The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006 05-09 Meridian City Council Meetinq May 9. 2006 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:10P.M., Tuesday, May 9, 2006, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, Shaun Wardle, and Joe Borton. Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Bob Stowe, Bill Johnson, Len Grady, Doug Strong, Joe Venneman, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X Shaun Wardle X Charlie Rountree X X Joe Borton X Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: I will go ahead and call this meeting to order. It is Tuesday, May 9th. It's ten minutes after 7:00. We would like to welcome you all here tonight. I'll start the meeting with the roll call attendance. Mr. Berg. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: De Weerd: Item 2 is the pledge of allegiance. We will be led tonight by Mr. Peoples. If you will all rise. (Pledge of allegiance recited.) De Weerd: Mr. Peoples, if I can present you this City of Meridian pin for leading us. Mr. Peoples must have had a first name; right? Berg: Brian. Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Steve Moore - Cherry Lane Christian Church. De Weerd: Brian. Thank you. Item NO.3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will led by Pastor Steve Moore. He's with Cherry Lane Christian Church. If you all will join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of silence. Pastor Moore. Moore: Our Father and God in Heaven, having been in a room where we just said out loud together how blessed we are to live in a nation where we have such freedoms, that we are, indeed, one nation and that we acknowledge that. But there are people around this world tonight that don't have this kind of privilege that we take for granted, that have Meridian City Council May 9,2006 Page 2 of 54 to get permission to travel. They can't say what they really think about political positions. And worse than that, God, they are being punished or held violently against their will. We thank you that we live in such a land. We thank you that we live in a such a community where there is peace and we don't have roadside bombings and there is no conflict in that sense as there is in Iraq. We pray for those from our community who are serving and keeping such freedoms ours and we promise to do our little bit to keep this world better and our community better. I pray tonight as decisions are made that will impact not just tonight, but for as far as a human might see, that you would direct the decisions of this meeting, give insight and wisdom and judgment to our Council and to our Mayor, to those who testify, to other city officials and servants. Bless them for the time they spend. Bless their families for the time they sacrifice and give as well to this community sometimes in quiet unseen ways. And we pray, God, that -- that we would be caretakers of this world that you have given us. We pray that you would remind us in our quiet moments ourselves when we are in a traffic jam or we are in a crowded line at a store buying something, where ever it is, God, and we have the pressure of every day life, that we'd realize what -- what could happen if we just smile or be friendly and express concern one to the other. We are grateful to be citizens with such opportunities, in the name of Jesus Christ, I pray, amen. De Weerd: Thank you, Pastor Moore. And congratulations on the sale of your church. Moore: Thank you. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: We look forward to seeing your project. Item No.4, adoption of the agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: We have a couple things in the Consent Agenda, which I will do when we do that, but on the regular agenda, resolution number on Item 21 is 06-519 and the ordinance number on 22 is 06-1231. With that I would move that we approve the agenda as published. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve the agenda as presented. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Consent Agenda: Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 3 of 54 A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 05- 051 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.84 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Ellensburq Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 05- 052 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 41 building lots and 4 common lots on 12.84 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for EllensburQ Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 05-047 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for multi-family residential units with a request for reductions to the street frontage requirements for EllensburQ Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 05- 064 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 116.81 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Bear Creek West Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of West Overland Road and west of South Stoddard Road: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 05- 064 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 321 building lots and 34 common lots on 116.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bear Creek West Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of West Overland Road and west of South Stoddard Road: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 05-026 Request for a Variance to exceed maximum block lengths in a proposed R-8 zone for Bear Creek West Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of Overland Road, east of Linder Road and west of Stoddard Road: G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 05- 038 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.5 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard: H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 05- 037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 175 single-family residential building lots and 12 common lots on 38.5 acres in a Meridian City Council May g, 2006 Page 4 of 54 proposed R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard: I. Development Agreement - RZ 05-020 Request for a Rezone of .17 acres from R-4 to 0- T zones for operation of a barber shop for Fred's UReel" Barber Shop by Fred Pratt - 1127 North Meridian Road: J. Approve Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement A~reement for WH Moore Shell by Kimball Properties, LP: L. Approve Contract for the Blackstone Lift Station Abandonment with Star Construction, LLC: M. Approve Chanqe Order No. 2 for the Black Cat Trunk Sewer Phase 1 Project with Bodiford Construction, Inc.: N. Approve Contract for Task Order, Scope of Work. and BudQet for Professional Services for the Meridian Plan Check with CH2M Hill: O. Approve Contract for the South Area Lift Station and Pipeline Project Amendment No.1 with CH2M Hill: P. Approve Easement for Nampa Meridian Irriqation District at Well 25 on Lot 1, Block 2 of Messina Hills Subdivision No.1 for Ingress and Egress to, and for Installation, Operation, and Maintenance of an Irrigation System Pump Station and Associated Facilities: Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: On the Consent Agenda we have been asked to move Item K to 7 -K on the regular agenda. And Item Q to 7-Q on the regular agenda. And with that I move that we approve the rest of the Consent Agenda and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve the Consent Agenda with the removal of K and Q to the regular agenda. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. Meridian City Council May 9.2006 Page 5 of 54 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Department Reports: A. Mayor's Office 1. Proclamation for Letter Carriers Food Drive Day: De Weerd: Okay. Item 6. Department Reports. Rountree: Madam Mayor, before you start with your report, did you want to let the folks in the audience know that Casa Meridiana would be continued? De Weerd: Yes. Please note for the agenda that the applicant has requested a continuance for Items 10 and 11. Is there anyone here for these items? Okay. Okay. Item NO.6 under the Mayor's report, I do have a proclamation. Whereas the National Association of Letter Carriers and the U.S. Postal Service and the City of Meridian and Ada County have organized a food drive and, whereas, the general -- or Postmaster General has recognized this effective and unique door-to-door food drive and designated this event as a national community service project of both the NALC and the U.S. Postal Service in Meridian and more than 10,000 other locations around the country and whereas an estimated 30 million people go hungry every day in America, including more than 12 million children. And in Idaho approximately 190,000 Idaho residents worry that they cannot afford food to buy and 48,000 people actually went hungry and, whereas, there are about 68,400 working poor in Idaho and the working poor continues to be a growing segment of the population of Meridian and Idaho continues to lose manufacturing jobs, which are replaced by lower paying service jobs, and, whereas, the Idaho Food Bank distributed 5.6 million pounds of food to more than 215 partner agencies in 2005, which serve 15,100 people weekly, and 81,400 individuals annually and because the Food Bank network depends on its friends at the U.S. Postal Service and postal patrons for support, therefore, I, Tammy de Weerd, Mayor of the City of Meridian, do hereby proclaim Saturday, May 13th, 2006, as Letter Carriers Food Day Drive, urging all members of Meridian community to generously respond to the needs of the Idaho Food Bank network and to the invitation of the National Association of Letter Carriers to become part of the solution to the hunger in Idaho. Dated this 9th day of May 2006. B. Parks Department - Doug Strong 1. Champion Park BudQet Amendment for Impact Fee Reimbursement: De Weerd: Okay. Item B is our Parks Director Doug Strong. Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 6 of 54 Strong: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I wanted to update you on Champion Park, but also take care of a housekeeping issue regarding complying with the development agreement that we have with the developer. We are approaching a completion date on the six acre park. Per the development agreement the title -- or the deed transfer was to take place on June 1 st at the completion of the park. So, we are down to finishing the restroom and installing the shelter in that. But looking through the budget and the development agreement, we discovered that the 212,550 dollars that was -- that you approved back in July of last year for the development agreement, had never been put in a line item for Champion Park. So, we have a budget amendment request to do that impact fee dollar transfer, so that it shows up to pay for our portion -- we are buying three acres, they are donating three acres, and, then, a portion of the green up was what the 212,550 was to cover and, then, the money that's been in our budget has been the money that we have requested in our annual budget process to build the restroom, the picnic shelter, the play structure, and the basketball court, which is all specified in the agreement. 80, it's a housekeeping issue to get the 212 in the line item, so that when we close out and the deed is transferred, the money will be there. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Doug. Any questions from Council? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Just a question. How was the 212,000 left out of this year's budget? Strong: There never was a request for an amendment -- actually, the newly instituted budget amendment form that we just have been using in the last few months was not in place last July. Council approved it. I never did request the money be transferred, so, therefore, it really wasn't transferred. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle, I think, in essence, it was approved in last year's budget as an amendment upon signature of the development and that is just now occurring. So, it should have been amended in last budget and, then, carried over and that was missed. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Is it -- when you say amended, do you mean included? My discussions with Doug on this issue was -- the figure should have been included as part of the budget for last year? Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 7 of 54 Strong: That's correct. De Weerd: And, then, carried forward. Borton: Okay. Strong: Then carried forward. De Weerd: Okay. So, we will need a motion to approve this. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move that we approve the budget amendment request for the already existing obligation for the impact fee reimbursement 212,550 dollars for Champion Park. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the request in front of you. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. C. Legal Department - Bill Nary 1. Discussion of Procedures of Meetinqs Ordinance: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Doug. Item C. Mr. Nary. Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. On your -- on your packets there is a proposed meeting ordinance for procedures for meetings, I'm sorry, and what I was going to do tonight simply was introduce that to you. We have had some discussions over the last year about procedures, both for the Council meetings, as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission and it would even apply to the parks and recreation commission if they hold public hearings. Not asking for your approval tonight, it's simply to introduce that to you, give you some opportunity to discuss it. We can put it back on your agenda next week or the week after at your pleasure, for either further discussion or for direction as to when you'd like to see it on your regular agenda. The highlights, probably, of it is trying to create a little bit tighter structure on the timing of the public testimony as it comes before the Council or the Commission, trying to set some time limits for public hearings. We have had some concerns in the Planning and Zoning Commission, because they have such full agendas, sometimes they have had to push their meetings very late, has been a concern from the staff level of making sure Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 8 of 54 the public has an opportunity to be heard and give their opinions at the Commission level, as well as the Council and to not have meetings that last until 12:00 to 1 :00 to 2:00 to 3:00 in the morning. And so that's the -- part of the changes that are in the agenda -- or in this ordinance. But as I said, I simply wanted to introduce it to you tonight. If you had questions I could certainly, hopefully, answer them for you. Otherwise, we could put it on next week or the week after for further discussion. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would -- I agree with Bill, but I would like, myself, a hard copy and I'd like to see it come back for a yea or a nay on the 23rd, because I might have some questions that I would like to discuss with Bill or Ted. So, I'd like a hard copy. I don't know about the rest of the Council, but I like to read from a hard copy myself on something like this and I want to look it over and weigh into it and make sure that -- I think just glancing at it real quick, it's exactly what we need, but I'd like to at least study a little time on it. De Weerd: Mr. Nary, has it been run by the Commission? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we have had discussions with the Commission. I don't know that -- I don't think we have had specific discussions on this ordinance. So, we could certainly do that at the next -- not this next meeting, probably be the meeting after that, Mrs. Canning, or could we do it this coming meeting? Canning: We could probably do it this coming meeting if you would like. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I did want to point out one of the other highlights is the abbreviated hearing agenda, which would be kind of a de facto Consent Agenda and we have talked to the planning commission about this one at length and they are very interested in having that ability to do that, so that they can move some items quickly off their agenda. So, we have talked to them about all the concepts that are in this over a year ago, probably, but have not taken this specific resolution to them for them to review. Nary: And, additionally, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, based on some of our lengthier meetings recently, they have tried at the Commission to limit the times of their meeting, set the agenda, you know, limit the number of hearings that they could have, set a time limit on the end. So, they have been trying within the confines of what exists today, to set that as a matter of practice as well. So, this would simply formalize it into an ordinance, too. De Weerd: Thank you. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 9 of 54 Wardle: Certainly this is something that we discussed in our agenda meetings and I believe -- and certainly I encourage everyone to take a look at it. The intent is to formalize a process which, hopefully, fosters meaningful discussion on all agenda items and the body that is hearing the public testimony certainly always has the opportunity to ask for additional time or additional testimony, but I think one of the things that we are trying to do is formalize, so that people from the public can go to this ordinance and know what to expect in that meeting and how those procedures work. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I agree with what's been said. In a quick scan, Item B-12 -- and that's not a vitamin -- indicates more of a conduct sort of a thing, as opposed to a Public Hearing procedure as to how Council should conduct themselves on an item that might be on their agenda. So, I would -- and I think that's probably good that we have someplace, but I would think it would better serve both P&Z and the Council if we had an ordinance or had a guide that comes with things that we should do as we conduct our business. Nary: Okay. Rountree: And I don't know if there are others in there. That was just a real quick scan. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: If it's all right with the Council, what I would propose is that Mrs. Canning and I will distribute copies to the Planning and Zoning Commissioners and we will ask to -- we will have that put on their agenda on the 18th for their discussion and, then, we can get that feedback to you as well on the 23rd for further discussion. If we need to make some changes we can certainly do that and, then, you can direct when you'd like to have it back. Bird: Sounds like a winner to me. De Weerd: Yes. Whatever will help. As Councilman Rountree, myself, and you all realize that when you're on Planning and Zoning you have just this license to talk, so -- Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle: Wardle: If I could just point out one other thing. Item 0-4, I believe, talks about the agenda, calling an adjournment hour and sets the hour of 11 :00 o'clock for those things Meridian City Council May 9. 2006 Page 1 0 of 54 to happen, so just to see if -- if that language is -- if the Council is comfortable with that language and we can discuss that in the future. Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: K. Approve Access Easement Between the City of Meridian (Grantor) and ACHD (Grantee) on Lot 21 of the Amended Plat of Block 1 of the Townsite of Meridian (55 East Broadway) requested as a Condition of the Creamery Alley Vacation: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. There were two items removed from the Consent Agenda. We will consider Item K on approve access easement between the City of Meridian and ACHD. Mr. Nary. Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Item 7 -K is an access easement agreement between the city and ACHD regarding the vacated alley that currently now runs from Main Street to Meridian Road between the former Shell property by the creamery property and the Zamzow's property on the block just south of where we are. We had hoped to have a final version in front of you, that's why we had placed it on a Consent Agenda in anticipation of ACHD completing their review. They haven't completed their review. We hope to have that completed by this week. There are some questions that we would like some direction on or for you to consider before your approval, if we could have it back in front of you next week. Primarily, when this -- when this alley was vacated at the request of the current property owner of the -- what's commonly called the creamery site, originally the ACHD commission had recommended a turnaround in that alley. Subsequent to that discussion the staff was concerned about having a turnaround. They don't like to vacate half an alley, basically, and they don't like to have turnarounds in a narrow alley and so they requested that they provide an easement through what's currently the City of Meridian parking lot, again, south of this building and across Broadway. That's what this easement agreement is for is to allow that and it has some specific conditions that do protect the city's interest for future use of the parking lot, future use of the other parcels around this alley. There are some other considerations you may want to consider in whether or not they can create either a one way type of access to this property, so we aren't dealing with two way traffic through a parking lot, any other direction you may have, but our anticipation is to have this back in front of you either next week or the week after, if we can work out some of these side issues with ACHD. Is there other information I guess you want me to carry back to ACHD to see if we can get this issue back both in front of their commission -- I think the 17th was their next commission hearing that they wanted to -- hopefully to have some resolution to as well. Q. Approve Beer and liquor License Applications for William R. Kosterman for The Busted Shovel at 704 N. Main Street: Meridian City Council May 9,2006 Page 11 of 54 De Weerd: Okay. Council, any comment? Okay. Thank you. Also removed from the Consent Agenda to the regular agenda was item Q. Mr. Berg. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I guess I will start this discussion off with the help of the police department and planning department and the attorneys. We have an application before us for a beer and liquor license and as far as our procedure and process at the City Clerk's office, part of the application requires a copy of the state license and the county license, which we do not have now in our hands at this time. There has been some discussion about a temporary license from the state and the applicant is in process of getting a county license and I think that is where in my office is the end of the story. There is some other issues with the classification of the use of the property, which the planning department has confirmed and the fire department has signed off on the application also. And I think that's my story. De Weerd: And you're sticking to it, uh? Berg: So far. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Just to give a little further background. And the applicant Mr. Kosterman is in the audience tonight as well. The Busted Shovel is across Main Street. They had opened last week. The police department went to verify if they had a current license at the time. There has been some misunderstandings and miscommunication between the licensee and the Alcohol Beverage and Control and Lieutenant Stowe could probably best shed some light on that issue. We had some discussions, myself and Lieutenant Stowe and the clerk's office with the applicant and suggested that what we could do is at least put it on your agenda tonight for consideration. I did tell the applicant our normal process has usually been a licensee will apply for an alcohol license with the state. Once they have received approval, they also have a county license they have to acquire. That can be done simultaneously. And if I get this wrong, Mr. Berg will correct me. Normally, when we review them, before we issue a city license, we have a state license that's been approved and we have a county license that's been approved. And, then, the city will issue a license and, then, they can open and operate. Because there was some miscommunications and misunderstandings, not between the city and the applicant, but between the state and the applicant and their misunderstandings of the necessity for a county license and a city license, as well as the state license, I told Mr. Kosterman we would put it on the agenda, but it was up to the Council on whether to issue that license tonight or once the state license and the county license process was completed. It is completely within your authority to do whatever you wish to do. They don't have a county license as of today that I'm aware of. I believe the state license may have been approved according to some e-mailslhaveseen.So. that's what's in front of you tonight, is that it hasn't really completed a process we have traditionally followed. Part Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 12 of 54 of that was some misunderstandings between some parties here and maybe, again, Lieutenant Stowe could shed some light about that, so the Council has all the information we have about it. De Weerd: Okay. Lieutenant? Stowe: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there was some miscommunication between ABC at the state level and the new applicants. They told me that they were informed by ABC that they were issued a temporary license, which I obtained a copy of, which is valid until later this month. They were also informed by ABC that the license covered both our county and city license. I confirmed this, because ABC told me the exact same thing. So, when I went down and contacted the new owners, we had to close them down. They were open. They have been basically hustling to get everything in place, just because the schedule of county commissioners and our City Council agendas. They are kind on a limited time frame, so we have been working with them trying to accommodate them in any way we can and I felt that probably in the best interest of customer service with new business owners in our city we would try to do what we could to get them approved at the city level. De Weerd: Thank you, Lieutenant. Would the new owners like to comment? Kosterman: Madam Mayor, Council Members. As Lieutenant Stowe said -- Nary: You need to state your name, sir. Kosterman: Oh, sorry. I'm William Kosterman. Bill Kosterman. Busted Shovel. De Weerd: Okay. Kosterman: As Lieutenant Stowe stated, he can verify that we were completely misinformed by the state. We have been working on this deal for months and were operating under the assumptions that we had all the paperwork we needed. We have a temporary license, which was issued late in April, because the closing on the building and the liquor license occurred on May 1. As of May 1 we could easily have gone down and received our permanent license, except that the tenant vacating the building actually stole the copy of the license that we were purchasing, which caused us another paperwork shuffle with the City Clerk's office -- well, not -- sorry, not the Clerk's office. With ABC. So, we have been unable to completely finish that. As of today we have all the paperwork they required of us and I have a verbal, which I believe the City Clerk's office verified with the ABC that we will get our permanent license tomorrow. In the meantime, we do have a valid temporary state permit, but where we are right now is we have been employing ten people. When the previous owner left we offered employment to all his employees, rather than let them take unemployment. So, we have been paying a full payroll with no revenue and we are, basically, bleeding to death right now, so we are really hoping for some leniency on these conditions tonight. Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 13 of 54 De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Questions? Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. Kosterman, have you ever owned a liquor license before? Kosterman: I'm sorry? Bird: I have never owned -- Kosterman: No, sir, I have not. Bird: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Any other questions, Council? Thank you. Okay. Anna? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we have known for awhile that this property was changing hands and I guess I just -- perhaps for the benefit of Mr. Kosterman I want to make sure he understands that he's approved for a restaurant with an accessory bar. He's not approved for a bar with an accessory restaurant. So, this is a restaurant use that's approved here. It is not given -- been given conditional use approval for just a bar. And given his newness, I just want to make sure that he's clear that he needs to meet that state definition of being a restaurant with an accessory bar. Kosterman: If I may, we have purchased all our kitchen equipment. We have a full kitchen, full kitchen staff. We intend to maintain operations virtually as they were under Harry's Bar and Grill. That's a lot of why we bought it. We are local people. We live in Meridian. My partner and I both grew up in the valley and we are just trying to start a business here in town. We are trying to keep those people employed. I just -- I feel like I'm -- realize I have broken some rules, but it was certainly unintentional. I don't intend to break any more rules. I have worked closely with the fire department to correct ten years of neglect by the previous tenant. We had fire exits that didn't work -- I mean I feel like we have really been working hard to get this going. We are just trying to get up and running and start a business before we are already out of business, so -- De Weerd: I guess our Planning Director was just trying to clarify and if you need further -- Kosterman: We were aware of that. De Weerd: Oh. Okay. Kosterman: Yeah. It was -- it was somewhat unclear. We were never able to get a direct answer, because Planning and Zoning did not have a record, but we had sort of assumed that that was where we were at. De Weerd: Okay. Great. Anymore questions? Okay. Meridian City Council May g, 2006 Page 14 of 54 Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: If there is no more discussion or information, I would move that we approve, on a one time basis only, the license for Mr. Kosterman and his company. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve the request in front of you. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Request for Reconsideration of Denial for a Variance for two access points onto Eagle Road I SH 55 and to the Approval of Preliminary Plat Conditions as they Relate to Eagle Road Access for Gateway Marketplace by Landmark Development, LLC: De Weerd: Okay. Item 8 is a request for reconsideration of denial for a variance and Mr. Rountree is stepping out. Do you want to at least introduce this, Anna? Canning: Certainly, ma'am. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the applicant for Gateway Marketplace, which is the southeast corner of Ustick and Meridian -- and Eagle Road is requesting a reconsideration of the denial for the two access points in their variance application. Just scanning through the letter that -- the new information that Mrs. Thompson has presented, one is a -- they'd like for you to consider, perhaps, a temporary access -- not that you can consider it tonight, but the new issues raised in the letter are perhaps a temporary access until the frontage road is constructed and also comparing the timing of the property to that of the Winston Moore property. Those seem to be the two new issues that are raised and also having an ability to respond to the access concerns raised by the ITD presentation that was done prior at the pre- Council discussion that night. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Is the applicant here? We do have a letter in front of us. Do you have anything to add at this time? Thompson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Tamara Thompson, Landmark Development Group. Other than the letter, I don't have anything to add at this point, other than we would very much like to work with you further and we are asking for this request to maybe start a dialogue that, you know, maybe we could have some discussions and see if there is kind of a happy medium that we could make and, then, come back before you with something that maybe you could approve. Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 15 of 54 De Weerd: Thank you. Thompson: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any discussion? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Excuse me. I had a question for Mr. Nary. The letter from Mrs. Thompson brings up some interesting points. One of which is discussion of a possible temporary access and can you give us some guidance with regards to a reconsideration -- if there was to be -- maybe that's just my thoughts and if there was to be a discussion or can be discussion on something like that or some alternative and it's done through a reconsideration or is this -- no action taken on a reconsideration and, then, that's brought up in a new application. Sort of the procedure on how do you -- how do you try and get there? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Borton, you have a couple of different options. Certainly there is some new information that's brought forth in this letter that is -- can be reconsidered as part of your decision. Your decision hasn't been made final. If you think that it's worth exploring that further in another Public Hearing, that would be a valid reason to reconsider the decision you made. You could also, if no -- the requirement for reconsideration is discretionary. The only -- the only requirement under Robert's Rules is that the motion needs to be made by a member of the prevailing side of the other -- of what the prior decision was. If this Council doesn't wish to do that, it doesn't prohibit the applicant from making a new application for a variance. We have no time limit requirement or restriction in Meridian. We don't prohibit them from bringing forth new information and requesting it again. You could see it again in that fashion. So, it's really your discretion as to whether or not you wish to continue with the Findings you have made or if no one prefers to move to reconsider it or your direction really is to simply reapply, bring forth new information, they can do it either way. Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Anna. Canning: Just because I have changed the code on Mr. Nary, we actually do have a time limitation for substantially the same application, has to wait a year before they can reapply. But I would consider a temporary access as not as substantially the same. So, I would accept that as a new variance. But I did want to make that clear. Nary: And I stand corrected. I do recall that now, that was the decision point as whether it's substantially the same application or something different, so -- Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 16 of 54 De Weerd: Okay. Did that answer your question? Borton: Sort of. Follow up? I mean really what -- with regard to the variance, is there a difference in either the time or the quantity or quality of material that can be presented? I mean if you reconsider it as a new presentation to Council with additional info versus a new application just coming to Council with -- is it really sixes and we are just talking about one takes longer than the other? Nary: I think -- Councilmember Borton, I think you have hit it on the head. One probably takes a little longer than the other. A new application will take a little longer. Staff analysis. The only concern sometimes -- and we have had this -- we seem to have had this discussion quite often lately on reconsideration, is the staff time it does eat up trying to bring you back some thorough analysis of the request with additional information, as well as the additional cost of noticing up another hearing. But it is as if you are starting over and the prior decision is now still pending and you can take new information and additional information and either -- my only concern from a legal standpoint is that at some point the record gets somewhat muddy with a number of reconsiderations and re-hearings. But there is nothing in the Idaho code or in case law that prohibits you from reconsidering a decision you have made, unless it's by your own ordinance or own procedural rule. Yeah. I mean Mrs. Canning could probably tell you if you -- if somebody files an application this week for a variance, I don't know when you would schedule that on your agenda. Right now if you were to choose to reconsider this, you'd probably set it out at least three weeks to provide adequate notice, maybe four. Whether or not a new application in the planning department takes five weeks to get in front of you -- it's probably not a significant time difference. But I don't know if Mrs. Canning has a different perspective on that. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we have scheduled variances in as few as three weeks. A lot of times we sit on them just because they are waiting for a development application to come up with them. But if it's just a variance, we do sometimes get those to you within three weeks. It just depends on when the application is complete and what n basically what day of the week it is and when your next hearing is. De Weerd: Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I will take a crack at maybe making progress on this. I might be on an island. But I'm intrigued by the concept of temporary access -- not saying whether or not I support it or it's feasible or workable, but the idea intrigues me that that's new information. I, for one, would like to hear about it and give the applicant an opportunity Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 17 of 54 try and present that. So, I'd move to reconsider the denial of the variance on that particular point. De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to reconsider. Do I have a second? Bird: I'll second it. De Weerd: Okay. Anna, if I remember correctly -- or maybe it was something else. Is there a fee associated with that, certainly, on the public noticing and -- Canning: Yes, Ma'am. We do have a 142 dollar additional hearing fee and that does incorporate re-noticing fees for the clerk. De Weerd: Okay. And those would apply with any reconsideration? Or does that need to be included in the motion? Canning: Probably wouldn't help -- probably wouldn't hurt being included in the motion. I think Mr. Berg is concerned about my statement that it includes the re-noticing fee. De Weerd: Mr. Berg, does it? Berg: Madam Mayor, there is just sometimes a difference between different applications how many letters you send out to the property owners. Some may be a few, some may be a lot. I don't remember what the 142 -- so, that's the only concern I had was just questioning how many that covered, so -- De Weerd: Can it just -- to cover their reapplication -- or the reconsideration or additional hearing and costs? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: I would amend the motion to include the applicant reimburse the city for any expenses incurred as a direct result of the reconsideration. De Weerd: That works. Does the second agree? Bird: Second agrees. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, nay; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 18 of 54 De Weerd: Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Do we need to set a date for that or -- De Weerd: Mr. Berg will get it set up. Berg: Madam Mayor, I will set up the hearing date as soon as I can. I know our schedule in June is unique, but we will get it on the agenda as fast as we can. Borton: Follow up, Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: Just wanted to make sure to the extent the applicant has something to provide, that there is sufficient time to get that. Berg: Sure. Thank you, Councilman Borton. And I will get with the applicant, because she did say something about working with the staff on a couple issues before it is presented. So, we will get with them about the hearing date. Borton: Okay. Berg: Thank you. Item 9: Continued from May 2, 2006: Appeal Hearinq for Order to Remove Junk Vehicle bv Steven Cady with Meridian Cherry Lane Mobile Home Park: De Weerd: Okay. Yeah. Because June is short and we want to make sure that all three Council members are available. Okay. Okay. Item No.9 also is continued from May 2nd and I will ask Mr. Venneman to introduce this. Venneman: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, last week if you recall there was a hearing on the issue of the status of Mr. Steven Cady's property that he manages on Cherry Lane. At that time, at the time of that hearing, there were nine items of concern that still remained on that property and the good news is that in this last week Mr. Cady has contacted code enforcement twice in the last week and he has removed all but two remaining issues. Those issues involve a brown pickup truck that has expired plates going back to 2001 and, then, he has a U-Haul and those plates expired a year ago. He has removed some rubbish that was on the property from last week and a Berretta that had a flat tire and so that's where we stand right now. Technically, we'd have to say that he remains in violation. He provided me the name of the owner of the U-Haul and Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 19 of 54 the pickup. I have had a conversation with him. His name is Richard Hammond. And he states that tomorrow he will properly license the U-Haul and remove the pickup. And that's where we stand right now. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Is there a recommendation? Do we proceed with enforcement action or -- Nary: Madam Mayor, if -- Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess I would recommend two things. I don't know if Mr. Cady has a response to Mr. Venneman's statement about the condition of the property. What I would recommend -- as Mr. Venneman said, today there is still an ongoing violation. It appears that may cease shortly. What we can do is prepare some Findings based on the information, I think, as I stated last week. If the Council's findings are that there was adequate information to give notice, which is what the ordinance requires, that there was adequate accumulation of junk property and vehicles on a private property, to give notice that a hearing was held, that the information that you have received meets this -- your standard of whether or not it qualifies as junk property and that there is a directive to remove that property, that all the vehicles have to be registered, no other property can be in this location. Some of the things we discussed last week and that we prepare some Findings and Conclusions and an order for your next meeting. You can, then, get -- before you approve those get a final update from Mr. Venneman and there would be a continuing order obligating Mr. Cady to keep property in that condition as a requirement of this Council, that would probably be your best bet under our ordinance as to going forward. And, then, Mr. Cady can come next week if he wishes, Mr. Venneman can come back and tell you, yeah, the last few things are done, so we are not taking action of requiring the removal or enforcing a removal action, which is the next step in ordinance to do, because it's been accomplished. But, again, it sounds like there is still an ongoing violation that might get done this week, I guess. Borton: Second. Berg: No. You're so moved. Nary: If you want to do that. That's totally up to you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any further questions? Do I have a motion? Would you like to hear from Mr. Cady? What would your preference be? Mr. Cady, do you have any comment? If you have comment you need to use the mike, please. State your name. Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 20 of 54 Cady: Steven Cady. We'd like to take as little time as possible of yours. We thank you. We are trying to get this resolved and, hopefully, tomorrow it will be. So, I would move his motion along. De Weerd: Encourage his motion, uh? Do I have a motion, Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I'll take a stab at it. I move that we have the city attorney prepare Findings and Facts given the adequate information and prepare a continuing order to keep the -- to get the park in compliance and keep the park in compliance as it relates to junk and junk vehicles. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. You heard the motion as stated. Any comments or discussion? Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Joe. Venneman: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council. Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from April 25, 2006: AZ 05-067 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.9 acres from Ada County RUT to R-15 Medium-High Density Residential zone for Casa Meridiana by Insight Architects - 1777 Victory Road: Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from April 25, 2006: CUP 05-060 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 32-unit multi-family development in a proposed R-15 Medium-High Density Residential District for Casa Meridiana by Insight Architects - 1777 Victory Road: De Weerd: Item 10 is a continued Public Hearing from April 25th on AZ 05-067 and Item 11, continued Public Hearing from April 25th, CUP 05-060. These two items were requested for a continuation for a month. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I'd move that items 10 and 11 be continued until June 20th. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council May 9,2006 Page 21 of 54 De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to continue this to June 20th. You will be missing one Council member. Wardle: And one Mayor. De Weerd: Well -- and one Mayor. Wardle: But it only takes three to make a decision. De Weerd: Yes. You're right. I couldn't break a tie on that. Berg: They may abstain. De Weerd: It also says the 6th, if that works for you. Or June 20th. Rountree: The 6th doesn't work well for the agendas it appears. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to continue these two items to June 20th. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed nay? Okay. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from May 21 2006: AZ 05-060 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.92 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Ada County HiQhway District Ustick Road Property by the Ada County Highway District - 3595 East Ustick Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 12 is also continued from May 2nd on AZ 05-060. Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council this item was continued in order to allow staff and the applicant to work out some outstanding issues, those two being -- oh, I'm sorry. Go back and give you the basics. This is the ACHD property that they are requesting annexation with a development agreement. They have purchased the property for the primary purpose of constructing a collector roadway and then -- which would, eventually, connect down to this half mile mark and go through to Franklin, hopefully, in the future. The two issues were -- there was some question about the adjoining residences to the east what the appropriate buffer or fencing should be there. And the second issue was the placement of sewer and water lines down that collector roadway and who would be responsible for installing those facilities. With regard to those two items, Mr. Inselman has indicated to staff on the -- that he met with three out of the four homeowners on the east and that what they have felt is the best solution is to have a dual fence. They would have one fence adjacent -- a solid fence adjacent to the roadway and, then, setback a short distance from that would be a chain link fence to keep livestock from chewing on the solid fence. So, it would be a dual fence condition. Those properties along the east would have frontage along the collector roadway, so that at some point in the future if they wanted subdivide their property and perhaps have Meridian City Council May 9.2006 Page 22 of 54 shared driveways they could access that facility with some sort of common driveway or even a street. Although that's unlikely given here. It would more likely become a driveway. So, that's the first issue and I'm sure Mr. Inselman can fill you in a little more. The second issue with regard to the sewer and water facilities, Mr. Hood has proposed a change to the development agreement. It's in your staff report as it is now and it's a slight change, so that it would read that the applicant will be responsible for coordinating the sewer and water main extension with the Public Works Department. So, they need to let Public Works know when they are planning on building that roadway and Public Works would work to get those facilities installed. The outstanding issues. The staff did not address the fencing issue, so if Council feels that that's an acceptable solution, then, we probably need to add something to the development agreement with regard to that and that's the only outstanding issue that we are aware of. I'll answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: So, Anna, is that fence directly adjacent to the sidewalk? So, it would be right up against the sidewalk? Canning: It would be very close. You'd probably have a couple feet Of a foot and a half where they typically have some room for utilities in that area. There is a little bit of excess right of way, typically and, then, it would be up against that. I think that the analogy was brought up to the north side of Pine that that would be -- that's also a collector road right against residential where they went and widened the roadway and now we have a fence right up against the sidewalk. The situation is a little bit different here in that we do anticipate that these -- that these lots in the back may decide to subdivide off the back half of their lot or -- and split that in two. You may remember Hollybrook. We asked -- when Hollybrook Subdivision went in, we asked them to move their road right up adjacent to the one acre lots to their east and we have already seen a number of those come in and want -- they are ready to subdivide off the back half of their lots. It's -- a lot of folks that have these one acre parcels do seem to be ready to divide off the back half and subdivide that. So, we do anticipate that this will redevelop. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for staff? Are there any -- I'm sorry. Mr. Borton? Borton: No. De Weerd: Are thefe any members of the public who would like to provide testimony? Bird: Would the applicant -- De Weerd: How about the applicant? Yeah. I see you every week. I forget. Inselman: I don't need to say anything. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Gary Inselman representing ACHD, 3775 North Adams, Garden City. We did meet with the neighbors, we met with your staff, we are in agreement with the staff report as written. If there is a need to put a requirement for fencing in the development agreement, we Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 23 of 54 would ask that you give us some flexibility to work with the neighbors. The funeral home and the church may not want a fence. The residential homeowners do. So, we would like some flexibility to work with them on the exact type of a fence and placement. And if the church and the funeral home decide not to have a fence, that we not be required to put one there. De Weerd: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Inselman: Thanks. De Weerd: Thanks, Gary. Okay. If there is no public testimony on this, Council, I would consider a motion to close the Public Hearing. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item 12. Bird: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the annexation request AZ 05-060 for Ada County Highway District and instruct staff to include in the Findings a condition that would allow flexibility for fence types adjacent to residences and the ability to not require fence adjacent to commercial or institutional type of uses. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to approve with the changes as noted. Any discussion? Borton: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council May 9.2006 Page 24 of 54 De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Is the intent of the motion that the ability to have a fence is at the discretion of the property owner or -- versus ACHD? If -- as an example, if the church elects not to have a fence, then, there is not a fence? Rountree: That was my intent. Borton: Okay. De Weerd: Clarification. Any further discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Item 14: Item 15: Public Hearing: AZ 06-003 Annexation and Zoning of 24.03 acres from RUT to R-8 (12.31 acres), R-15 (8.04 acres) and C-C (3.68 acres) for Hiqhtower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC - southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: Public Hearing: PP 06-003 Preliminary Plat approval of 106 residential lots, 4 commercial lots, 2 private street lots and 25 common lots on 22.94 acres in proposed R-8, R-15 and C-C zones for Hiqhtower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC - southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: Public Hearing: CUP 06-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Mixed Use Planned Development that includes single-family detached, townhouse units, commercial uses, private streets, a neighborhood park and a vehicular access to Chinden Boulevard for Hiqhtower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC - southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Item 13,14,15,16, I will open these public hearings on AZ 06-003, PP 06-003 and CUP 06-004. VAR 06-004. Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Hightower project. It's located at the south -- De Weerd: Okay. Anna, just for our public record, I will not open Item 16 until after Items 13, 14 and 15 have been decided. Canning: Okay. Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 25 of 54 De Weerd: Thank you. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Hightower project. It's located at the southwest corner of Chinden and Jericho. The applications, as noted, include annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, conditional use, private streets. Those are the ones we will talk about right now. Did want to point out that this area is shown as a neighborhood center on the Comprehensive Plan. The highlights of the development include -- this is just the northern portion of it. This is the southern portion it. It is a kind of L-shaped or odd shaped lot. It includes 24 acres of the R-8 zoning. I'm sorry. Yes. Fifteen acres of -- or 12 acres of R-15 zoning. Eight acres of C-C -- I have got these mixed up. Okay. I'm going to start over again. Sorry. The whole site is 24 acres. That's what I did wrong. Sorry about that. It includes 12.31 acres of R-8 and that's primarily the southern portion of the property. It includes eight acres of R-15 and that's over here on the east end of the property. And, then, 3.6 acres of C-C. And that would be immediately adjacent to Chinden on the entrance road. It also includes two private streets. Those private streets are in the R-8 section. They are part of the MEW development, so we have our open space here where the Jots actually front onto that developed open space and take access from a private street. The gross residential density for the entire project is 5.5. If you go to the townhouse areas, which are these two areas here, the density is -- the net density, which is closer to 9.3 units per acre -- and this would be considered a transit supportive density consistent with the neighborhood center that's on this property. Normally, we'd be looking at this for a larger area. I think the applicant has tried to work this neighborhood center into this portion here where you have the commercial uses, the retail uses, the high density residential and, then, transitioning to a lower density residential. And I have -- this is how those townhomes work. This is the southern one. Just so you can see how those houses -- townhouses lay on those lots that they have designated. For the commercial area they are proposing approximately 13,750 square feet within three buildings as shown here. I do have some elevations. These are of the commercial vision for the property and, then, this is detached residential, I believe. We do not have any of the front-loaded townhouses. We did let the applicant know that he should bring some of those for you today. The Commission recommended approval on April 6, 2006, and at that hearing Phil Hull from the Land Group spoke in favor. Tom Buck, I believe, spoke in opposition. No one commented. And the key issues of discussion were on limiting the building height for the entire development and this was by the adjacent property owner Mr. Buck. And concessions made by the applicant to the adjacent property owner and the configuration of the townhouse lots at the south terminus for Torrey Way and that was this diagram that I showed you. The key Commission changes to staff's initial recommendation. They did add a restriction to the development agreement, which states the applicant shall place five gallon arborvitae at four feet on center along the shared property line of the adjacent property to the west, owned by Mr. Buck, and they also added a restriction to the development agreement, which states the homes on Lots 2, 3, and 4 and 5 of Block 10 shall be limited to 25 feet in height. They also added a condition which states the applicant shall continue to work with the Idaho Transportation Department on the possibility of acceleration and deceleration lanes on Chinden Road, as referenced in the letter from lTD. And a condition which states the Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 26 of 54 applicant shall add a note to the face of the plat that references the Right To Farm Act. Finally, a condition that the applicant shall work with the planning department staff on the layout and access of Lots 5 through 14, Block 6, in order comply with the Unified Development Code regarding common drives. And that these would be submitted to the planning department no later than ten days prior to the City Council hearing. The lots in question are these same ones here. We are still working on it, but we are confident that -- that Council could condition the project appropriately. Mr. Wilson in his staff report did talk about the common drives and he referenced the portion which states that only four lots can take access from it, so they would need to have a green space between these center lots on both sides. They have one over here currently. They would have to add one on this other side of these -- this couplet here in the middle. Unfortunately, Mr. Wilson forgot to also mention that they needed ten feet of frontage. Currently they have about five. I talked with the applicant about it. I think they are pretty comfortable extending these to the required ten feet of frontage for each of those. They would, essentially, lose these two units in the center, but it will provide a nice open space for those residents and it will mirror a little more closely what's going on on the north end. You can see here they have a similar situation. These flags are too narrow. They are only five foot flags. They will need to widen those out. But they have got a nice open space at the terminus of those, so it will mirror that on the south side. The outstanding issues for City Council. These drives were the outstanding issue and I have noted them below. The other outstanding issue relates to the ITD letter, so I guess I'll save that for the variance discussion. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Hull: Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, my name is Phil Hull with the Land Group. I'm representing Hightower, LLC, for the development of approximately 24 acres located at the southwest corner of Jericho and Chinden. De Weerd: And what is your address? Hull: 462 East Shore Drive, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. De Weerd: Thank you Hull: And is that the -- okay. Thanks. Let's see. As staff mentioned, our site is located within a neighborhood commercial designation on the land use plan within the Comp Plan. And we are proposing a mixed use project with commercial and high density residential, feathering out to medium density residential. I'm here tonight requesting annexation, rezone, conditional use, preliminary plat, and a variance. And the next slide basically shows some of the surrounding uses and layout We have got Chinden here. Meridian City Council May 9,2006 Page 27 of 54 Castlebury across from us. Here is our site right here. It's kind of tough to see. Got Signature Point Nursery here. Church. Zamzows. Zamzows here. The Catholic Church here. And we have Saguaro Canyon to our south and, then, Arcadia Sub here, which is an R-8. And this is R-4 here. And, then, the Westborough, to get you oriented, is here with the commercial lots here and the four-plexes back there. And this slide shows our rezone areas. We have got the C-C here. R-15 wrapping around that. And, then, the R-8 in the back of the -- that transitions back into Saguaro Canyon. This shows our site master plan a little bit more colorful than the pre-plat. You can see a lot of the green space and whatnot, but we have got the 35-foot required buffers along Chinden and I believe we are showing 25 along Jericho. With pathway. And we have a large berm and a sound barrier wall adjacent to the residential portion along Chinden as well to kind of help separate that. And we have a boulevard entry shown here near the commercial area. A commercial entrance here and one here off of Hightower Drive. And, as staff mentioned, we have three commercial buildings here and we went through quite a design process to get to this point, design process with staff. We had started out with more of a -- they called it a strip mall effect, but with the building located here and all the parking up in front. We have kind of really broke that up and soften that parking lot effect, so that we have two smaller lots now, with most of the parking -- more than 50 percent of the parking off of Chinden located -- located here. We have got the town home lots here and coming back into the site, feathering back into a little bit lower density. And a couple of different product types back in here, just the traditional style homes around the perimeter, 50 to 60 feet wide and in the center the alley-loaded homes with front porches on the street and, then, on the backside the MEW style housing there with the -- the park site located there. That shows that park site a little bit more clearly. We have got a tot lot, gazebo, nearly an acre, we are at .98, will provide plenty of common open space play area, as well as those amenities. And the townhome slide that you were viewing earlier. In complying with staff's comments and the comments from the Planning and Zoning Commission, we have come to the conclusion that these two units will come out and we will have a small pocket park site here. We think that will make, actually, much nicer units. These people will be looking out onto this park site, instead of onto the sides of buildings. Okay. Next. This is an enlargement of the commercial area also, so you can see how it lays out a little bit better. We have a lot of plaza spaces at the entries, a lot of space here, up here, to provide, basically, a little bit more of a pedestrian friendly for people coming in here. There is -- hopefully, we will see some outdoor tables for dining and whatnot at -- if we do get a restaurant located in there. And this is the conditional use site plan. Just shows a little bit more detail on the adjacent uses and a lot of dimensioning and whatnot that you can't really see on this slide. And the pre-plat, what you saw as well. Just more detail. And here is the landscape plan. One of the main things I wanted to point out here was the addition of eight foot planter strips throughout the entire development along the roadways with street trees planted at the lot lines to help create a boulevard effect down all of our streets. And, then, we get into the home styles. Multiple home styles are shown here. These would be the style with the MEW frontage or park site frontage, as well as this one here. Then we have the commercial typical style. We are showing high quality materials. This building here is located in Eagle River in 'Eagle right on the corner of Eagle Road and State Street. It, basically, has stone work, Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 28 of 54 stucco, awnings, a lot of architectural bump outs and creating some interest in the facades. Roof detailing pitches, so you don't end up with just a flat -- flat building. And, then, just a little bit more of a detailed view close up showing Saguaro connection right here, traveling through the site up to our future connection here. Next. Thank you. We can skip this one for now. And let's go one more. And, again, just the overall view showing the green space and the street trees and whatnot. And staff did recommend that we bring some townhome views, so that you could get an idea of the quality of the materials and the style of those buildings. Get a comfort level there. I wanted to show a couple more. If -- do you have a machine that I could actually throw these up there? Hopefully, these elevations will provide you with a sense of the style that we are planning for this area. Basically, again, just examples of the -- all two story, different roof pitches, different materials, such as stucco and stone and real lap siding, high quality roof materials, that sort of thing. Just to give you a comfort level there. And with that I will open it up for questions. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I might have missed it on the earlier -- one of the earlier photos. Is there a pathway or sidewalk along Chinden on the other side of the fence? Hull: Yes, there is. We have got a five foot meandering sidewalk. Borton: Is that the black line? Hull: Yeah. We might be able to go back on the PowerPoint for that. See the pathway here? Borton: Okay. Hull: It wraps around, goes all the way down Jericho as well. And the sidewalks, of course, follow the street throughout the development as well. Borton: Thank you. De Weerd: Anna, doesn't the city recommend eight feet on the highway side? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I believe that ITD has indicated that they will accommodate the right of way for -- it's a little bit up to ITD as how it works right now on 20-26. But I think -- I thought we had been doing ten foot, actually. Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 29 of 54 De Weerd: Yeah. I know it was more than five, but-- Canning: And sometimes those can be within the ITD right of way if they have given sufficient -- if they have dedicated sufficient right of way that can be within that easement -- or can be within the easement. I can try and find the ITD letter for this one and see if that is -- De Weerd: I think that is what we required of Irvine; right? Okay. And what is the right of way that you're getting on Chinden? Hull: In working with ITD I believe 70 feet from center line. It would be 140 total in this section. De Weerd: Okay. And, Anna, was that also what they were requesting? Canning: I didn't hear the applicant's response, ma'am. De Weerd: It was 70 feet, 140 from center line. Canning: ITD is requesting 100 feet from center line, ma'am. De Weerd: Okay. So, that could be within the right of way and enlarged or widen pathway? Canning: Typically her 100 foot section does include -- there is sufficient room for a ten foot pathway. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Hull: Madam Mayor, the latest request from ITD in this section is, actually, 70 feet. There is -- there is a neck down portion because of the existing development on Castlebury on the north side -- both Castlebury and Castlebury West. Maybe if we could zoom out to a different slide that shows the aerial, maybe. Yeah. That will work. With Castlebury West here built out and the other commercial developments and whatnot, this section from Meridian Road to Locust Grove, they have determined that the 70-foot per side is what they are okay with. That's with the multiple meetings with Sue Sullivan and Kevin Sublon and I believe that we have got a letter in the file from them to that effect. De Weerd: Okay. Hull: I'll have to work with staff to make sure that they have got the most current letter from lTD. Canning: It's a letter dated yesterday. It states 100 feet still, Phil. Meridian City Council May 9,2006 Page 30 of 54 Hull: Okay. Well, we will have to work with Sue and see what happened with today's letter, so -- De Weerd: That sounds like a good plan. Hull: Yes. Yes, it does. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any further questions? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Maybe, too, that sounds like that's a big difference. That's a big problem, 100 feet versus 70. Is it? Hull: It would have an effect on our frontage, yes. We are showing a 35-foot landscape buffer and, then, I believe it's a ten foot setback for the building, so we are over 110 to the first building, so -- that's the commercial area. So, we would have to take a look at that to see what effect that would have. Borton: Okay. De Weerd: And, I'm sorry, I didn't catch. Did you address the width of the sidewalk? Hull: I believe we are showing five feet, but we can certainly meet whatever city staff wanted and ITD requested there. Eight feet or ten feet or whatever that needs to be. That's not a problem. De Weerd: That's a pretty high speed road. It would be nice to have a wider path. Hull: You bet. De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further questions, Council, I appreciate your testimony and -- is there any member of the public who would like to testify on this application? None of our high school seniors wish to testify? All of you are here to get extra credit -- I think you get extra credit if you testify. No? Rountree: Don't encourage them. De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you need any further information? Okay. Applicant, last word. Any further word? Okay. Staff? Canning: Madam Mayor, we are looking for any letter from Sue Sullivan that might state 70 feet, but the letter from Mr. Sublon regarding the variance still states ITD Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 31 of 54 recommends the developer provide adequate setback 100 feet to accommodate future highway improvements. So, that's from yesterday. De Weerd: Okay. Council, I guess we have a couple options if you're ready to make a decision on this this evening, we'd entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. If you'd like to continue it to get clarification from ITD, we can certainly continue that another week. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I think it's a pretty big issue. I'd like to see clarification from ITD on that. Thirty feet is a big chunk and I know the applicant agrees with that. So, I'd move to continue the Public Hearing, 13, 14 and 15, for a couple weeks? Two weeks? One week? In order to get that clarification. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if -- I don't think it would take much time to get clarification on that, if you're worried about that consideration. It's just a matter of agendas -- full agendas and that's fine, but one week would be sufficient for us. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second? Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to continue Items 13, 14, 15 to May 16th. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Public Hearing: VAR 06-004 Request for a Variance to construct an access to Chinden Boulevard, a State Highway, for Hiqhtower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC - southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 16, since it is attached to Items 13 through 15, I will open that Public Hearing, VAR 06-004, and ask for a motion to continue. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we continue Item 16, VAR 06-004, to May 16th. Wardle: Second. Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 32 of 54 De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to continue Item 16 to May 16th. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Please note for the record that Mr. Rountree did -- he abstained. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. Item 17: Public Hearing: AZ 06-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.01 acres from RUT to C-G zone for KniQhthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC - southwest corner of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard: Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 06-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4 commercial lots and 1 common lot on 10.01 acres in a proposed C-G zone for Kniqhthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC - southwest corner of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard: De Weerd: Okay. Items 17 and 18 are public hearings on AZ 06-006 and PP 06-005. I will open these two Public Hearings with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the next project before you, as I try and multi-task with Mr. Hull -- is the Knighthill project. Excuse me, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I need to switch out of this application. This is the Knighthill Center project. It is located on the southwest corner of Linder and Chinden. It is a request for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat approval. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm pausing, because Mr. Hull does have the letter from Sue. I don't know if you want to reconsider it or -- it does state 70 feet. So, I'd just -- I pause and ask if you want to revisit that issue or just continue. Or if you still want -- De Weerd: So, he has a different letter than you have? Canning: Yes. De Weerd: What's the date on that letter. He will have to tell me. So, he will tell me right now. It's dated March 30th and it is from Sue Sullivan. De Weerd: Okay. Well-- Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: You have one from these. Let's go these and, then, come back to that, if it's okay with the maker of the motion and the second. Get it done with tonight. That was the only thing holding up -- Meridian City Council May 9. 2006 Page 33 of 54 De Weerd: We do have a motion that has passed to continue it. After these two opened public hearings, I would ask for direction from counsel. Canning: Thank you, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Thank you. Canning: Sorry to disrupt this hearing. This is the Knighthill Center project. It's located at the southwest corner of Under and Chinden. And they are proposing annexation and zoning with preliminary plat approval. The development includes four commercial buildings and one common lot on ten acres. And they are requesting C-G zoning. The applicant has submitted this conceptual site plan, which shows retail, restaurant, and financial institutions or banks as proposed uses on the property. I wanted to point out some of the out of ordinary development agreement requirements. They include a 25 foot wide commercial drive aisle, sewer and water extension to the property as 6175 North Under and that's immediately south of the property. You can see it here that there is one home that takes access off of Linder currently. So, the idea is to provide a commercial aisle so that might redevelop as an office in the future and more particular be able to get its -- remove its access from Under and take access from within this property. So, you would be able to share this driveway. Another unusual development agreement, the -- well, this is pretty standard, that it needs to comply with the site plan and this -- and the preliminary plat. Also, there was two added by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The first one would be that the applicant shall provide planning which indicates there is an exit towards Everest Lane for the property and one that -- and I believe Everest Lane is out -- this private road -- streets system which goes in -- and, again, let me go to this -- Everest Lane is this private road that functions as a frontage road to Chinden through this other development. So, these were -- they are shown as residential. These were approved as use exception lots. We are starting to see some activity on these and we are asking that they come in and rezone the property to be consistent with the uses that were approved there, which were, basically, office uses. So, we did ask that this applicant provide some signs that indicate that you can get out to Everest Road from within this development, so that they can effectively use that frontage road system that we have created here -- or that this would create. We don't have elevations for you. The applicant is still working trying to find suitable tenants for the site. The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval to you at their April 6, 2006, hearing. Shawn Nickel spoke in favor of the application. There was no one in opposition or commenting. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the appearance of the rear of the proposed buildings from Everest Lane. So, it would be this -- these elevations along here. And, then, access to West Everest Lane, which is straight -- the key Commission changes to staff's recommendation were to add a condition which states that the applicant shall modify the plat to include a cross-access slash parking easement for all lots within the subdivision and to add a restriction to the development agreement, which states the applicant shall provide signage, which indicates that there is an exit towards West Everest Lane and add a restriction to the development agreement which states the applicant shall provide evidence of a recorded cross-access easement with the development to the west for Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 34 of 54 access to West Everest Lane. To our knowledge there are no outstanding issues. However, recently there has been discussion in the news -- or amongst the neighborhoods of a commercial -- a large commercial development going on in the northeast corner, which is in the Eagle area of city impact and I think that a lot of the surrounding residences have been a little -- there is kind of a heightened awareness of the commercial development that's going on in the neighborhood and there may be some of those folks here tonight. They have been talking to Mr. Hood for the last couple weeks. He's had, I think, two or three couples come in to talk to him. About this project. With that I will answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Rountree: I have none at this point. De Weerd: Okay. The applicant? Elevations. Is that an elevation? Nickel: Madam Mayor, and Council Members, thank you. Shawn Nickel. 839 East Winding Creek, Suite 201, in Eagle. Here tonight representing Sea 2 Sea Development. As staff has indicated, this is an annexation and zoning request to C-G. As you recall your most recent Comprehensive Plan plan for the north area designates this property as mixed use community. We have designed the development to meet the requirements for parking. There is approximately 90,000 square feet of commercial that would include a bank, restaurant, and a larger commercial grocery store type of use. What I have provided on the screen here is an elevation of the -- kind of the theme for the development. This is, actually, an Albertson's in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. And so as you can see the large timbers with the river rock compliment, that will be throughout the development. One of the Commissioner's concerns was regarding the rear of this building as it faces to the west and as you would see it from Lochsa Falls. What I agreed to do as part of the record for the Planning and Zoning Commission, was to have accents of the river rock along the back and the sides of this large building to kind of break up that face there as you're driving down I guess Everest Street from the -- to the Lochsa development. We have provided a 35 foot landscape buffer along Chinden and Linder Road. We have provided the anticipated right of way per ITD's request for the site. De Weerd: Which was how much? Nickel: We did provide a hundred feet along. De Weerd: Okay. Good answer. Nickel: And that seems -- that seems to be what ITD has been wanting from Under to the west and, as you recall, the Irvine development, we got into that as well also across the street. We also were providing a hundred feet from center line for the lTD. As staff Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 35 of 54 indicated, we are providing access to the Lochsa Falls private drive that runs out to the west. As anticipated, these uses to the west will be office. They will have a connection to the south to Lochsa to the residential portion to the south. We agree with the conditions regarding the services to that out-parcel to the south, in addition to the requirements for the cross-access easement and parking agreements, as indicated by staff in the development agreement. With that, I will stand for any questions you have. De Weerd: I don't know if my question's for you or for staff, but I would imagine that that access to the west through Lochsa would give great value to yours, having more circulation in that area. Why is it a private drive? Why wouldn't it be considered a public road if we are going to get some kind of a back-age road there? Nickel: That's a good question. I don't know have -- De Weerd: If Shawn can't answer it, can you? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Lochsa Falls was approved before I got here. I have not heard why it was made a public -- or why it wasn't made a public street. It's, basically, a commercial drive aisle, which would suffice in this instance, because you just have a connection of commercial drive aisle to a commercial drive aisle. They are going to address off of it and use it, the private street, for that purpose. But I'm not sure it needs to be a public street in that it still functions to get traffic flowing through that development. So, what is the width, private versus public? Shawn, do you -- Nickel: Madam Mayor, I do not know the width of this Lochsa private road. I imagine it is a -- it is designed to meet the fire requirements for width and parking and all that, but I'm not sure what the -- De Weerd: Could you at least accommodate or have flexibility in the width of that access, if the width was supposed to -- was to change from the private road? Nickel: I'll see if my plan has the width of that. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it is a 50-foot right of way for that private lane. Bird: Repeat that. I couldn't hear it. De Weerd: Fifty foot. Bird: Fifty foot? De Weerd: And is that a standard width? Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 36 of 54 Canning: I think a commercial drive aisle -- commercial streets are, I believe, 52 or 54. It's a 40-foot street with 54-foot right of way. We would have some problems that 50 feet goes right to the back property line of those residences. So, there would be no landscape buffer there or potentially a small one or -- I think what the fire department is looking for now on private streets such as this is just the -- minimum of a 26 foot roadway section, so that folks can travel down that. That just depends on the height of the building. So, it's either 24 or 26, so -- De Weerd: I guess, Anna, the reason -- and, Shawn, I started this line of questioning, if that area to the west needs to come in for a rezone, it is an opportunity to have a good functional backage road in that area and I would like to see if the access could accommodate it if that were to change or not. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think you have a functional backage road, especially with this connection to it. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: It would be similar to what we have seen like in Majestic -- the subdivision where the Majestic Theater is located, where they have done a private loop street to provide that access. Sometimes in these commercial developments where you have fairly low volumes of traffic and you're not trying to mix commercial and residential traffic, then, a private street functions more than adequately to get that development around. De Weerd: Yeah. But, Anna, I guess since that private street would be coming out of a residential and you have a grocery store there, you're going to have kids walking down it to go to the grocery store. And so I'm just trying to understand what are the safety differences of public versus private and those kind of things. Because you know those kids from that subdivision, if there is a grocery store there -- I mean we are a half mile from a grocery store and I know where my kids go, so -- Canning: I understand your concerns now, ma'am. Sorry, I didn't understand them at first. And perhaps Mr. Nickel will know if there is a sidewalk built on that private street. I think there is. Nickel: Within Lochsa? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Canning: On Everest. Nickel: I don't believe there is. Canning: Some of the neighbors may have some -- be able to testify to that fact. Okay. Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 37 of 54 De Weerd: I would imagine they will include it in their comments. Canning: Yes. Nickel: And, Madam Mayor, one thing I would like to point out, though -- if you could go back to our site plan, Anna. Just to state that our access is not a private road, it is a private drive. I do want to point that out for clarification. As the public street comes in from the south -- or north from Lochsa, it stops being public and this is a private drive. Our access will actually be off of Under Road. And we have met with Joe Silva with the fire department to determine the addressing for that. So, what you have is -- and it's kind of a unique situation where you have a public road coming this way and stopping. You have got a private road coming from Lochsa from the west and stopping. And you have a private driveway through the development. De Weerd: So, the Albertson's -- well, I'm sorry -- Nickel: It's not an Albertson's. De Weerd: The grocery store -- Nickel: Yeah. De Weerd: -- would be an address for Under Road, then, and not Chinden? Nickel: Right. De Weerd: Or not Everest or-- Nickel: Exactly. De Weerd: I know the post office gets just driven nuts on that stuff. So -- okay. Nickel: And, initially, we did have this as a private road and I believe it was because of Mr. Silva's comments that we changed that to a private drive. I can't recall the -- his reasons for that. He was very concerned about the addressing for emergency reasons and he went -- I don't know if we have a -- if we have any comments from him in the staff report, but this was his -- this is what he liked and wanted to see was the addressing based on how we had it designed, so -- De Weerd: Okay. Nickel: He definitely didn't want it to be a Chinden address. De Weerd: But it could be an Everest address. Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 38 of 54 Nickel: It could have been an Everest address if we would have continued Everest through the development as a private lane. De Weerd: And would you be able to do that? Would you be amenable to do that if the Council were to ask? Nickel: I can't -- I can't agree to that without getting with my engineer to make sure it fits, but I mean we will look at that, definitely. De Weerd: And I guess just a comment to Council and to our fire department. [know our post office oftentimes has subs on these routes and the addressing in particular in commercial areas gets very confusing and to those temps that go there and so it's just kind of a matter of logic, I think, in some cases. But thank you, Shawn. Nickel: One final thing, Madam Mayor, and I can get with him afterwards and talk, but we -- because we do have -- because we do have the buffering along -- the 25-foot buffering along the boundaries, we could very easily put in sidewalks within those bufferings for pedestrian access, if that is a -- if thafs an additional concern with safety. You had mentioned about the children coming in from the subdivision. De Weerd: Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Please state your name and address. Rice: My name is Jenna Rice. 2751 South Nova Lane. Madam Mayor and Councilmen, if I may just make a quick comment. As a person I enjoy riding my bike places and I think that having a sidewalk down would be a good idea, because I hate riding my bike when there is cars like whizzing right by me, even if there is a bike lane. So, that's all. De Weerd: Thank you. I agree with you. My planners may not, but [ agree with you. Okay. Any additional testimony? Wallace: Yes. Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council. Karen Wallace. 1688 West Rattlesnake Court. De Weerd: Karen, you can pull that towards you if you would like. Wallace: Okay. Did you -- was I clear? De Weerd: Yes. Wallace: Okay. If you would go to Item 17. De Weerd: You can use that microphone right there. Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 39 of 54 Wallace: Okay. [just wanted to point out my home. I am right here at this triangle. I bought this lot two years ago from Brad Menassi. Was not informed that that was going to be an open thoroughfare through our subdivision. We picked that, because it was at the end of a cul-de-sac. We also got it for being quiet, less traffic. There are 14 children, little ones, in our neighborhood. We are -- my husband and I are retired. We moved there for the children. I could have gone into an old age home, I guess, but I like kids. But I don't like traffic. I feel so -- and a lot of our neighbors do, we feel so trapped and forced into a situation that we had absolutely no clue what was going to happen. Also, my neighbor and I have talked to some of the neighbors. A lot of them did not get this information to be here tonight. We are bringing back our findings to several people who are out of town on business and because of babysitting reasons they couldn't be here. I would, as a Meridian, Idaho, resident, would love to see another hearing where everybody is sent a certified letter to what is happening here. This is so incredibly heartbreaking to all of us on this subdivision, being that that would be opened. Our neighbors next door to us, light would be coming in right into his home when they go to turn into this commercial area. If it would be all possible for you to go and see this, where -- what's happening in our community on that street. It should never be opened to this. We are so concerned and so very upset. And we just moved into our home last November. So, that's why I'm pleading with you is to go see what's happening. And that should just never ever be open. This here. Absolutely. It's -- I can just see our values not going anywhere in our homes. Also the safety of our neighborhood children. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any further testimony? If you will, please, state your name and address. Downing: My name is Stephanie Downing and I live at 1802 West Rattlesnake. De Weerd: Thank you. Downing: We bought here in Lochsa Falls, because we were told it was a very nice subdivision. We have one of the biggest lots. We back right up to this. I have been told there will be a berm, but they are also going to have that driveway that they are talking about going through Everest. We were never told that it was going to connect up. We were told these were two separate pieces of property. The corner of Chinden and Linder was one commercial property. The commercial properties on just Chinden were separate. The road -- the private road would never hook up. If they put that through, I'm going to have delivery trucks at the back of my home -- at the very back of my home. I had my house custom built to be in this subdivision. We have -- I can't even tell you how many children in our subdivision. People want this to be their home. We don't need traffic going through. I really -- like Karen, we are all so upset we don't know what to do. I did not even receive a letter about this meeting tonight. If I didn't know my neighbor Karen I would not have even known you were meeting on this. I never received one. This is the first I'm hearing about this. I'm so upset I don't know what to do. Meridian City Council May 9,2006 Page 40 of 54 De Weerd: Can you use the pointer and -- there is a pointer right there in front of you. And show me where your -- Downing: Go back to the -- yeah. We have the biggest lot. We paid the most. We built a custom home right here at the very corner. Right here. That's our lot. De Weerd: What was your address? Downing: 1802 West Rattlesnake Drive. Downings. I never even received a letter about tonight. Half of our neighbors didn't. This weekend we had our -- our subdivision had our garage sale and all of our neighbors talked and I would have to say 80 percent did not receive a notice about tonight's hearing. De Weerd: The required noticing is 300 feet from the property. So, you are right up against it. We are trying to -- Downing: 1802. It backs right up to my house. De Weerd: We do show a mailing was sent to that property. Downing: It never came. We never got it in our mail and I have my neighbors on the other side -- De Weerd: Did you receive one? Wallace: Yes, I did. Downing: Yeah. That's how I found out. I really urge you to revisit this where the neighbors can come, because they were not informed. There are many many concerns, not just for the homes and the noise factor and the traffic factor, but the safety of the many many children in our neighborhood. De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any further testimony? Okay. Would the applicant like to have wrap-up remarks or make remarks? Nickel: Madam Mayor, if I could have just a moment, please. Again, Madam Mayor, thank you. Shawn Nickel. I do understand and appreciate the concerns of the neighbors. This is the first we have heard of any neighbors being in opposition. We held a neighborhood meeting in which no one showed up. They had the same mailing that you have in front of you tonight. Nor was anyone at the Planning and Zoning Commission testifying in opposition to this. We also posted the site for both P&Z and the Council meeting. So, I'm just saying that we -- this is kind of a first for us having someone come and state these objections this evening. I do have a letter here from -- And it's a Lochsa Falls Subdivision Phase 12 representative Tracy Cook, stating -- or giving us permission to access private road Everest Street. I can present that for -- to the Clerk for the record. If you do look at the layout of Lochsa Falls and you look at the Meridian City Council May 9,2006 Page 41 of 54 layout of our subdivision and our main entrance coming off of Linder Road, I belleve that this property right here -- and when this builds -- when this builds out with residential, it's going to be an asset -- an asset to the community. It's going to do exactly what the city and the highway district envisioned it to do, is to provide interconnectivity to this development. I do not belleve that you're going to have many people cutting through this development and going out through the subdivision to get to Linder. As you can see, there are no accesses until all the way down at the quarter mile -- or the half mile back to Linder Road. I believe that this access onto Linder will be utilized by the commercial traffic. It does provide that cross-access and connectivity as envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and ACHD. We have taken into consideration the residents that we back up to and we are providing landscaping, berming, and fencing -- solid fencing along that boundary. If Anna could go back to the site plan quickly. As you can see, the loading and unloading areas for the large grocery store is for back in this location right here -- right here, which, actually, backs up to the Lochsa Falls office portion. There is parking along this area here and this area here for these store fronts right here, but I believe that the majority of the noise, the backing up, the loading and unloading is going to be in this area right here. So, we have looked at that. We could go back and look at our landscape plan and try to beef up that berm and that buffering now that we know that there is new concerns from the neighbors. However, I do believe that the layout of this project does take that into consideration, regardless if we have -- if we heard from those neighbors or not. I think as opposed to having this box backed up to this portion right here, we did try to get it out towards Chinden for the compatibility. So, I'll stand for any questions you have. I will present this to the clerk for the record. And one more thing. The gal left, but I did want to point out to her that we are providing sidewalk along all of Chinden and all of Linder Road. De Weerd: Okay. What is the width of that? Nickel: I will have to refer that to staff. I believe that they have -- it's required to be eight feet, I'm not -- De Weerd: I think we did get to ten. I was the one that said eight. Sorry, Anna, I messed up your meeting. Nickel: And we will comply with whatever that condition is for the width of that. De Weerd: Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: I have a couple questions, Shawn. In no particular order. Nickel: Okay. Meridian City Council May 9. 2006 Page 42 of 54 Borton: The truck access to this to be named later back here, back here, is that -- it looks really narrow. How does a truck get in and out of there? Can they even turn around? It looks to be 80 feet wide. Nickel: I believe the intentions are for backing -- for backing up of the truck. So, they come -- the trucks will come in here, back up to the loading dock. Borton: Okay. Nickel: And, again, without having a specific retailer in mind, it's hard to say what -- I mean if it's an Albertson's, we know what -- we can kind of envision what their loading docks are, because we don't really know. [think that will go through future review from the city. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: I'm just going to rattle off a few of them. Are you precluded from continuing this landscape buffer down to the edge of the street? Does the truck access require this to not be lengthy? Nickel: If I understand what you're stating, Council member -- De Weerd: Good timing. Nickel: That kind of shows you how that landscaping does stop right there. And right there. And, then, that access road to the west is right in that location right there. Borton: Okay. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there should be a minimum of five foot landscape strip there. Nickel: Along this way? Canning: Along the property boundary. Yeah. Nickel: Madam Mayor and Council members, this is a 25 foot buffer that you see right here, so that will provide a little more area in there. Borton: Would that be five feet down to the -- Nickel: Uh-huh. Meridian City Council May 9. 2006 Page 43 of 54 Borton: Okay. Anna, can you put the site plan back up, please? Two questions, kind of at the same time. Does this pathway connect somewhere over here towards the intersection for people to be able to cross the street or is that -- Nickel: I believe eventually it will once -- once ITD completes the -- their improvements right there. This is going to be gravel at this point and, then, landscaping and, then, our sidewalk, until the final improvements are made on that intersection. Borton: The last question. I remember this came up -- I think it was brought up, this monument feature. Do you know anything about that or what that's planned to be? Nickel: As I stated earlier, I think it was at the Planning and Zoning, our intentions are to work with the city and I believe the city has a -- correct me if I'm wrong, a gateway committee or a gateway sign committee or something. I think I spoke with the Mayor about that. Coordinating with them and this is a gateway to the Meridian area and the vision is not only on this side, but it's on the other side, the north side of the -- of the intersection here, to have a water landscape feature, welcome to Meridian type of a feature that will show you that you're entering into the Meridian city limits. And that's -- again, that's something that we will work with the city and the committee on what that will look like. Borton: Has there been discussions with that gateway committee? Nickel: Not yet. Borton: Are you willing to provide what they suggest or recommend? Nickel: That's our intention. Borton: Okay. Thanks. De Weerd: Council, further questions? Shawn, J do. Nickel: Okay. De Weerd: When you suggested how the trucks were going to get in and out, that was a little disturbing to me. Anna, can you show a larger area map. That would work. I think where you have those big trucks backing -- or pulling in and, then, backing up are right there next to residences and what kind of fencing? Were you putting up a masonry wall or were you doing something to help mitigate the sound of those trucks? Nickel: Along the -- I guess along the -- De Weerd: Well, along probably that corner. Nickel: To here? Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 44 of 54 De Weerd: Uh-huh. Nickel: The plan at this point was just a six-foot solid -- it was more of a visual barrier than anything else, but I guess at your -- at your recommendation we will look at if anything further needs to be placed there for sound. Again, not meeting with the neighbors or having their concerns addressed earlier, I was kind of caught off guard with that. I think it's something we need to look at, though. De Weerd: Well, certainly, if that is how the trucks get into load and unload, I would imagine that would be a concern. Nickel: Okay. De Weerd: At least to that stub street. Do you know in that stub street from Lochsa -- was that posted? [know ACHD has tried to sign those stubs, that it will be a through street. Do you know if that is posted? Nickel: I don't know. Typically they do. I'm pretty sure there is one here, but I don't know about over there. There is -- I don't think there is direct access to the residential lots from this street here. De Weerd: No, there isn't. Okay. Council, anything further for the applicant? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Staff? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I can answer any questions that you have. I don't have any additional comments. De Weerd: Okay. Council, what is your pleasure here? Oh, I guess since you're the applicant -- part of the applicant, the final word is yours. Thornton: Madam Mayor and City Council, I appreciate it. My name is Creston Thornton, I reside at 757 West Bankside Drive, Eagle, Idaho. And this is our project. Going over this project, I just wanted to address a couple of things that Shawn may have not addressed correctly -- not incorrectly, but just to clarify. Our design is based on the design from Toothman-Orton of the Eagle and Ustick project that has the Moos Ice cream in it and also has the Papa Murphy's Pizza and the Albertson's located in it. So, our loading docks are similar to what is working there with other neighborhoods and what the trucks do is they come down the -- they come in from behind the section there that we have the mutual agreement with working with Lochsa Falls, they pull down and they back straight up and that's a loading dock for two trucks and being in the unloading industry for a lot years, [ can understand that this is a two truck loading dock, this is based on specs on Eagle and Ustick, exactly what was done by Toothman-Orton to Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 45 of 54 work correctly and it will work correctly. And if it needs to be a five foot strip there is a sound barrier, whatever it needs to be, but this is, we believe, a great design and it will be a positive thing for this area, with the high end Big Sky look to it, the Big Sky ranch Montana feel. And the corner piece I'd like to address. We want to have waterfalls on both sides of the street, we want to have sculptures that say welcome to Meridian and really bring this into a feel of upscaleness. Thank you very much. De Weerd: Okay. Council? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move that we close the Public Hearing on Items 17 and 18. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to close the public hearings on 17 and 18. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we approve Item 17, AZ 06-006, to include applicant comments, staff comments, and particular applicant's concessions to provide sidewalk along the southern portion in the 24-foot landscape buffer. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion? When you mention everyone's comments, is there any provision there for any additional barrier for a masonry wall or anything like that? I guess I just want clarity on what testimony means. Borton: The applicant's comments. De Weerd: Okay. Borton: Staffs comments and the applicant's comments. De Weerd: So, no additional sound buffering? Borton: I don't -- I'd say no and, boy, I don't know if you can leave that open for staff, if that's -- I don't think that's feasible. Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 46 of 54 Bird: It's not fair to them. Borton: No. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Any discussion? Okay. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Item 18. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we approve Item 18, PP 06-005. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 18. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council, there is a letter here in front of you, a copy of what the applicant provided staff. If you would like to reopen the Public Hearing to discuss this, we can do so, or we can get clarification from ITD and just take this up again next week when you continue it to. So, what would be your preference? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: On the sign in-sheet was there any signatures for testimony? De Weerd: I don't -- no. Bird: Okay. I didn't see a bunch of people get up and leave after we continued it. I, as one Councilman, would like to get it done with this week, then, we don't have to worry about it down the line. As long as we have got this. This is the one thing we asked for; right? This is agreeable. The letter was what we asked for, the right of way. Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 47 of 54 De Weerd: We will have to reopen the Public Hearing if you want to discuss it. Bird: Yeah. We know that. Yeah. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Can I ask a question of staff? Anna, what was the date? I thought you said you had a letter dated yesterday and it said a different distance. Canning: Yes. It's not from the same person and at the risk of offending one of the Council members, it's not uncommon that we get different numbers from these two folks at lTD. However, the planning person for the 20-26 corridor is -- am I going too far before the Public Hearing is open? De Weerd: Yes. Anna: Sorry. De Weerd: So, if you would like to have this discussion tonight, I would entertain a motion to reopen the Public Hearing. If you would like to discuss it next week, the motion's already made. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: I don't -- I don't know how we could open the Public Hearing and, then, solve a dispute between two letters from ITD, neither of which are here, to discern which one is accurate and correct. If I'm wrong someone else may have a better idea. De Weerd: You can give that explanation next week. So, Council, if you don't want to hear this now, I certainly will go ahead and move forward in our agenda. Item 19: Public Hearing: AZ 06-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision by Pacific Landmark Development - 5603 North Locust Grove Road: Item 20: Public Hearing: PP 06-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 88 building lots and 10 common lots on 29.69 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision by Pacific Landmark Development - 5603 North Locust Grove Road: De Weerd: Okay. Hearing nothing, I will open the Public Hearing on 19 and 20 for AZ 06-011 and PP 06-009. I will open these public hearings with staff comments. Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 48 of 54 Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Basin Creek project. The site is located on North Locust Grove Road and it's north of McMillan Road. Again, this is one of those -- please don't look at the layout that's in here. This is an old layout. Some of the surrounding properties J wanted to point out. This is Hightower, which just got continued. This is Arcadia here. And this is a portion of Reserve that was just recently approved there. This was Cabell a Creek, I believe the name of it was. And this is Saguaro. So, you can see there is a lot of surrounding developments recently approved, in the process of being approved, and all stages of development at this point. This was formerly the Leeshire property and that's why the old layout is on there. The applicant is proposing annexation and zoning and preliminary plat approval. Their gross residential density is 2.96 units per acre. The net density 4.13 units per acre. The development includes approval for 88 single family residential lots and ten common lots on 29.69 acres with R-4 zoning. We don't have any elevations. They are all proposed to be single family residences. The Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval at their April 6th, 2006, hearing. Ashley Ford and Grant Lee spoke in favor of the application. No one opposed it. No one commented. There were no key issues of discussion and there were no changes to staff's initial recommendation. There are also no outstanding issues before Council that we know of. This was continued once at P&Z, but that was just because ACHD had not yet had time to process the application and that's the only reason it was continued. With that I'll answer any questions you may have. The applicant can give you the range of lot sizes. They are -- all exceed the 8,000 square foot minimum for the R-4. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any questions for staff at this time? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and address. Ford: Honorable Mayor, Members of the Council, for the record, my name is Ashley Ford. I'm a planning project manager for WRG Design and my office address is 453 South Fitness Place in Eagle. De Weerd: Ashley, you look like you could have been one of the high school students. Ford: Thank you. As I approach my 32nd birthday. I'm here tonight on behalf of my client Pacific Landmark Development. And as staff has stated, we have a proposed total of 88 homes within this development, with an overall density of less than three units per acre. We believe -- we have worked really hard to maintain the delicate balance of being compatible with the surrounding developments, because there are some larger lots approved to the east of us that were part of county subdivisions back in the '80s and the '90. And in meeting the Comprehensive Plan land use map, which shows three to eight dwelling units per acre, we envision this development to be more upscale. It's a single family residential development. The CC&Rs will require a Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 49 of 54 minimum home size of 2,500 square feet. Architectural standards will be very strict. For example, with 30 percent masonry required, minimum of three exterior colors, and while it's difficult to speculate what the end home prices will be, we anticipate the lots with the homes will sell in the 400,000 dollar range and above. Vinyl siding -- or, excuse me, vinyl fencing will be required within the development. The only exception will be all the lots adjacent to the open park. So, right in this general area. Those lots will be required to have wrought iron fencing. Detached sidewalks. Eight foot sidewalks will be provided throughout the entire development and will provide for enhanced streetscapes, so we have worked really hard to try to provide a nice feel for the overall development. From a pedestrian and vehicular interconnectivity standpoint, we have worked with both the city and ACHD to meet all the locations for our stub roads and locations for our pathways. Basically, we are providing extension of a ten foot pathway that comes from Saguaro Canyon, that comes in through our development and, basically, ends at the southern end of Locust Grove here. Basically, this is the last leg of one of the Comp Plan pathways symptoms. So, we are really excited that we are going to be able to provide that connection for you. And, basically, we are in agreement with the conditions of approval. We appreciate staff, although the original staff member that we have been working with is no longer with the City of Meridian, Josh Wilson, but he was wonderful to work with and they have made the process really painless for us. So, happy to stand for any questions and we request your approval this evening. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd. Okay. Thank you. Ford: Thank you. De Weerd: Is there any testimony on this application? Okay. Seeing none, staff, any outstanding issues? Okay. Council? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the public hearings on AZ 06-011 and PP 06-009. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion to close the public hearings on 19 and 20. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion? Meridian City Council May 9,2006 Page 50 of 54 Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve AZ 04 -- 04. Man. 06-011, Basin Creek Subdivision and bring the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law back. I don't think we had them, did we? Did we have the Findings? No. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and incorporate staff and applicant's comments. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 19. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Item 20. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve PP 06-009 for Basin Creek Subdivision, to conclude applicant and staff comments, and Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and decision of order. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to approve Item 20. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg? Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 21 : Resolution No. 06-519 : Increase to Water and Sewer Rates: De Weerd: Okay. Items 21 and 22 are -- well, Item 21 is a resolution number 06-519. That's to increase water and sewer rates. And, Council, do you have any questions on this? You did receive an overview at our last meeting or a presentation. Rountree: I have none. Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 51 of 54 De Weerd: Okay. Bird: I have none. Berg: Madam Mayor, just a comment that we need to put an effective date that we had discussed. De Weerd: Council, we did discuss among staff an effective date. July 5th is the soonest that we could be able to get it in the water bills on both cycles. I know it was discussed, I believe, for June 15th, but we have met -- we have missed the deadline in getting it in the water bills. Berg: Madam Mayor, that's the notice that there is an increase in the water bill at least a month ahead of time. At least one billing cycle ahead. Rountree: So, the effective date is the 5th. Nary: July 1. Rountree: July 1? Okay. Right, Len? De Weerd: Len, is that correct? He nods. Grady: Madam Mayor, that is correct. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Berg: Okay. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I will read the resolution 06-0519. A resolution ratifying the City Council's approval of Public Works fee schedule for water and sewer rates increase of four percent and providing an effective date of July 1 st, 2006. De Weerd: Okay. You have heard the reading of Resolution 06-519. Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve Resolution 06-519 with the effective date of July 1 st. Bird: Second. Rountree: And authorize appropriate signatures. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council May 9,2006 Page 52 of 54 De Weerd: I have a motion to approve Item 21. Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 22: Ordinance No. 06-1231 : RZ 05-020 Request for a Rezone of .17 acres from R-4 to 0- T zones for operation of a barber shop for Fred's "Reel" Barber Shop by Fred Pratt - 1127 North Meridian Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 22 is Ordinance No. 06-1231. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read this ordinance by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance 06-1231, an ordinance finding that Fred Pratt, the owner of certain real property, has made a written request for rezone of zoning classification for real property located in the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 12, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A of this ordinance and rezoning certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, and rezoning the land use zoning classification of said lands from R-4 to OT in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Berg. You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety? Very exciting. Hearing none, Council, do I have a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve Item 13, Ordinance 06-1231, with suspension of rules. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 22. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Council, I do have a City of Meridian pin to present to the only other high school student that hasn't already received one that lasted through the end of the Meridian City Council May 9,2006 Page 53 of 54 meeting. So, if you would like a City of Meridian pin, we would love to honor you with one. Not too many students last through our entire meeting. Thank you. Rountree: That's good for about ten extra points. Bird: Yeah. De Weerd: You need to get extra points. Make sure. Berg: Show that. De Weerd: Council, just a moment to discuss the fifth Tuesday. We do have that scheduled to meet with staff. The goals for that, as we discussed at our workshop, is to bring our strategic plans and have the departments talk about those, see if any updates are needed. More so is to talk about growth areas, the planning and financing of those. We want to be pro-active and on top of these topics and tying the cost to the areas we want to grow into. And so that -- that is the agenda that we have set. We would like to set it at -- at a time from 5:30 to 9:30 to have a good in-depth discussion, so that staff feels prepared to give an overview during their budget presentation. Does that sound feasible? Did you have anything else in mind for that meeting? And AspireOn was the ones that helped create this strategic positioning map. So, that's what they will be discussing. If there is no comments or feel free to comment via e-mail if anything strikes you. I also will point out one other thing and that's the summary I think most of you received on the financing of the projects of ACHD and it gave you summaries of who all has spent what and where and I will make extra note that Meridian has been certainly generous on our end of spending three point -- almost 3.2 million dollars. The next closest one is the city of Boise. Combined they are around two million. So, we do have that in hand. We will be making comment to ACHD. So, just an FYI. Anything further? I would enter a motion to adjourn. Rountree: So moved. Bird: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:38 P.M. Meridian City Council May 9,2006 Page 54 of 54 (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) ~~ MA . -DE WEERD