Thank you. Corrie: We will answer those. Irma. Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Atkinson: It is. Corrie: Name and address, please. Atkinson: Irma Atkinson, 1124 North Lightning, which is just south of Joe's place and north of Dave's place, somewhere in there. I'll be as brief as I possibly can. My concerns -- I think I echo the concerns about the schools. I believe either way, whether it's Chaparral or Peregrine, they will be bused. My kids are bused. We are just across Ten Mile from Chaparral. There are no continuous sidewalks, so we, in spite of eliminating 500 kids off the -- you know, safety busing thing, we are still bused, because there are no sidewalks that my kids can walk on. They would be out, you know, off the side of the road. I believe they will still be bused. I had questions for the developer about -- he said we didn't meet the criteria on turning accidents and I wanted to make sure he aware that half that intersection is in Meridian city, half is in Ada County, and, lots of luck, I have tried to get the statistics out of Ada County. We may be only seeing half the picture, if he's only got half the statistics. I echo the concerns about kids on the streets wanting to go to the convenience store. Traffic, you know, I disagree with Ada county's highway district no traffic issues to resolve philosophy and I never thought I'd hear myself saying these words, Dave, but, in all fairness to the Fullers, with the Valerie Heights proposal -- don't make me regret this, Dave. Anyway, you know, they only were going to generate 1,320 vehicle trips additionally per day and they were asked to put in a traffic signal at that intersection. This development will put in 1,436 vehicles trips per day onto that intersection and I think it's only fair that -- I mean 2007 is a long ways away. It would be nice to let them off the hook, but I can't, as a resident in that neighborhood, who looks out my window and sees the traffic backing up at all those different points every day, even though it may not be for eight hours solid, you know, there are definite periods of backup. I think it's only fair that we hold them to the same standard we would have with Valerie Heights, to minimize the impact on the existing neighborhoods. Did I do that in under three minutes? Corrie: You did. Atkinson: God, that's amazing. Any questions? Corrie: Any questions? De Weerd: That was my comment. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 40 of 72 Atkinson: Okay. Corrie: Great, Irma. Thank you. Bill Linde. Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Lind: Yes. Corrie: Okay. Name and address. Lind: William Lind, 3170 West Forecast. Corrie: Sorry about the E on there. Lind: What's that? Corrie: I said Linde. I'm sorry about that. Lind: That's all right. We reside right on the corner of Ten Mile and Forecast and as the Mayor well knows, he's had the privilege of meeting with my wife, who went through our complete subdivision getting signatures regarding traffic from the high school. If the developer doesn't feel that traffic is an issue, I invite him to sit on my front porch at 3:00 in the afternoon, watch the traffic that backs up on Pine trying to get onto Ten Mile. What ends up happening is the kids get out of school and they cut right through here and come out to Ten Mile and there have been so many near accidents right here, because they are avoiding this stop sign right here. Although I feel that having a four way stop sign is an improvement, versus the one stop sign that we have, I believe a light -- traffic light would be more serving to the people that travel up and down Ten Mile, as well as those wanting to get into this development and for the school kids that are trying to exit school on their way home. We also have had -- and I'm not sure when the Ada County Highway District did their survey, getting back to what Irma was saying, but with this development that went right here, Berkeley Square, I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, there were going to be 300 cars per day. I don't believe that that number of cars is also in this statistic. Going back to what Irma says as well is that if the Fullers were going to be expected to put a traffic light in, they were going to have less traffic -- estimated traffic into their project than what's estimated into this one, so why wouldn't you require a traffic light here? Then, I think the last thing I want to say is that when they talk about 300 cars per hour, my question would be, coming over an eight hour period, when was that survey done and, again, like Irma said, if you've got a split line there, I don't feel that the statistics are probably correct. You're probably only getting half the picture, your not getting the full picture. I think the City Council needs to hear and do a little more research before approving the plan as it stands today in front of us and perhaps look at the idea of what would be involved with the Ada County Highway District. Perhaps advancing their projection if they are looking at this in a five year plan and the developer wants to get this done, somehow maybe the two can work together to jointly get this done at this same time to serve the people that are in that area and make that particular intersection a safer intersection. That's all I have. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 41 of 72 Corrie: Thank you, Bob. Any questions? Okay. Laura Wilder. Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Wilder: Yes, it is. Corrie: Thank you. Wilder: Laura Wilder, 3401 West Pine Avenue and let me just point to where we are at here. We are on this piece of property. Our house is right here. This part of Pine is unpaved. It's a private road right now. We only have one access out of that lane and that's this intersection right here since I travel that several times a day, I do know that it is a concern right now. The traffic counts may not be quite where ACHD requires a stoplight, but you have, in addition to the traffic that's there, the compounding factor is the young and inexperienced drivers from the high school. You see a lot of scary things that happen there every day. Yes, it is true the speed limit on Ten Mile Road is 35 miles per hour. Anyone that drives that road knows that speeding is a very serious problem and they are kidding themselves if they say that people drive 35 miles an hour. I see scary things every day. It is very true if you put a four way stop on that corner, it's going to slow people down, and it’s going to back up traffic. That's the whole point. We want to slow traffic down so people can get across the intersection safely. It won't be as convenient as a stoplight, but I feel if the stoplight's in the five-year plan. There isn't anything that we can do right now to make that happen, at the very least we should require the developer, if ACHD will not do it, just like what was required of Valerie Heights, to require the developer to put in a four way stop when construction begins and, then, when the stoplight comes, that will be good. At least with a four way stop those of us -- there are seven families that live down on that private road -- will be able to get out of our driveway and the high school kids will be able to make it across the road without having a problem. I would like to address the bus issue. This whole section right here -- Mosher Farm is right here and they will have developed sidewalks. This property right here is not developed, so there is no safe sidewalk, so we do have safety busing for all the kids that live in that area. In addition to there not being any sidewalks, the shoulders are extremely narrow and that compounds the problem, it's very dangerous. I'm the one that brought up the bus issue and I think it was a little bit misunderstood. What my concern is, is where my kids get on the bus is almost exactly across from the entrance to the gas station and I'm just concerned that there is going to be so much traffic there it's going to be a difficult, unsafe bus stop. I would like to see turn lanes for people turning left into that commercial development, just to make it a little safer. Not only for the intersection, but also for the buses that come through that area for Chaparral, the high school, a lot of middle school traffic goes down that road, I think turn lanes and a four way stop would greatly help safety in the area and at least help us get by until we can get a stoplight. That's what I would ask you to consider when looking at the whole picture and the effect that this development will have on the existing residence and the other traffic. Corrie: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Okay. Jackie Cooper. Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 42 of 72 Cooper: So help me God. Corrie: Thank you. Cooper: My name is Jackie Cooper. I live at 1171 North Clara. It's at the corner of the Forecast and Clara. My concerns are the children. They said that there would be no sidewalks all the way through and there would be bus service. Well, at lot of these kids don't do buses, they ride their bikes, their skateboards, they walk, where are they going to go across? They will have to go clear down to Albertson's if they do it the way they are supposed to, but the kids don't do it the way they are supposed to. They will be going across Ten Mile to get to Chaparral. That's not good. Another thing I'm really concerned about -- I called and talked to a fellow down at the school district. These schools are packed. There is no more room. They are building three bedroom condos, apartments, or whatever. Where are these kids going to go to school? We will not have another school built until '05. There is a new school now that's just going to be opened. It is full. There are no more -- well, they will make room for kids, but there are 30 and 35 kids in these classrooms. What about -- oh, and I heard that they are also putting out buildings behind the schools, so that they will have more classrooms, but, there again, you're going to have to hire more teachers and that's money. The school district doesn't have it. They are cutting back on the bus service and the kids that are the closest, within a mile and a half, I believe, of the school, have to walk or get their parents to drive them, and more cars on the road. I want to know what are we doing about these kids. You know, they are our future. They need to have as much attention in school as they can and they can't get it if there are more kids in the classroom. Thank you. Corrie: Thank you. Julie Schultz. Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Schultz: Yes. Corrie: Thank you. Schultz: Hi. My name is Julie Schultz. I live at 3170 West Forecast Street. Actually, I'm just here for the traffic. I have small children and I'm concerned on Ten Mile and Forecast, people cut in, we can't even get out of our driveway and we are afraid we are going to get hit. Something -- stoplights. Something has to be done. That's it. Corrie: Okay. We are working on that also, Julie, on that traffic for that neighborhood, so -- I think that will help with half the students going to the new high school, it will cut it down, but we are going to try to -- another thing we talked about in the Council room. Okay. Alene Sullivan? Okay. Thank you, and Brenda Ball. Is the testimony you are about to give the Council the truth, so help you God? Ball: It is. Corrie: Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 43 of 72 Ball: Well, I think most of the things I was going to say, somebody said already, but -- Nary: Name and address, please. Ball: 2613 West Ebbtide. I live just west -- I mean east on Pine and the back of my house faces up against Pine, so I'm right about there. I have a bird's eye view of all the traffic from the high school and we talked about that earlier this year. A couple of concerns are that I think even more traffic is going to be pushed through -- still shared through the Haven Cove Subdivision for people avoiding that Pine and Ten Mile intersection. That's a big concern that will make that problem continue. Also, I think the point about high school drivers being the ones who, during those traffic times, are the most common ones on those roadways and the inexperience is probably going to end up causing big issues at some point. I also think just because there are only certain times of the day that it's most busy, I think that's almost a bigger concern, because people aren't really prepared for it. You may go out and not know what you're in for. I know sometimes by mistake I go out at noon and go -- wow, what did I do that for. I think that's almost a bigger concern that it's not consistent. Also, it doesn't show on this one, but the exits that go out onto Pine from the proposed stuff, it looks like there are two exits. I don't know if those are both exist and entrances, and, then, only one onto Ten Mile. The street -- the streets as they are now along here on Pine, if there were people turning out to the left, that's pretty close to that corner, and there is only one lane going each direction and I'm not sure what he said about the center lane, at what point that would be added. Even getting out of the shopping center there, either going onto Ten Mile or either of those exits onto Pine would be very difficult. I'm sure things are going to get backed up into there, especially if that's the only exit for all of that housing situation, having to go through the shopping center, that seems a little awkward, that's whole issue. I don't know how they are going to get out. If the stop sign is -- if it is a stop sign on the corner at Pine and Ten Mile, you know, there is going to be cars going both ways that just seems like they are going to be stuck in here. Even if there is a light there, I don't know, it seems like that's going to be an issue either way. I think that's about all I have to say. Corrie: Thank you, Brenda. Anyone else like to issue testimony at this time? Okay. We got some questions that they brought that you can address. Yes, Anna. Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, just a brief statement before the applicant rebuts, so that he can include this in his rebuttal if he wants to. I just sense all the issues revolved around traffic tonight. I did want to tell you that it was a staff level approval from ACHD, so there was not an opportunity for these folks to be heard at a Public Hearing regarding traffic issues. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Did you take notes or -- Ralphs: I have got some notes and I will also defer to your skills as well. Corrie: Okay. Go ahead. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 44 of 72 Ralph: Just a point of clarification and that slide is a good one to leave on. Over here -- just a clarification, we have got an entrance here off of Ten Mile and we also have one here. These are entrances off of Pine or onto Pine. As far as controlling left turns, we see something similar like this at Hark's corner. The first driveway cut there by the convenience store you can't turn left on it, they have got a no left turn there, but there is another entrance farther down, for example, here, where you would be able to turn left as traffic would allow. Looking at some of the issues that were raised, we are going to be putting in our sidewalks with the project. We are not going to wait for the commercial to go in, we are not going to wait for all the residential to go in before our perimeter sidewalks go in, according with ACHD setbacks and watching the right of way. They are going to be a meandering sidewalk, fully landscaped, and the berm is going to be in. I had talked to the Meridian School District about busing and they were the ones who had indicated to me that Peregrine would be an option. Now, Peregrine is over there on Linder to the southeast -- that they would provide busing for that, but that they were reducing the safety busing, but where we do not have contiguous sidewalks, there maybe that's an option, but that's just different than what I had heard from the school district. We had explored that with him. We did not want to be misunderstood. I understood the traffic is a concern. I live over in there and I deal with that intersection every single day. Putting -- and if we could go up to the plat that would show just the general area there and showing the roads off to Haven Cove -- if we could go up one more. There we go. Anything with stoplights or stop signs or all way stops is not going to address this bypass action that the students are talking, unless, as the Mayor indicated, other steps are being taken. We can put in a stoplight here, but that's not going to do much in the way of reducing any of kind back flows. In fact, I would suggest that if you put a stop sign here, they are going to be looking for an easier way to get back to the school. The type of retail -- the question was asked about what type of retail we are anticipating going in. No bars. We are going to have a C Store in there on the corner that we are proposing, along with downstairs retail. If we could go to the front elevation of that one, please? Right there. Thank you. You would have small retail shops in here and you would also have restaurants. This is a courtyard and as the city requires in the multi-use, there is typically a courtyard configuration and you have our third building back in there behind that. Over here is where the C Store is located. Keep in mind that when we put this project together we were keeping in mind that there was a proposed light transit station just to the south. The proposal being with the lofts and also with the multi-unit residential going in, that people would be able to walk out of their door and within a few hundred feet get on the light rail when it comes and be able to access that, without adding anymore to the traffic counts. The proposed uses for upstairs offices, this is going to be both a retail destination for people to come in and go to work, but it's also going to be one where people are going to be coming in and going shopping. Now, the question was asked or posed about any kind of final date on all of the construction -- we don't have that. Those townhouses are going to be marketed as individual homes, so that as those are bought and sold, those would be the closing dates, we don't have any kind of a date on when the marketability or any kind of commercial construction would be ending on that. Mayor, I would defer to any other questions you made note of or any members of the Council that note that I haven't addressed. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 45 of 72 Corrie: It was traffic signals and the sitting of the sidewalks -- I think you have got most of them, if I can remember here. Oh, the accident statistics. Make sure they got them from everybody. Ralphs: You know. I cannot speak for what the personal knowledge is for ACHD. I can only assume, dangerously, that, you know, this is what goes into their traffic counts. I would argue that as part of their government responsibilities they have got to have an accurate count of traffic, so there isn't a designated thing saying the Ada county highway -- or the Ada county sheriff has an accident and no one knows about it. As part of the reporting, they have to know what accidents occur. Based on what he told me, they do not have those accidents. I know traffic is a problem, like I said earlier. I drive that intersection every single day, but when we were looking at the guidelines that ACHD has, we are just not there yet, even with this project. Corrie: I'm not too sure of ACHD's projects either, but -- sometimes they -- well, I won't go into that. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: So, Mr. Ralphs, I guess -- I hear what you said about the stoplight -- or the stop sign, but what, if anything -- what, if anything, can you do or give us some assurance about that stoplight? Is there anything your client wants to do to speed up that project, certainly, that's been done by many people? Ralphs: That's correct. In the last -- I believe it was in the last packet when we were in front of Planning and Zoning there was an outline of what ACHD's plans were for the next five years. You know, mention has been made about how Valerie Heights is required to put in signal lights, because of all the traffic flow and all of those things. If you drive by there, there is not a Valerie Heights. You can restrict one of these projects to death and, for whatever reason, but that one didn't happen with all of the contingencies on it. We will go by whatever ACHD dictates, plus we have made assurances to Planning and Zoning that we would go in there and we would advocate putting in an all way stop. As I indicated earlier when I had spoken with ACHD, even though their preliminary assessment of it was that one was not warranted, they were still going to go ahead with the site evaluation to determine if one were warranted there, but the preliminary indications are that the counts are just not there. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I think an all way stop would make the cut-through traffic even worse to Haven Cove. I think a four way stop would just be ridiculous there. I don't understand why when this is going to generate more traffic than the project that was being proposed Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 46 of 72 across the street, why it was being handled at a staff level at ACHD and not given the opportunity for them to answer questions in regards to the traffic concerns and issues. As you well, know, because I drive through that all the time, too, is that that is a narrow intersection to begin with. By putting residential area in there with nothing connecting that to the north to draw people to your project, to those kids, you know, and, yes, they will be bused, but I agree that there are some that won't -- it's not cool to ride a bus. Anyway, that's what I understand and that there are no shoulders there. It would be a tremendous -- I think we would be really ignoring our responsibility for public safety by not really paying attention to how people will not only get from your development, but to your development. I think your development is very nice. You know, it's certainly going to support the vision for that area, but I just wonder if it's a little bit before its time in regards to how to assure your residents are going to be safe both to and from. Those are my concerns. Corrie: Other discussion? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I would concur with what Councilwoman de Weerd said. I mean this is a very nice project. I mean I think it really fits exactly what we would like to see in these kinds of areas. I, too -- I have two daughters at the high school. I have mistakenly turned right on Pine instead of left and ended up at that intersection and it's horrible. You know, it amazes me that a stoplight isn't warranted by this. I mean I think it will change. I mean I think the roadway will change significantly with the new high school, you won't -- you may not have as much traffic heading that direction to head south on Ten Mile, because all those kids will be, actually, going to the other school. I think your project is a destination point, so they won't necessarily be crossing that intersection, they will be going there and, then, returning back to the high school. I mean I think there are some real pluses here to what you're going to have there, but I just -- I'm so hesitant to the volume that this appears to be generating in that area. I live just up the street from that as well and I drive by that quite often and it is -- it is horrible at certain times of the day to try to get in or out of that. I think you have said the same thing and I just can't see how ramping up this intersection right now with that without a stoplight is going to benefit you or the residents. I just don't see how that's going to be very compatible. McCandless: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. McCandless. McCandless: I have to agree with the two that spoke and also with the testimony we have heard. I don't know how you're going to get across that street. I, too, drive that quite frequently and what Mr. Nary said is true, it's horrible. If you have got all those developments in that corner, what are you going to do with their cars when it's bad now? It's got to have a traffic light in there. I worry about the kids, too. I mean they are Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 47 of 72 going to be crossing there whether we like it or not. You know, it's not worth having kids being killed out there, just because we wanted to put in a development. Corrie: Come up here. You're a little bit out of order, because I asked for it earlier. Garner: I am. I apologize. Corrie: What was your question again? Nary: Name and address, please. Garner: Tracy Garner and I live on the property -- Corrie: Into the mike. Garner: Sorry. Corrie: Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, so help you God? Garner: Yes. Corrie: Thank you. Nary: Address. Corrie: Name and address, so we can get it all on the record. Garner: Tracy Garner, 680 North Ten Mile. Corrie: All right. Now, what was your question? Garner: The question I asked is recognizing that it is a safety issue, I live on that property, I'm a stay-at-home mother, I know what goes on day in and day out on that property. My question is it's no different -- what's the difference with that projected property, than the subdivision you just approved north of there or the two subdivisions? That's impacting getting in and out of the driveway. You know, I guess I'm just frustrated. I don't understand how one project can be -- how we can say, you know, this is impacting traffic, yet every project north of there is going in. If somebody could explain that to me? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I will give it to you from my perspective. The other two properties that have been approved are connected to sidewalks. They are also giving the kids an access to the school in the backside of that one project. That's one of the issues. You're talking Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 48 of 72 about south -- that's the southeast corner where, yes, if your -- if the project to the north of it has the sidewalks and, you know, there was some connection -- the thing is, they are proposing some commercial and some office. You have to have ways to connect people to those. Right now, it will be an island out there. Garner: So, the development -- if I'm hearing you, you would want the areas next to it to be developed before it gets developed, so that there would be contingent sidewalks? I guess I -- De Weerd: Yes. Either that or there is some road improvements that need to be made. That is a very narrow intersection for the amount of traffic that it covers and I'm not a traffic engineer, so I'm not criticizing ACHD staff or anything else, but from my perspective, that is an extremely narrow intersection and that's probably because the -- Pine is not extended to the west and that further exacerbates the whole issue there. It's just not developed enough to support that kind of an impact to that intersection at this point. Like I said, it's a great project, but right now, with all the things that are being proposed, with all the activity that will go on, bringing people to and from that, it's an accident waiting to happen, and that's just my opinion. Garner: Okay, and we had that same issue with the Valerie Heights project or similar issues, but -- right up against the subdivision, so there would have been a continued sidewalk. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: But as you heard the testimony, one of the other conditions on this was a stoplight. You know, the volume and intensity of this use -- we are talking 1,400 vehicle talking trips. You have to get commercial uses, you have apartments, you of a large volume of people coming and going there for residences, offices, and commercial. These two projects -- the only -- we are talking a couple hundred trips a day out of these and that's really just the residents coming in and out, the same as this. There is no -- there is no other reason to go in here, except for residents or guests. Here the volume likely may be higher than that. I mean depending on what these stores are, depending on what's in there, you know -- Garner: And before those stores -- Nary: You fix the number of residences to some degree, but the volume of traffic -- this could be the most popular commercial spot in Meridian and that's what I think Mr. Campbell would like to see. All of a sudden, then, the volume is so high without that stoplight there, like I said, or we said the stoplight was required for Valerie Heights, too. Garner: Okay, and before we jump the gun, my understanding is before any of those commercial projects can go in, they, too, have to get -- and go through the proper process and get City Council approvals and Planning and Zoning, so they would have to Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 49 of 72 go through this process. By approving this, is this, essentially, approving the subdivision, not the commercial development? Corrie: Not necessarily. Nary: No, not necessarily. Garner: It approves the commercial development, but not the stores that are going in there? Corrie: That's right. Garner: Okay. Thank you. Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, it's obvious that you have some serious concerns regarding this and it would seem to be it may be appropriate to ask the ACHD commission to reconsider it in light of the testimony. We seem to be having a lot of discussion on possible solutions or not solutions regarding the traffic, but maybe there is a better organization that might -- not a better organization, excuse me. Perhaps there is another organization that may have some additional ideas. You guys are the best, of course and that would also give -- you know, school opens in two weeks -- or, I don't know, Boise School District opens in two weeks and -- okay. That would give an opportunity to see how those traffic counts might change as well. Corrie: What do you think of that suggestion? Ralphs: We would certainly welcome tabling this for a couple more weeks to get some more information, some accurate information from ACHD as to traffic counts and, hopefully, their site evaluation for a controlled stop. I would just have one question with Council, then. What would be a -- you know, gather the gist that you like something different there, what is going to ameliorate your concerns as far as putting in this project now, what kind of traffic control or what kind of lanes -- suggestions we go. We discuss at ACHD, knowing what their schedule is for lane widening, you know, what -- when we bring this back to you, after we have spoken with ACHD, give us a laundry list, if you would. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I think the one thing that -- for me is going to have to be a stoplight, just like we required at Valerie Heights. I don't see any other way to get through that intersection without a stoplight. I travel it, too, and I -- if you try to turn left -- I think you're right, I think Mountain View High School is going to draw a lot of the school kids that were turning south, but they are not going to draw in all. I just -- I don't know how we are going to get with a -- through without a stoplight. Whether ACHD will participate at this time in it or how we can do it, that -- I love your project. I think it's really a nice location Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 50 of 72 for it and you have got a good, you know, the commercial and stuff mixed in and -- but I just can't -- until that intersection is fixed with a stoplight, I have a hard time approving it. Corrie: Well, I think you better get some answers from ACHD on the stoplight, the road widening -- it is a very narrow section there. They are going to have to do something. Bird: Its not only narrow, they have got concrete barriers up around it, too. Corrie: Well, that's on that one side. Yes. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: And I know that you tried to answer -- or answer why ACHD didn't -- why they dealt with this at the staff level, rather than a commission Public Hearing, but can you explain that one to me again? Ralphs: Oh, I didn't have an answer for that. De Weerd: Okay. Ralphs: The only thing I -- from the Planning and Zoning meeting I had met with them at Planning and Zoning's request that I visit with them about the different criteria or what they characterize as warrants for putting in a stop sign there. I don't have information as far as why this was on a staff level versus a Public Hearing level. De Weerd: Okay. Maybe we can ask our liaison that, but I would be totally opposed to a four way stop. Totally. I just wanted to make my thoughts clear on that. Nary: How do you feel on that? Ralphs: Don't hold anything back, yes. Corrie: Makes it rather difficult also for the residents in there and I know what they are going through. Yes, I agree, a four way stop isn't going to work. Okay. Any other -- Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Only in two weeks is the budget hearing and so I guess if we are going to look to continue this matter, that we look to three weeks to September 2nd meeting, rather than th the 26, so we won't be butting up into that. nd Corrie: September the 2. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 51 of 72 Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, did you want ACHD to conduct a hearing or did you just want the applicant to talk with them? Because I'm sure, he could get a hearing date within three weeks. De Weerd: I think we need to find out from Bruce what warrants a Public Hearing. Or can we just ask that this go to Public Hearing to ACHD? Powell: Well, Bruce would know better, but my understanding is you can -- they will re- hear things or reconsider things fairly frequently, so I believe you can just ask them to conduct a Public Hearing on the item. Corrie: Might be a good idea, though. They need some more input on this. Powell: Yes. I believe they really need to hear what all these people have to say. Corrie: They need to be heard. That's right. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: One other thing, since Mr. Ralphs was asking, you know, the -- I understand that the long-term intent of the five lane roadway. It appears to me -- one of the things we have looked at in these types of developments -- at least having the turn lane or a type of turn lane, whether it's the entire turn lane or whether it's just a cut out for a portion. You know, again, that may be, again, another issue for ACHD to address in this particular spot. Now, again, it may not be necessary right off the bat, because the commercial isn't there yet, it may not be necessary, but the commercial may get there before the rest of the five lanes gets developed. If you still have just the two lanes and a stoplight, I think you're going to have a pretty tight squeeze in that area to try to get people in and out of this location. I think those are the two things to me that if we are talking about what would make it a better project from our perspective, those are I think what I would see. Ralphs: So, just a matter of clarification -- so, if we are looking at turn lanes, that's -- your concern there is more for the commercial application than the residential or is it just for the whole deal? Nary: Well, I'm a little unclear on the residential side. I mean the way I looked at those two exits out there onto Pine, that, again, having been there, I don't know what it's going to be like now with Mountain View. I don't know whether or not it's going to be as difficult getting in and out as it would have been previously, but, certainly, on commercial on Ten Mile, if you're going to have a stoplight there. You don't have any type of turn lane or any type of left turn into the commercial, you're going to back the traffic up on the other side of the intersection just to make a turn. Ralphs: Exactly. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 52 of 72 Nary: And it makes it kind of tough. I think there needs to be something for the commercial. Now, whether or not they think it is appropriate for the residential side, you know, I just don't know. Ralphs: So, we would defer to ACHD on that. What I'm wondering is if one of the earlier questions from Councilwoman de Weerd was the question about whether we would phase this, if -- phasing the residential first, kind of trying to be more in sync with what ACHD is doing. If that would be more in keeping -- if that would be something that would be more amenable to what you're feeling here. At the Planning and Zoning hearing we had also discussed that even though if the commercial were to just develop from market conditions later, we would still go ahead with all of the landscaping and all of the improvements up around Ten Mile, so you wouldn't be looking at a moonscape type situation. If the turn lanes and if the stoplight are more geared towards the commercial and, then, if we need to go back and discuss whether it would be more appropriate for this time for that part of Meridian to phase it, then, I would appreciate some guidance on that as well. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess since I have been pretty direct on what my opinion is, I'll continue along that line. My concern isn't just the stoplight. I think the stoplight is wonderful. I still have that concern and I know we had this with Valerie Heights. It's the sidewalks and even if you do the residential, those kids are going to be walking on something, there are no shoulders out there to walk on, and that is a busy road. That is my concern that traffic light and connectivity. How do you connect your subdivision -- your living area, your retail, whatever you're going to phase it to do, how are you going to connect it, so the kids or the people or whatever are going to move north? Ralphs: Okay. Okay. If we came up with a proposal for that, that would -- well, you would have to see it. We will certainly explore those concerns. Thank you. Were there any others? Corrie: I think we can get that done and -- Ralphs: Thank you. De Weerd: I think they are all ACHD issues. There you go, Bruce. Ralphs: I think you're absolutely right. Thank you. Corrie: All right. Thank you. So -- Bird: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 53 of 72 Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: Well, I was just going to go ahead and continue these Public Hearings until nd September 2. De Weerd: Mr. Bird -- can we just hear from Bruce real quick, Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Well -- come on. Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, so help you God? Mills: It is. Corrie: Name and address. Mills: Bruce Mills, Ada County Highway District. Garden City. Corrie: Thank you. Mills: A few questions you have. I think our process, first of all. When -- we have three different ways when an application comes in. One would be to recommend approval at staff level. Typically that involves not exceeding a certain projected traffic threshold, which I assume in this case -- and, I'm sorry, I don't have all the details on this one, but that it was under that threshold. Two other ways are when it exceeds that threshold it goes to our commissioners, either as a consent agenda item, meaning that applicant and staff are all in agreement with the requirement and there hasn't been any interest from adjoining property owners. The third is to put it on as a regular agenda item, in which case the public can testify and that is when there is significant interest from the public in the project or when it exceeds a level in size. The other piece of information I think you're looking for is could this be remanded back to ACHD and put on as a regular agenda item. The answer is, yes, it could. Probably the earliest we could do that would be two weeks from tomorrow, so it would be still just three weeks from now. I believe that could work. Or the other option, of course, would be just to have the applicant come back and talk with us. I don't know if I have answered what other questions, you might have for me. nd Corrie: September the 2, that gives you enough time as well. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I think also it keeps it on the radar screen. I mean that's probably what we want nd to do. We may continue it from September 2 if there is still something happening with ACHD or something like that, but at least it's not going to get lost in the shuffle. De Weerd: So, the criteria is, the level of traffic generated or citizen interest so, you heard that, citizens. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 54 of 72 Nary: Would you tell the last group of people here that we do listen to what people say when they come up. De Weerd: I don't think you need to worry. Mills: One last comment on that would be just to let them know, if they want, they can see me outside the door and I can give them a contact for ACHD. Also, any of our agenda items will be on our website before our meeting. Corrie: Good. Let the record show that we are getting a lot more cooperation from ACHD here in our Council meetings, too. Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay. Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we continue the Public Hearings AZ 03-009, CUP 03-020, and PP 03-010, to September 2, 2003. Nary: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no. All ayes. Item Numbers 11, 12, nd and 13 will be continued, hearing on September the 2. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: The next one is Public Hearing on a request for Preliminary Plat of five building lots on 2.69 acres in an L-O zone for Lynnwood Plaza Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, east of North Ten Mile Road and West Cherry Lane. At this time, I will open the -- excuse me -- Public Hearing -- okay. Yes. Well, we'll take a short break and just be here back at 10:00 o'clock. (Recess.) Item 14. Public Hearing: PP 03-013 Request for Preliminary Plat of 5 building Lynnwood Plaza Subdivision lots on 2.69 acres in an L-O zone for by Centennial Development, LLC – east of North Ten Mile Road on West Cherry Lane: Corrie: At this time, I will call the recess back and it is the Public Hearing on Number 14, Lynnwood Plaza Subdivision. Open the Public Hearing and have staff's comments first. Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the request for a five lot subdivision. It is -- the property is zoned L-O. It shows up as residential on this map, but we have verified that the zoning is L-O and they are proposing light office uses. As you can see, it's surrounded by residential. The most recent -- this property was, actually, associated with this plat here. This is the most recent -- obviously, not built out yet. This is a Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 55 of 72 remnant parcel of this property here, so even had they not come in for further subdivision, they would have been required to subdivide the one lot. De Weerd: That's Devlin Place? Is that Devlin Place? Powell: Yes, it was. All these proposed lots do have frontage on Cherry Lane and you can see them here. This is one lot. This is a flag lot coming out here. You got another flag lot here. Flag lot here and, then, another lot there. They will share a common access and a have cross-access agreement. As you can see, this is the entry, pulling into parking aisles here, here, and central here and here and here. You have the five building pads located on their respective lots. At the Planning and Zoning Commission, no one testified either in favor or against the application. They made minor modifications to the conditions of approval regarding Sanitary Sewer and streetlights. There was -- unless additional testimony is raised, there was really no outstanding issues left at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. With that, I -- well, go up to the vicinity for a moment, just to point out a couple of the neighboring uses. Although it's surrounded by residential, there is -- this is the site for the new St. Al's project and I believe the Idaho Central Credit Union Bank is being constructed nearby as well. With that, I will end staff's testimony. Corrie: All right. Thank you. Any questions of -- Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Didn't we already approve this? I mean I know we have seen other things, but I thought we had -- Corrie: I thought we did, too. Nary: -- discussion on this and Mr. Larsen was here and I guess maybe he will clear that up, but I thought we already approved it. Powell: Mr. Larsen is just so busy these days that -- Corrie: Wasn't it office buildings and that -- that have doctors and -- across the street? Isn't that what we did? I'm tired, but I thought I -- all right. You're right. Is the testimony you are about to give to the Council the truth, so help you God? Larsen: Yes, it is. Corrie: Name and address, please. Larsen: Thank you, Cornell Larsen, 210 Murray Street in Garden City. You did see the application before. It was for modification of the Development Agreement to clean up a couple of the uses in that so, you have seen the application. I do have some more Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 56 of 72 handouts if you'd like to see the elevations and floor plans for the building, but, in general, we are in agreement with staff's comments. We did make a couple of adjustments, as Anna said, in the Planning and Zoning meeting, which was to -- I think there was a requirement in there for some 40 foot high street light poles. We wanted to lower those down to like 24 feet, so there was a couple little things, but, in general, we are in agreement with everything and don't have any concerns. De Weerd: I'd like to see them. Larsen: Great. Nary: Me, too. I live just down the street, but -- Larsen: I got one more. The second page is, I think, the floor plan, the last page are the elevations. Those are typical elevations that we would have and typical floor plans. We have modified the roofs on a couple of the buildings. Instead of having hips, it will have hips and gables, so there will be a little variety as we go through the buildings. In general, the look will be pretty consistent to what you see there. They are single level with some sloped roofs to kind of be as complimentary as we can to the residential. Nary: It looks very nice. Corrie: Very good. Larsen: Thank you. Corrie: Is there anyone else to issue testimony tonight? Okay. Council, pleasure to close the Public Hearing? Any information you would like to get before we do or -- De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I move we close the Public Hearing. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Lynnwood Plaza Subdivision. Any further comments? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Motion carried. Public Hearing is closed on Lynnwood Plaza Subdivision. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: And do you have any other comments? We can take the request for the Preliminary Plat. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 57 of 72 Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve PP 03-013, request for Preliminary Plat of five building lots on 2.69 acres in an L-O zone for Lynnwood Plaza Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC. East of North Ten Mile Road on West Cherry Lane, incorporate staff and applicant's comments, and for the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order. Nary: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for Preliminary Plat on PP 03-013. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Motion to approve Preliminary Plat. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 15. Public Hearing: AZ 03-012 Request for annexation and zoning of Carol Subdivision 24.004 acres from R1 to R-2 zones for by The City of Meridian – west of North Eagle Road and south of East Ustick Road: Corrie: Item Number 15 is a Public Hearing, request for annexation and zoning of 24.004 acres from R-1 to R-2 zone for Carol Subdivision by the City of Meridian, west of Eagle -- North Eagle Road and south of East Ustick Road. I will open the Public Hearing and invite staff's comments first. Watson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council Members. This is probably the only occasion where you will ever have Public Works present an annexation application. De Weerd: I hope so. Corrie: Anna is clapping. Watson: Yes. It's probably the most unusual one you will see in quite awhile. A little history on this, if you will humor me, just to make sure that I get everything out on the table. This annexation application includes 22 of the 49 approximately one-acre lots in Carol Subdivision. It's south of Ustick Road, west of Eagle Road. This is the area through which we ran the South, South Sewer Trunk and also water lines throughout their neighborhood. This project began quite a few years ago and I made initial contact with the residents out there, January of 2002, we had our neighborhood meeting in February of 2002. As a result of that meeting -- at that meeting and as a result of the following months, there were many questions posed to me regarding water and sewer Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 58 of 72 connections, annexations, and everything in between. After all those months of discussions with the homeowners, I brought those issues to Council in August of last year. You directed me at that time to go back out to those residents with a survey, which we did. We brought those results back to you in September. There was a fairly decent response to that survey. I think we had over half of them respond, but -- and as I expected, there was quite a Variance in their responses and what they wanted to do. The direction I took away from Council after that meeting was that if people wanted to connect and they were contiguous, they needed to annex. If they wanted to connect to water and sewer services, but were not contiguous to existing city limits, they were free to do so, as long as they executed consent to annexation agreement. Third, if they wanted nothing to do with the city whatsoever, that was okay, too. After that meeting I proceeded to issue correspondence several times, describing the project, giving them heads up that it was coming. Also, talking about this direction that I understood that you had given me. Early this year there was one resident in particular who approached me about the possibility of doing a group annexation application, I thought that would probably be a benefit to everybody, so that we didn't have or 20 or 30 different annexation applications and, consequently, and Public Hearings. This is the outcome of those discussions. We have -- and I'm not sure that this map shows it real well. Are these supposed to be shaded? I don't remember by heart which ones they are, but it's really a patchwork. Here we are with 22 out of 49 lots electing to voluntarily participate in this annexation application. They all individually paid their fees in proportion amount of the annexation application fee. Specific staff comments on this application were -- and you have these in front of you, but one was that they would have 12 months from the time of official annexation to physically connect water and sewer. Two, any future redevelopment would be in accordance with the ordinances in effect at that time. Third, that property owners will be responsible for current assessment fees at time of connection, as well as reimbursement of water and sewer service line construction costs. There was some testimony by Mr. Thurston at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting regarding ditch tiling. It was pointed out at that time that ditch tiling requirements are in the subdivision and development ordinance and that this doesn't necessarily apply to this annexation application. Nevertheless, he was concerned about that. Mr. Doug Miller is in the audience tonight, he's quite concerned about that, too. He lives in the southwestern most lot. There is a small irrigation ditch or lateral that runs -- courses along this southern boundary, I believe, of that -- of that lot. His property is fenced off from the surrounding annexed property, Packard Acres No. 1 is to the west and to the south. There we go. I should have followed Anna's normal course of doing this to point out what's adjacent. That's how they are being annexed, that's where they are contiguous is Packard Acres to the west, the south, on the north you have Champion Park has been annexed, so there are a couple lots that abut Ustick Road or are contiguous. Then, towards the eastern part of the subdivision there is River Valley -- or River Valley elementary, along with a commercial subdivision that was developed several years ago -- Stokesberry Subdivision. That's right. That's kind of the sum of this long arduous process. The one thing that I would like to point out is that these residents put up with a lot from us. I don't know if you ever drove through there -- well, you couldn't drive through there, because the roads were closed. This was really the only feasible route for this major trunk line without multiple lift stations and our contractor kind of tore through there, tore up the street from side to side, the full width, Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 59 of 72 had heavy equipment, five days a weeks, sometimes six, and I think it got pretty messy out there. They were very cooperative, even despite the dump trucks tipping over into a lawn every once in awhile and -- there were a couple flooding incidents on a Sunday afternoon and there was even a couple gentlemen out there that were extra inspectors for me. They would call in and tell me what was going on. All in all, it was a fairly successful project. That's about all I have. Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Brad. Any questions of Brad? Evidently, the contractor -- I mean the -- they need somebody to testify here, so would you like to testify. Is the testimony you are about to give the Council the truth, so help you God? Miller: Yes. Corrie: Okay. Name and address, please. Miller: My name is Douglas Miller, I live at 1035 Justin Place in the southwest corner of this proposed annexation scheme. The thing that I want to point out -- and, by the way, I apologize if I didn't get input into the Planning and Zoning process, because I was out rd of town on July 3, but I've tried to make my concerns known through my annexation application and Brad has been also very informative in keeping us well informed. By the way, I think the sewer and water construction was done very professionally. There was inconvenience, but it was handled about as good as I have ever seen. People were very courteous and made sure we had access one way or another and it was kind of exciting to see all that mess out there for a guy that likes heavy equipment. Anyway, there are two concerns that I have on my behalf and other residents. The first one is the tiling of the ditches and that is there is this open ditch, this open canal, that's a fairly sizeable canal that runs through there, which, of course, goes back to the original development where the tiling was not required at that time. There are two of us on the south end, only two of us that are affected. There is a Mr. Barnes that lives east of me and he has not expressed interest in annexing at this time, but I think both of us would be a major concern if in being annexed to the city we were, then, required at our own expense, rather than the whole development's expense, to tile that. This runs in the 30's and 40's of thousands of dollars to do something like that. As a condition of my annexation, I wrote in my application that we need to have relief from that city ordinance or that requirement in the public record that we are not required or will not be expected to tile that at our own expense to come in line with city ordinances. That was one concern. The other concern I have is in our covenants we have the privilege of having two large animals on the property and it's somewhat of a gentleman farmer's kind of subdivision, it's something we have all enjoyed very much. A lot of folks have cows and horses, like we do, and that would be a major change in lifestyle and also a huge expense if I had to landscape a full acre of pasture and it's -- as I pointed out in my comments on that, the cows we get every year manicure that, it looks nice. When the cows aren't there it looks awful and so -- and the same thing with some of our neighbors with horses and so we don't want to be forced into a violation and have to change all of that that we have established over a 20, 30 year period because of the annexation. I wanted to make those -- make it clear that those -- those zoning ordinances would be relieved on my behalf. I think other residents in the future -- some of the current Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 60 of 72 residents, as well as some of the future applicants would be concerned about that, so I think needs to be made part of the public record. Apart from that we are anxious to join the city and I think eventually everyone will, by choice or by edict, likely be asked to join the city and so we are anxious to do that and as long as we can have these issues resolved. Is it clear what my issues are, then? De Weerd: Yes. Miller: Cows and water. Corrie: Many a person has been shot over both of them. All right. Thank you very much. Any questions, then? Okay. Powell: Welcome to the west; right? Cows and water. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I don't know if staff has had an opportunity to think about how to deal with this. I know there were several on Council who don't agree that every piece of water ditch needs to be tiled. We like open water ditches. I don't think that's an issue. I know there would be grandfather rights and that sort of thing with any livestock or animals, so -- but have you come up with conditions or do you have suggestions on how to word this in any annexation findings, that sort of thing? Watson: Council Member Bird, Mayor and Council Members, are you speaking on the livestock issue specifically or -- De Weerd: Well, I know my voice is rather low tonight, but I am Council member de Weerd, not Bird. Watson: Oh, did I -- it's later than usual. De Weerd: That's all right and I do have hair. Watson: I apologize. De Weerd: I'm sorry. It's late. I had to give you a hard time. We rarely hear you give these introductions, so -- Watson: And that's why. De Weerd: -- I didn't want to miss that opportunity. Corrie: I think it was suggestion on verbiage is what she was asking. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 61 of 72 Watson: I'll try again. On the tiling I guess it would simply -- based on what was discussed at Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, that tiling of ditches is not applicable as part of this annexation application and, therefore, no ditch tiling would be required on any of these properties. As for the livestock, I'll let Anna speak to that. De Weerd: Thank you. Powell: On the livestock, I think we can take example from our neighbors to the east there and I believe what happens in Boise is -- I'll start over again. They've had a long- standing policy of the owner has to document their existing livestock -- their livestock that they had at the time of annexation and, then, they are entitled to that livestock going forward, as long as that use is maintained. I think on the big annexation that they did a few years ago, they made a special point of getting the word out to people that they needed to come in and tell them what -- or to document their existing livestock and I think that that would be appropriate in this case, too. Mr. Miller has already documented his livestock for his property, but we should probably send out a letter with the notice of annexation that says if you want to continue having livestock on these properties you need to let us know what you have. Then, just leave it to them to get that documentation to us and we will put it in the file for future reference. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yes. I think probably, too, from what I heard Mr. Miller say that their CC&R’s maybe might be a guide. Obviously, we don't enforce those, but I mean it may be a guide as to what's allowed. I guess I just didn't want to get into some very big debate over somebody who is allowed to have two cows that happen to only have one at the time we send them a letter, but they normally have two. I mean if it's that -- if it's that low a threshold of what they are allowed to have on that property, I don't think it's a very big issue to have a big debate over. You know, I think what happened in Boise was the concern of increasing the use and having no definition or standard to which to bear that, because of the large, sweeping annexation that was done where you had places that had no restrictions whatsoever. Had cows and chickens and horses and everything else and some that had some restrictions of one horse or one cow, so they had to go through the whole ordinance of trying find equivalent -- three sheep equals -- three sheep equals one cow, one cow equals one horse -- I mean I don't think we want to do that. At least it sounds like they already have a guide, so if we could at least use that as some model. Powell: And perhaps Mr. Miller could provide us a -- or one of the Millers could provide us a copy of that, the CC&R’s, because I think that would appropriate, because -- and, then, there is -- sometimes you get into the question of, well, they might not have had a cow this year, the year they happen to be annexed. They may want one in the future. That would be the other thing is just to say that any of these folks would be entitled to have what's allowed now by the CC&R’s. That would be a little -- well, it would more equitable, I suppose, to everyone. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 62 of 72 Nary: It won't increase the -- I think that's always the -- not to increase what the use -- and at least with that CC&R as a model and a guide, they wouldn't be able to do that anyway. Miller: Maybe I could clarify what I remember about the CC&R’s without looking them up, but they did specify specific types of animals, for example, cows and horses -- I think goats were disallowed and pigs were disallowed -- it was very specific. Also my wife pointed out, it wasn't allowed in the entire subdivision, only the folks down -- that live down in Justin Place were allowed to have those. That was also very clear in the CC&R’s, so it may be a convenient way to just use that document as to what will continue to be allowed, rather than have to document what you did. Corrie: I heard a uh-uh over there. Yes, Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think we could prepare a finding which says that to the extent that the existing covenants in Carol Subdivision allow for livestock animals, that that allowance would be recognized as a nonconforming use. Nary: That's great. Corrie: And the open ditches there, too. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think leave the ditch open. If it ever became an issue to where there was some reason to actually have to tile the ditch, that might be the type of expense that would qualify for a local improvement district, whereby the entire subdivision could bear a proportionate amount of that expense. I mean if that should happen sometime in the future. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Would it be appropriate, Mr. Nichols, I guess to provide some assurance to those couple of property owners that there be a finding saying as a condition of this annexation, tiling of the ditch isn't required. That way it covers whatever might happen in the future, but at least it's clear from this action that it wasn't required. Nichols: Councilman Nary, I had already anticipated that that was probably going to be included in the motion. Nary: Great. Thank you. Corrie: Okay. Any other questions? All right. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion, if you so wish to close the Public Hearing. McCandless: Mr. Mayor, so moved. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 63 of 72 Corrie: Second? Nary: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All those in favor say aye. Opposed no? Public Hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: Any other comments? Okay. I'll entertain a motion on the request for annexation and zoning of Carol Subdivision. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I move the approval of AZ 03-012, the request for annexation and zoning of 24.004 acres from an R-1 to R-2 zones for Carol Subdivision by the City of Meridian, west of North Eagle Road, south of East Ustick Road. To include all staff comments, with the specific findings for the properties adjacent to the open ditch, that as a condition of this annexation are not required to tile that existing ditch. That the property owners who have exiting rights of maintenance of livestock will continue to be allowed that nonconforming use without an increase and for counsel to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Just one comment. You know, this is an excellent addition to the city. This is a tremendous thing, this is not something we see where this many property owners, not developers, not people that are building something else or wanting to build something else, property owners that recognize what was going to both be in their best interest. The best interest of the community and I think it's a tremendous addition to the city and I appreciate all of them getting together, doing this as a group, doing this, again, for their benefit, as well as the city. I think this is a great thing. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 64 of 72 De Weerd: I guess just to add to that, you know, not only -- I know we inconvenienced the residents and I appreciate -- and I have heard comments on that process outside of today on the professionalism of the contractors that were there and so I do appreciate hearing that. I know our staff has worked many, many hours on this and I know they will continue to make sure that the residents -- this transition is as seamless as possible, but it has been a really good, good thing to happen for our city. I hope for those residents, too so, I appreciate, Brad, everything you and your department has done, because I know that the night's sleep I'm sure you have lost over some of this and do appreciate your dedication to making this work as well as it has. Corrie: Any other comments? Hearing none, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Carol Subdivision is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16.Continued Public Hearing from July 22, 2003: Fire Department Plan Review and Inspection Fees: Corrie: Last item is -- thank you, Mr. Miller, Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much. Continued Public Hearing from July the 22nd, 2003, Fire Department Plan Review, and Inspection Fees. You guys -- I hope you don't have a late fire tonight. De Weerd: Way to go for lasting this out. Corrie: Okay. Kenny, you're on. Or Joe. I'm sorry. Silva: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, we are pleased to be bringing this fee structure to you for consideration, just a little bit of background on this. We have taken this and presented it to the Ada County Association of Realtors, Associated General Contractors, BCA, the Idaho Fire Protection Forum, which is basically a group of fire sprinkler contractors and fire alarm contractors. It's such a good idea that the city of Nampa picked up on some of the leg work we have done on it preliminary and have passed it and I will go over that briefly a couple pages back and Caldwell currently has a nd fee structure under consideration on their agenda for September 2. Apparently, we are onto something that other agencies are considering adopting what we are proposing. This has been in front of you before and there has really essentially, been no changes. Also, Kuna has also requested a copy of our preliminary work that's been done on this fee schedule for consideration. Essentially, we have provided some fee structure for planning and zone issues as outlined on the first page there and the fire code plan review fees, fire sprinkler plan review fees -- I'm might -- I'd like to take just a moment to dwell on that just for one second. Our role in terms of what we do for fire sprinklers has been expanded as compared to what we intended the scope of the work to be when we first set out on this fee structure project. We are currently doing rough-in inspections, what we had not been required to do and the state had been doing those Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 65 of 72 as part of their plan review fee at two dollars per head and they have reduced that level of service to only courtesy inspections when requested. We have to do the rough-in inspections and that was not part of our previous requirements. We were not having to do that. Also, because of some reassignments of staff personnel within the city, we are having to perform underground inspections. We are looking to work with Public Works to insure that when that underground trench is opened up that we allow for an inspection of -- a single inspector within the city staff and that we provide some type of internal reimbursement to Public Works in consideration for that, their role in that underground inspection of piping. Basically, everything else is self-explanatory and everything that you have seen previously on that front page. The only one change we had on there is the Preliminary Plat, we changed there and put an asterisk there. There was the possibility in discussing this with Planning and Zoning that there would be the potential that we would double dip on that $160 for the Preliminary Plat, plus a dollar per lot. Some projects do undergo the -- both the Preliminary Plat process and planned unit development process, so we didn't want to be in a situation of double dipping there. What we did is put an asterisk there and exempted planned unit developments or planned developments from Preliminary Plat fees and we feel that that's meeting somewhat the intent of the direction we have been given on that. Basically, on that second page what we have done is taken and projected out based on our full year of activity for fiscal year '02. We have just basically reworked all these estimates based on our full year's of activity in '02 and came up with plan review fees and inspections of about approximately 105,00 dollars, with total revenue from Planning and Zoning issues of about 21,000 dollars, for a total of approximately 126,500. The third page back, we took a cross-section of different size projects. Obviously, we would not apply a plan review fee to a building like the police building. However, just so you would have an idea how it would affect the projects of different size and magnitude, complexity, that you would have a cross-section of the associated impact -- excuse me -- the associated fees for both fire sprinkler, fire alarm, and plan review fees. Next page back is basically taking a cross-section of subdivisions. This was BCA's primary concern, because they do a lot of home building. We took a cross-section of lots, different size projects, and tried to develop just some basic averages, so you would have some idea how it would affect small projects, as well as a little larger projects. That when you look down there on the lower right-hand corner that average cost per subdivision for the plan review process would be approximately 327 dollars, with an average cost per lot on the projects we have pulled out as examples if $9.13. Next page back is a comparison as we want to maintain a competitive edge with other adjacent agencies and we have mirrored in a lot of respects what Nampa finally had passed with their City Council and nd Caldwell has currently under consideration. As I mentioned earlier on September 2 have got it on their agenda for a total revamp of their fee schedule and it will probably be close -- more closely resemble what our fee structure is proposed to be. The next page back is basically a recap of our Planning and Zoning statistics for '01, '02, and year-to-date '03, so you have an idea of what our levels of activity have been and the trend analysis for those associated years of activity. Then, the last page is basically just a recap of what -- if we decide to do this as an internal plan review process, what the potential costs are for having a fire captain, fire prevention do it, do the work, versus out-sourcing the work for review by an outside contractor at a rate of approximately 75 dollars per hour. We may be, quite frankly, in a position to be able to bargain and lower Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 66 of 72 that 75 dollars an hour rate, given the volume -- an increased volume of work and I'm very confident we can accomplish that, to what degree would be based on what contractual agreement we want to make with the outside contractor. With that being said, I will stand for any questions that we may have pertaining to this proposal for fees. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess one of the bottom line goals -- and you can see that in Mr. Gifford's response from the AGC, is to improve our -- the timeliness of our service and make sure that they are getting something for -- in turn, for the fees that they will be paying. I appreciate the comparison for out-sourcing versus where you had your own personnel. I think as Joe is seeing in his experience, he has so many other duties than just this specifically, it's easy to get pulled off of this into other directions, so out-sourcing, like we do in our Building Department, seems to make a lot of sense and so I think Joe and Kenny have put a lot of time and thought into this and it's been amazing to me how often it's been worked, reworked, and Joe has spent a great deal of time trying to make these numbers work. I guess the only question I have remaining for you, Joe, is I see the comment from the AGC -- did the BCA -- were their questions addressed with the examples that you pulled together? Silva: Yes, they were, but they were not able to be provided back to them, because as of probably about 3:00 o'clock this afternoon I was still tweaking this thing, so I was not able to provide this back to them. However, I talked to John Eaton, we had an at-length discussion to identify the specific concerns the BCA had previously had, and I believe that we have done that, and we have accomplished that. One thing I might add on that last page when we did the internal versus external comparison of what it cost to do the work internally. I might add at that point if you look at the police crime statistics, one the leading trends that we had was an increased level of arsons and that was one of the significant things. I think if you were to speak to Chief Musser or Chief -- formerly Chief Worley, that one of the trends that they had was an increase in the number of arsons they were requested to respond to, to assist to investigate. One of the benefits of doing it as an internal plan to have a captain -- fire prevention would be it would provide coverage for the 24-7 requirement of providing timely investigations when the opportunity is there, we have the scene secured and we have to gather evidence and just go through a normal crime scene analysis. Those windows of opportunity only present themselves while we still control the scene after extinguishment and control of the fire has been complete. We are not going to improve that level at all. That will remain, you know, somewhat spotty based on my absence from -- you know, from duty. We provide coverage to probably 80 percent I would guess -- currently 80 percent of the time, but I'm one person and we have tried to bring along some people internally. We had fire just in my absence in the last couple of days that the people that we brought along were very uncomfortable in their role when they had an arson fire. You -- it's not an overnight -- it's not an overnight learning curve there, it takes some time to develop those crime scene investigation -- excuse me -- fire investigation skills to compliment the police investigations that have to -- you know, there is two things that have to Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 67 of 72 happen. There is the police side to deal with interview and the interrogation of potential witnesses or suspects and, then, the fire side that deals with the actual cause and origin investigation that has to be done after that fire has been secured. We are still going to have that problem and we've had an increased -- we've had -- we will soon have a retiree from the state fire marshal's office, who has been a lead investigator and assisted us tremendously. That person is no longer available and the expertise at that level at the state fire marshal's office has been reduced quite a little bit and so we are not going to have that, so I don't want to mislead you in what the capacity of outsourcing this is. We will great plan review, but we will still be lacking in our fire investigation 24-7 coverage. Corrie: Any other questions? All right. I don't see anybody out there wanting to comment, so I will have any other -- Nichols: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, one of the items of discussion needs to be when the fees would be effective. The building community wants them sufficiently in advance to where they don't get caught between a bid and fees that they didn't know were coming. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Thank you for bringing that up, Mr. Nichols. I didn't see that comment. I mean I guess I'm not sure what's an adequate ramp up time for that. I don't know whether it's January 1 -- is that too far away? Is October 1 -- was a fiscal year too soon? I don't know. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: Most of the bids that they put out is for 30 days anymore, so I would think October 1st, the start of the new fiscal year would be an ideal time. If they have got -- if they bid out over 60 -- or 60 or 90 days, I think if they come to Deputy Chief Silva or Chief Bowers or Mr. Johnson, I'm sure they could arrange something to have it overrun that time if they had a bid on the old fee structure. Most of the bids are lasting about 30 days anymore. Silva: On some of the work that would be correct. Some of the work -- I think to be safe, I think if we went back 30 days from that, November 1. Then, any work that -- some of these projects, the school projects, are longer range bid process, but like on the work like fire sprinkler stuff, that really is pretty good, you know, they are dealing Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 68 of 72 with -- in particular fire alarm work, 30 to 60 days, like Councilman Bird -- that would be, in fact, a good window. We were working with the Idaho Fire Protection Forum to kind of work through those issues and one thing we have discussed is identifying all jobs that are out there and have a drop dead date that would identify jobs that they have got bids out on, those would be exempt from fees. This was one proposal on how to deal with this. They would just provide us a formal acknowledgement what jobs they have got in the hopper that are coming down the pipe. Then, we would just simply deal with a drop dead date of, you know, October 1, if that is Council's preference, or November 1, to give an additional 30 days of notice, because we would have to go, I suspect, with the three reading process to formalize this. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Just one more question before Chief -- is there a difference or a distinction between the review -- the plan review portion of the fee versus that inspection? Is that why you're talking about the difference in the time is because some of the longer projects -- I guess that was what I sort of gleaned out of this letter is that the review stuff we are going to kind of know by October 1. That -- I don't know whether or not the longer window for the inspection parts of the fee is really -- maybe how to distinguish that. I don't know whether, again, November 1, January 1, you know, that we could -- we could certainly make it that all the review fees would be imposed beginning October 1st and all the inspection fees. Basically, all fees after that would be imposed as of January 1st and, then, that gives plenty of time to cover all of those costs and maybe that's too much, I don't know. Again, I was trying to figure something that seemed rational as to when we started those and, then, we wouldn't have to guess at those dates at some point in the future, but -- Silva: Councilman Nary, Members of the Council, to respond to that, usually there is a little longer lead-time on the general contract, the overall contract for a given project. The independent -- the individual components, like the fire sprinkler and the fire alarm, are smaller -- a shorter window -- they need a shorter -- they are not as far out on the window, but the plan review fees are probably the ones that are little longer term, needing a little longer window, if anything. It would be almost the reverse of what you're proposing, from my perspective. Bowers: Mayor Corrie and City Council Members, to be fair, my secretary today had a call on this subject and she was under the impression that there would be maybe one more hearing on this. She had told the person that had called in on it that there would probably be one more hearing, so I'm not sure if that puts any light on anything or -- but she didn't know who it was, so -- and she didn't know if they were talking about this or our International Fire Code. She didn't know which one they were saying, so -- De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 69 of 72 De Weerd: Now, I don't see why there would be any problem, then, in continuing this until next week when we visit the International Fire Code when that's on our agenda and just do them both at the same time. You know, if a member of the public was told that there would be another hearing on it, it concerns me that maybe they needed to testify or submit a comment or -- I don't know what. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I mean don't we need a resolution and order anyway? I mean we are going to have to have it again anyway. I mean this was just to make sure we were okay with how we got to this methodology and the amounts, but I think we still would have to have an ordinance or resolution to actually impose them, so we would have another hearing. I guess the only thing I don't want to do is -- like we do sometimes, is continue it and continue it and, then, we can't remember why we keep continuing it. I think we would have to have another hearing on the fees itself, just the imposition of them. I don't recall if it's by ordinance or resolution. I think Mr. Nichols does. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think what we have done lately is to approve fees by resolution, so the ordinance book doesn't have to change and the codification doesn't have to change. I wouldn't -- I doubt I would be able to have the resolution available -- unless I have already got it drafted, I wouldn't have it ready by next week, so -- although I can understand having them both together. I think it's just appropriate to say bring forward the resolution for the fees and if someone says I didn't -- you know, I was misled and believed that there would be another opportunity to comment. Then, at that time Council can entertain the comments from that person that felt they were mislead, because it's probably not likely that anybody will come forward. Nary: Mr. Mayor, I had one more question for Mr. Nichols. I didn't look in the city code. Is there some necessity to have some enabling ordinance that imposes -- the ability to impose fees and then the fees referenced by resolution, or is that not necessary? Nichols: Councilman Nary, Members of the Council, I believe that there is already a provision under the existing Uniform Fire Code for imposition of fees. I will double- check that and certainly, that's my belief that under the International Fire Code we are allowed to set fees for the work that's done. If we discover that we don't have the enabling legislation, then, we will need to have that in place before the resolution is adopted. Nary: Especially since Mr. Bird doesn't want to pass the International Fire Code. Bird: Mr. Bird will probably be a negative vote, so -- Corrie: Maybe the one that will pass. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 70 of 72 De Weerd: Well, Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess with all of that said, I will just go ahead and make a motion to approve the Fire Department Plan Review and Inspection Fees and ask the attorney to draw this into resolution form, to state the implementation date as October 1, 2003, unless they have -- Nary: A hardship? De Weerd: A hardship. A hardship? Then you have to prove your hardship unless they have documentation that the bid went out before the implementation of these new fees. Bird: Don't we have to close the Public Hearing first? Nary: Is that part of your motion? De Weerd: And I guess that was part of my motion. Corrie: To close the Public Hearing as well? De Weerd: I would first move to close the Public Hearing. Nary: Second. Corrie: All in favor of closing the Public Hearing say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES McCandless: Now, do you want to repeat that motion? Bird: Yes. Corrie: Well, I think we have got a stenographer back there that will do it for us if we need to. Bird: I'll second that. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the fees and whatever else you said. Okay. Mr. Berg, give us a roll call vote. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion approved. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 71 of 72 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: The last thing is just informational. Everybody wants to go to the fair VIP legend? Bird: Sounds like a winner. th Corrie: The 20? Okay. I'll put that in your boxes as a reminder. I just got a -- Nary: Will you contact them, Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Yes. I'll contact them. Nary: Okay. Great. Corrie: And I got a thing from the CGA, I'll put it in your box for you to review and let me know what you'd like. It's pretty good. With that being said -- Powell: Mr. Mayor, did you have a chance to ask the Council what they'd like to do regarding prioritizing? Corrie: Oh, yes. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Powell: I just -- I had sent a letter to the Mayor asking for some guidance on how to select priorities for all those projects. Not having been with the city very long, I do need some assistance in doing them and I wanted to know if you had just input on how to gain that priority from you all, if anyone had any ideas. Corrie: I didn't get them back yet, but -- Nary: Did you give us one? Corrie: I gave you one, but I will give you another one tomorrow. Bird: I don't remember seeing one, but -- De Weerd: I forgot. Corrie: I'll give everybody another one tomorrow. Powell: Okay. If you want to contact me individually with any ideas -- Nary: Mr. Mayor, if you want, we could certainly prepare some for next week for the pre-Council agenda, if you want to put that on there for a ten minute discussion or something like that, we could do that. Meridian City Council Meeting August 12, 2003 Page 72 of 72 Corrie: I will give them all the things tomorrow and then we can put it on a pre-Council discussion, 10 minutes, or so. Powell: Thank you. Corrie: Thank you, Anna. Okay. With that -- McCandless: Mr. Mayor, I move we adjourn. Nary: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to adjourn. All in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:56 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK