Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 09-19 Meridian City Council Meetina September 19,2006 A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, September 19, 2006, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Shaun Wardle, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, and Joe Borton. Others Present: Ted Baird, Sharon Smith, Anna Canning, Bill Musser, Ken Bowers, Len Grady, Steve Siddoway, Stacy Kilchenmann, Doug Strong, 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: Okay. I'll go ahead and call tonight's meeting to order. Thank you all for joining us here tonight. It is Tuesday, September 19th. It's a few minutes after 7:00. We will start tonight's meeting with roll call attendance. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 2 is the pledge of allegiance. Tonight we will be led in the pledge by Anna Canning. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Kevin Moyer with Meridian First Baptist Church: De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. That's one way to get your attention. Item No.3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Pastor Kevin Moyer. He's with Meridian First Baptist Church. If you will all join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of silence. Moyer: Our loving Father, we sure give you great thanks tonight, especially as we think in terms of the refreshing rains that we have needed and we just appreciate the blessing of them to our valley and in our mountains and even just the relief for our fires and our firefighters, we are just grateful to you for that. Father, we are thankful for our wonderful city. Thank you for the many blessings that you have given to us here in Meridian and tonight we even thank you for just this privileged time we have to be here together, for our leadership team that we can enjoy for our great city. Pray for the wisdom that's needed tonight. Thank you for their dedicated and hard work and I also think of all of our different city departments, how hard they work to make our community a great one, Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 2 of 68 a safe one, and one where we can be a community. And I would ask now for the wisdom and discernment needed tonight, that this would be a -- just a very profitable time as we work for all the different pieces of business, deliberate business, that, again, Lord, it would be done in a way that would continue a great unity among our city and thank you again for your faithfulness to us and your love and your kindness through our Savior Jesus Christ, in his name we pray, amen. De Weerd: Thank you, Pastor Moyer. We appreciate your words tonight. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: Item 4 is adoption of the agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Item J on the -- asked to be pulled. The department reports, which we will add an Item E, Public Works for discussion. Resolution number on F is 06-533. Resolution for the department is 06-534. Ordinance number for Item 11 is 06-1264. Item No. 21 has asked to be continued to October 10th, 2006, due to lack of posting requirements. And ordinance number -- or Item No. 22 is Ordinance 06-1265 and with that I move that we approve the revised agenda. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the revised agenda. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of August 22, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of August 29, 2006 City Council Special Meeting: C. Approve Minutes of September 5, 2006 Pre-Council Meeting: D. Streetliaht Aareement for Alexandria Subdivision by L&K Development: E. Aareement for Professional Services with Civil Survey Consultants, Inc. for Desian of Water Main Connections Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 3 of 68 between Franklin Road, Lanark Street, Commercial Street, and Pine Avenue: F. Resolution No. 06-533 VAC 06-011 Request for a Vacation of the public utility, drainage and irrigation easement common to Lots 3 and 4, Block 3 for Jayden Village Subdivision by Beachwood Builders, Inc. - 3059 & 3077 N. Christian Way: G. Reimbursement Agreement between the City of Meridian and Hiahtower, LLC for Constructing Approximately 1500 feet of 10-ince Water Main: H. Work Order with Idaho Power for Power to Serve New City Hall: I. Reimbursement Agreement between the City of Meridian and Ventana. LLC for Construction of Oversized Water Main: K. Addendum to Development Agreement: MI 06-005 Request for a Miscellaneous application to amend the previously approved Development Agreement (AZ 03-038 and concurrent files PFP 03- 007 & CUP 03-071) by removing a provision requiring all future uses on the site to be approved through the Conditional Use Permit process for Mussell Corner Subdivision by Brian Holleran - Northeast corner of Victory Road and Meridian Road: De Weerd: Item 5, Consent Agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: On the Consent Agenda Item F is Resolution No. 06-533. Item J has been asked to be pulled to 6-E under department reports and with that I move we approve the revised Consent Agenda as published and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda as stated. If there is no discussion, Mrs. Deputy City Clerk. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYE. Item 6: Department Reports: Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 4 of 68 A. City Council President - Shaun Wardle 1. Resolution No. : Valley Regional Transit regarding Coalition for Public Transportation: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 6 under Department Reports, we will start tonight's Department Reports with President Wardle. Wardle: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Before I begin, while I have the floor, I'll just take an opportunity if Councilman Borton would like to make any apologies to the football team on behalf of -- Madam Mayor, I'll begin with my department report on -- De Weerd: You know, I did miss my privilege last week to mention the Cougar-Vandal game, so be careful. Wardle: And congratulate the Vandals on their first win this season, so -- Bird: It was against a junior high. Wardle: We have in front of us a resolution that we discussed last week in a Pre-Council agenda. The City Attorney has placed it in our resolution form for our consideration and so I would open the floor to continue the discussion which we began last week. De Weerd: There appears to be a lot of discussion. Wardle: For purposes of discussion I will recap. This is a resolution from Valley Regional Transit Authority asking for the city to support their efforts in legislation to create a local option tax, which would, then, be placed in front of the voters and utilized for funding of Valley Regional Transit System. We had a presentation on the specifics of what those improvements would gain and we had some brief discussion. So, I believe the question before the Council was, really, the question as to whether we were willing to support a motion which would change the current state of law to allow -- and, then, to support the use of that for transit authority within the Treasure Valley. Rountree: Mr. Wardle through Madam Mayor, I guess, I, for one, don't have a problem with providing our citizens the opportunity to voice their opinion on this particular item. It's certainly an item we hear a lot about from the public and from the planning gurus and those sorts of things, that public transportation is a portion of our transportation network that's significantly under-funded in our area and I know surveys indicate that people support public transportation, though they are a little hesitant to pay for them. But this would give the folks an opportunity to say yes or no, if, in fact, it does get through the legislature. So, I think all we are really asking is is this something that we would support through the association of cities and support as a group that the legislature consider this and I guess I would be in favor of at least doing that. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 5 of 68 De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Rountree. Any other comments? Borton: Madam Mayor. Bird: Madam -- go ahead. De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: I've had an opportunity -- although I missed Kelly's presentation from Valley Ride last week, I've had an opportunity to review that presentation and, in fact, sit down with Kelly one on one and discuss this particular resolution, the goals of Valley Regional Transit, the challenges they are faced with right now and the elimination or soon elimination of the federal funding that they rely upon and discuss at length my concern with the particular resolution. Kelly has done a fantastic job with Valley Regional Transit trying to tackle a difficult issue, but through our discussions she and I candidly talked about my concerns. It's a resolution that, I, as one, cannot support and don't support for a variety of reasons. The local option tax authority in a vacuum I see as a solution looking for a problem and I don't support that. I think public transportation -- I don't support this particular resolution as well, the sales tax increase to provide and supply a product where there is limited demand. I do understand challenges that regional transportation is faced with, but it is not a resolution that this Council Member can support. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Borton. Mr. Bird. Bird: Madam Mayor, I have lot of the same feelings that Councilman Borton does. I-- after reading through this resolution, as I stated last week in the deal, I had no problem going forward to the legislature and see if they would allow it, but this one is, actually, passing a resolution that says that we are backing local option sales tax. Well, I'm not backing any tax increase of any kind. I think that our people are taxed to death and I think there is other avenues that we can certainly look at. So, as written I can't support this resolution either. De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: A couple comments that I have. One, Councilman Rountree had a comment in our meeting last week that one of the reasons that he wouldn't support this -- that he doesn't like the state legislature telling us what we can and cannot vote on. While I have a tendency to agree with that, the local option sales tax I see as -- is an issue that requires, in my mind, some further scrutiny. So, when I take that next steep, if you read section one of the resolution, essentially, this resolution is asking us to support a local Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 6 of 68 option sales tax as the funding option to pursue the adopted Valley Regional Transit regional operations in the Capital Improvement Plan. I do have some questions specific to the Capital Improvement Plan. While I agree in concept with the idea of a regional transit authority, I'm not sure that the current capital improvement plan will go far enough to achieve the ridership that really would be needed to fund the mechanism and so, certainly, I understand that it's a compromise that was reached by a number of committee members and elected officials. This resolution, in my mind, does exactly what it needs to do and that is, asks all of the agencies whether they are willing to support this and get behind not just the idea of local option tax, but the specific Capital Improvement Plan. So, that's where my greatest concern is and I would not support a motion to adopt this resolution at this current time. De Weerd: Council, as many of you know, I served on the regional task force that looked into all the different options and I think this one is the most palatable, because it does ask for the vote of the public and it would be to the communication and the value of the plan on if the public were to approve it. I agree with Councilman Rountree that the public should have a voice and this is the only mechanism to give the voice to pass this legislation to pursue this as an option to fund a regional public transportation system that the public pass and form this regional body to begin with. They believed in public transportation, now it's their opportunity to show if they believe in it enough to fund it. And so I guess I appreciate democracy and the ability to at least have a say in the direction that we are going. And so -- and a lot of that was the discussion that they had on this recommendation -- recommending body that's bringing this in front of you. So, I believe with those thoughts in mind I am in support of at least bringing this to the public, who would not only fund the system, but hopefully use the system. So, I guess I would be looking to all of you for a motion on this item. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I guess just in response, I think your comments are accurate. I would implore anyone of -- any member of our public -- has everyone had the opportunity to contact your local legislators and the four or five of us up here can make proclamations and resolutions and wishes and hopes and give direction -- it's not binding, it's nothing more than what we think should take place. But nothing is more critical if the public truly wants to see change in this particular area, to get on the phone and write letters and go visit your legislators eight days a week, as often as possible, and tell them how important this opportunity is for you and how critical their decision to allow option funding to be an opportunity for our cities. I think without that taking place there is some disconnect between a public that generally likes to support public transportation and a real touchy feely, but we don't have to pay for it sort of way, because it's on a federal dollars, quote, unquote, free money, but, then, when the local money starts to be spent, that public support tends to scatter. So, I hope I'm wrong. Perhaps there will be a large and loud group of our public that will tell this Council we are wrong, will call their legislators and tell them they are wrong and make this issue number one in the spring. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 7 of 68 That's democracy right there and I hope that would happen. So, for what it's worth, I would throw that out to anyone who is here in the audience, anyone that reads the minutes, and is concerned about this issue, to, please, make your voice heard to your legislators if it truly is an important issue and opportunity for this community in your eyes. De Weerd: Thank you. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I guess I don't disagree with a lot of things I have heard, but what I disagree with is, you know, what's our position. Do we or don't we support public transportation as a part of the component of our transportation system in Meridian and Ada County and for the Treasure Valley for that matter. The populous -- not unanimously, but a large percentage of the populous voted to form the Valley Ride Transit Association. However, it had no funding mechanism and it struggles, it functions on general fund donations from the city of Boise primarily, federal dollars, a little bit from Nampa, a little bit from Meridian, and in terms of ridership, I think the ridership reflects that the system doesn't work very well -- it works as well as it can. I guess I would like to send the message that the City of Meridian either does or doesn't support public transportation. I can see where this resolution probably goes a little further than it needs to to send that message, but I would throw out would the Council consider a type of resolution that would at least put us on the map as to our position on public transportation? That's why I would like to see public transportation or local option tax or whatever go to the public and them have an opportunity to say, yes, we think that's something we need and we are willing to local option tax, use more property tax, use some revenue generator or, no, we don't want to pay for it, because we continue to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting a system that doesn't meet customer demands, that utilizes a lot of federal dollars that come this direction, with the hopes that people really do support it and they are willing to fund it, so -- and we spend a lot of money on studies and we have studied public transportation probably to an extreme. So, I guess that's my position is I'd just like to see us get to a point where we can either support it or we can't support it and not sit on the fence. De Weerd: And, Council, if you would like, we can bring back a differently worded resolution with -- considering the comments that have been made tonight and put this off for another week. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: You know, one of the -- one of my comments is when you talk about the goals of a regional transit authority or public transportation, I can agree that accessibility to Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 8 of 68 those who don't drive -- or don't have their own automobiles is an important component of that. Ridership which reduces emissions and improves our quality is important. The reduction in traffic, travel times, those are all important goals. If you want to bring forth the resolution that says that we support that, I'm not sure that I could disagree with it, but what I see in front of us is a group of people that did a lot of work -- Madam Mayor was involved in that -- and came up with what they thought was the best opportunity to fund that system and I think what we are saying, at least the three of us, is we don't necessarily agree with that component. I mean we write letters of support for public transportation and expand those goals I just mentioned and I would be fine with that, but I don't think that's what this is asking. I don't think that's what the committee is asking us to do. De Weerd: Okay. Council, I'm looking for your direction on this. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I will make my -- excuse me. I'll make my statement that I did last week. I have no problem with it going before the legislature and doing as Councilman Rountree said, letting us have a choice, but, you know, local option sales tax is one of the options -- funding options, but this thing is saying that we are supporting that. To me, I'm not supporting it until -- until I see what -- our taxpayer support. I mean I'm representing the taxpayers of Meridian, not the elected public officials or the employees of entities. There is a lot of things in this I have real questions about. Another thing to throw out on the table, in my way of thinking, is you get an option sales tax for public transportation, next thing you do is get an option tax for something else and pretty soon people are just taxed to death. And they just raised the sales tax one cent, which to a lot of people that isn't much, but to a lot of other people it is quite a bit. So, I would have to have it reworded quite a bit. I don't want anything even said in the resolution that I'm supporting local option sales tax. De Weerd: Mr. Baird. Baird: Madam Mayor, as I reviewed the materials from Valley Ride, it appeared to me that the recommendation of the committee was merely what Councilmember Bird is saying is that they back the legislation, not that they back the tax. I saw a disconnect between that committee recommendation and the draft resolution that you have in front of you. I might take some direction from you tonight -- I took the opportunity to request a draft copy of the legislation, because you really shouldn't be approving something unless you have seen it. What I could do next week is have our office bring forward a simple resolution that attaches the draft legislation and expresses your desire that that be put before the legislature, so that the voters could have the opportunity to choose. From what I have heard, the Council would like to leave out any mention of support for the tax itself. Is that the type of direction that you might be giving your legal staff? Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 9 of 68 Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: If I could just address -- again, this is a resolution that's been placed in front of us. We don't have to take it up. There is no motion on the table. We can have no comment on this specific resolution. And if we want to consider an additional support mechanism for some proposed legislation which will change a hundred times between now and January, we can certainly look at doing that. But I don't think we need to take an action on this item and -- unless someone has a motion to second. And we can take this up in the future. De Weerd: Well, Council, I don't want to use staff time on something that you are not interested in seeing. So, only -- I would ask staff to bring something back if that would be your request, so -- okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Mr. Borton. Borton: I would make such a request. B. Mayor's Office 1. Proclamation for Recovery Awareness Day: De Weerd: Okay. Item 6-B under Mayor's office, we do have a proclamation here for Recovery Awareness Day. The city will be holding a celebration for recovery awareness next Tuesday, September 26th, at 8:00 a.m., at the Meridian Police Department. Everyone is welcome to attend and with that said I will read the proclamation. Whereas substance abuse disorders are a serious and treatable health problem and as many as 63 percent of Americans say that addiction has had an impact on them at some point in their lives, whether it's the addiction of a friend or a family member or an experience such as their own personal addiction and whereas assessing our citizens' need for addiction treatment and referring them to appropriate treatment and their family members to support services as a critical and crucial step in helping people realize that recovery is possible and treatment is accessible. And whereas the people who are in recovery from alcohol and drug use disorders, as well as those who have helped them obtain treatment, helps to overcome barriers by educating the community about the benefits of treatment and affirming the goal that all people with alcohol and drug use disorders should have access to treatment services and whereas to help achieve this goal the City of Meridian Mayor's Anti-drug Coalition invite all residents of Idaho to participate in recovery awareness. Therefore, I, Tammy de Weerd, Mayor of the City of Meridian, do hereby proclaim Tuesday, September 26, as Recovery Awareness Day in Meridian, Idaho, and call upon the people of the Treasure Valley to join the voices for recovery now. Dated this 19th day of September, 2006. I Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 10 of 68 will say that this is a huge challenge for our community to dispel the stigma and the discrimination that people on treatment have and that we need to embrace them and give them hope, because they, too, want to be functional members and contributing to their community and it is our responsibility as citizens as well to help them in that process and be supportive. So, thank you for allowing me to proclaim Recovery Awareness Day. De Weerd: Item 6-C is our Planning Department, Transportation Task Force Project Recommendations. I'll turn this over to Steve Siddoway. C. Planning Department 1. Transportation Task Force Proiect Recommendations to ACHD: 2. Discussion of Cross Access at the Southwest Corner of Meridian Road and Overland Road: 3. Request to Waive the Normal Transmittal Review Period for Ada County Comprehensive Plan by Ada County: Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. You should have received in your packets a series of lists of transportation priorities. The Transportation Task Force has met monthly over the course of this year, discussed several topics, including access management, 20-26 Chinden widening, ACHD's prioritization process, Communities In Motion, and other things. Much of the discussion recently has centered around our many transportation needs. As you know, we have many, and the list of projects from the Transportation Task Force includes a total of 32 different projects. They include a mix of projects from projects that would be ITD's responsibility for state highways or the interstate, ACHD road projects, and intersection projects. So, in your packet you should have received a master priority list that includes all -- all projects, colored by their type, and, then, there would be -- there were three other summary tables that looked independently at each of the different types of projects. Last week on September 14th the Transportation Task Force members discussed refinement to the draft list that we had created together and approved the priority list before you tonight. ACHD and Compass need to receive a final approved transportation priority list by the end of October and we bring this forward tonight for your consideration and approval. If you would like I could go over each of what the top five priorities would be in each of the categories based on this list. For ITD projects the priorities would be, as no surprise, our top priority is Ten Mile Interchange and is and remains our top priority over all with all projects. Second would be the widening of Chinden Road. Third Linder overpass. Fourth the State Highway 16 extension down McDermott. And, Fifth, the rebuilding of the Meridian Road Interchange. Rountree: Madam Mayor, if I might interrupt Steve. Steve, could you tell me what segments of Chinden you're talking about? Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 11 of 68 Siddoway: Everything that passes through our area of impact, which would be just short of Eagle Road to McDermott in particular. Now, our current area -- our current area of impact, while it's not been fully negotiated, does extend a little further west, but we are looking regionally at Chinden as a corridor from Eagle Road all the way into Caldwell and this is both support for Meridian specific area and in another sense the corridor as a whole as a priority that we recognize as a regional need. Rountree: Another question -- or it can wait until you're done, but -- Siddoway: Sure. Rountree: -- I have a question about project scope, the rationale for the priorities, given what some of these are going to cost, do you finish number two before you do number three and number four before you do number five? Or do you do incremental portions of all of these, because you're talking about mega millions of dollars. Siddoway: The phasing of them would be up to the individual agency. I don't know that we are proposing that they finish two before starting three. We are saying these are our priorities in order and however they can program them, please, do so. De Weerd: And, Mr. Rountree, as you well know, the Ten Mile interchange, that we hope the Linder overpass, certainly Highway 16 and Meridian Road interchange rebuild are part of unfunded GARVEE projects and so we are hoping that -- and certainly will be advocating for the continued funding of the GARVEE projects. The Chinden Road widening is something that staff and myself have been involved in working the developments that are going up along that and have a working group that has been put together with Eagle, Star, Nampa, Caldwell, ACHD, and two of the Canyon County highway districts. I think Nampa Highway District and -- Siddoway: Canyon County Highway District. De Weerd: Yeah. So, we are working on how we can expedite the priority of that with ITD and through appropriations requests as well. So, that's a separate focus group. Certainly all five of those projects are critical to the transportation system in and around our community, but some we hope are taken care of through GARVEE and others we are actively involved. Rountree: I guess my comment, Madam Mayor, is to make sure that what priority -- what the word priority means as defined. Siddoway: And if this body would like to give me some -- Rountree: That's true with any of these, but with this in particular given the strain on the resources. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 12 of 68 Siddoway: Yeah. De Weerd: It's a good question, Mr. Rountree, and, you know, this is one of the exercises that is required of us by the Compass and -- and from our transportation agencies as well. So, it is a process that we go through. We haven't had that specific discussion, even though we do have stats from both ITD and ACHD, it's not at this level that those discussions have developed. Siddoway: And the transportation agencies have their own prioritization processes, looking at accident rates and vehicle miles traveled and many many other criteria, one of which is the local jurisdiction's priority. So, our action here tonight becomes one of the elements of their prioritization. Rountree: Thank you. Siddoway: For ACHD road projects, the downtown split corridor, Ten Mile Road, Franklin Road, Pine Avenue, and East 3rd connection in downtown. As top five intersection priorities, Linder-Ustick, Meridian-Ustick, Linder-Pine, Meridian-McMillan, and linder-McMillan. All of which are currently four-way stops and needing signalization. I should point out there are others in need, such as Ten Mile and Black Cat -- or sorry. Ten Mile and Franklin. Thank you. And Victory and Eagle. You don't see those in here, because they are programmed for construction this coming year and this prioritization is for the next round of the five-year work program, which will be 2008 through 2012. So, those 2007 projects that are already funded for construction do not show up in this priority list. That's why you also don't see projects like Locust Grove overpass, because it is funded and should be under construction before the end of this year. I would give a general observation that the Transportation Task Force to prioritize those projects that had an impact on adding capacity where there was significant congestion above those other projects that were primarily focused by beautification or similar benefits. The task force recognizes that there are so many needs that they cannot all be funded immediately and we know that a list of 32 projects is more than can be funded, but they do want them all on the radar screen. So, rather than just sending here is our top five, we will be sending the full list, so they understand the magnitude of our needs and request that they consider them in the priority order as proposed before you tonight and with that I would stand for any questions. De Weerd: Thank you, Steve. Any questions from Council? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Steve, this is -- it's an awesome list and I appreciate the work of you and the task force. A couple of questions. I notice the downtown split corridor listed as the Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 13 of 68 number one ACHD priority. I think to the extent that the City of Meridian can remain consistent and steadfast with that desire that in my mind remains absolutely priority number one without question, hesitation, or doubt. There is reference in the description listed that the Linder Road widening was delayed or requested to be delayed to try to speed up the downtown split corridor. Is that -- is there any computation for that type of concession? And, if so, is there any risk to the city that if we put an item as number one, that it might change and we might flop them? Siddoway: That was an action that was taken by City Council last year. So, that has already happened and the calculation was one that ACHD did and that we followed very closely as we went through. Early drafts of last year's five year work program showed the Linder widening moving out into an unfunded year and while it had previously had a funded year, the spit corridor did not -- initially moved into a funded year. We questioned that, they went back and looked at it and, then, it did get a funded year with moving into -- it was split into two phases. As phase one began design immediately, it's under design right now, with right of way purchase in '08, construction in '09 and we are suggesting that that now move up to '08, so we can get those improvements to the intersection at Main-Meridian-Waltman before the Ten Mile overpass area goes under construction for the new interchange. And so, in short, they did move the split corridor into a funded year, because we were -- and it's the same funded year that Linder had been in before it was agreed to swap those. Borton: Okay. De Weerd: And we had met with ACHD staff making sure our timing schedules with the construction on Locust Grove overpass, phase one of the downtown transportation plan, and Ten Mile interchange, to make sure that not anyone of those projects are going on at the same time, because it would be an absolute nightmare if that were to happen. So, our staff and their staffs are working together to really coordinate that and keep a tight eye on how those projects are building out. Borton: Madam Mayor -- and I notice that the recommendation is that a tie goes to the downtown split corridor plan, so to speak. You make reference to the extent they conflict, that the split corridor plan occur and be constructed or be done before Ten Mile. Siddoway: Ten Mile. That's our recommendation. Yes. Borton: I think that's fantastic. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions or comments? Council, in order to get this off to Compass I will need a recommendation to approve this transportation priority list. And, no, the color coded is new this year. It really made it a lot easier to read and make obvious where our priorities are in the different categories. Wardle: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 14 of 68 De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: The only thing that would make it more obvious is if we sent some streaming video of the traffic congestion, which is available online, so -- De Weerd: We will work on that. Wardle: With that, Madam Mayor, I would move that we approve the Transportation Task Force recommendations to ACHD. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the list that is in front of you. Any discussion? Other than another great reason to provide public transportation. Mrs. Smith, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. You know -- and that comment was prompted by Councilman Borton's, but, you know, it is said with sincerity. We need many different approaches to solve some of the transportation challenges in this valley. It's not going to -- it's not going to be one approach, it has to be a multi-faceted approach at different solutions. So, thank you, Steve. We appreciate the detail that you have added to this Transportation Task Force. It's a great process. I know Chief Bowers is also on that. Councilman Bird. And it's a great team. So, thank you so much. De Weerd: Okay. Item 6-0. Oh. Sorry. I was glossing over you, Anna. Canning: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I wanted to bring a situation to your attention, just because I know what your expectations are regarding this piece of property and it looked like it was going a different way. So, I just wanted to make sure you were aware of it. The situation is that the southwest corner of Meridian and Overland you recently approved a right-in, right-out only connection to Meridian Road, with a requirement that drive aisle head immediately due west. This is through the Walgreen's property, so that it provides kind of -- collects all the traffic going to the west and is able to get it going southbound on Meridian Road. The developer immediately to the west -- the property was picked up by Brighton Corporation and their plans are for a larger box, so -- they continue that drive aisle over, but it will dead end in a building. And I know this is not what we talked about, so I asked them to come and present the alternatives. This one shows the cross-access going through. They would need to, basically, ramp this portion of the cross-access, because there is a significant grade change and they are not proposing to level this area. They are doing other things and that's why Matt from Brighton corporation is here -- Matt Smith, excuse me, is here to talk about the other work they are doing in this area to improve cross-access and I Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 15 of 68 think it's -- they have gone to great lengths to really improve the safety of this intersection and I appreciate that fact. So, they would prefer to do this layout, but they are prepared to meet the requirements of the original approval and have the cross- access at the two locations, up at the north end of the site and, then, at the mid point. De Weerd: They can always move the building towards the road. Just thought I would give you a creative suggestion. Canning: I will -- if you -- De Weerd: Would you like Matt to-- Canning: If you wouldn't mind, Mr. Smith can better explain all the things they are doing, both on the north and the south side of Overland there. De Weerd: Okay. Smith: Madam Mayor, Council Members, good to be here tonight. I want to just share a couple ideas. We, too, like connectivity at Brighton corporation and if you recall at Ustick and Eagle when we had this opportunity, the property was much deeper and actually donated a full backage road back there and built a road and put a signal back there. We have a couple of challenges on this piece of property -- well, we can still see the property. I need a -- look at this. De Weerd: Don't point that in your eye. Smith: Does that work? Bird: Yeah. It's supposed to. It's on the top there. Smith: Maybe the battery is out. Canning: Little red button on top? De Weerd: Here you go. Smith: The property isn't quite as deep here. It's actually significantly, substantially shallower than this one. So by doing this, having a backage road back there, this would be the ideal location in this area, but with the size of development it just won't work in this area. So, that's one of the challenges. The other challenge is if we continue to do this, obviously, we want to go all the way to Stoddard and to bring traffic a half mile through a parking lot is -- if you ask most traffic engineers -- a pretty dangerous situation. You don't want to do that. You really want to either have a full road -- you don't want to be moving people through a parking lot like that. So, if we can go back to the aerial for a second, Anna. So, the area that Brighton has picked up are these two properties right here and as Anna mentioned, there is significant topography challenges Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 16 of 68 here. This is much higher than this right there. So, if we bring this access, which is about right there to there, it will dead end and that's fine, we can do that, but our user would prefer not have that. Plus there are some safety concerns there with their operations, because of what happens. So, as Brighton looked at this whole thing we said, okay, what can we do along this whole area to improve safety and connectivity. We said, well, the first and biggest issue is right here at Roaring Springs. Getting out of -- you have been there with your families -- is very difficult to do and it's a big safety hazard. So, negotiations as we have talked with ACHD about this whole plan, we suggested moving this over to the quarter mile mark and putting a traffic signal here, which would benefit our property here, it would allow safe exiting and entering into Roaring Springs, as well as bringing connectivity to the future development that's going to occur here. In addition, if you see this yellow mark here, we have spoken with Boondocks and they have -- excuse me -- spoken with Roaring Springs and they have agreed to grant an easement to Boondocks, so that they can use this to get out as well in the event this is a difficult location to get out. So, during the off season times this will be open, so the signal can be used. Brighton has agreed to go ahead and pay for this signal, as well as the reorganization of Roaring Springs Parking lot to make this much safer of an area. In addition, we have spoken with these property owners, as well with White-Leasure and what we have been able to do is been able to -- if you can put the site plan back up there for a second, Anna. We have been able to agree on making these access points all line up. So, here -- where we had access points here and here, they have agreed to line up altogether, so this will control a lot of the cross-over of traffic on Overland, as well as here Roaring Springs will do away with that one and we will have connectivity here. So, this proposal brings connectivity only to these two, because this is where connectivity will be proposed with these two, it brings connectivity to the user on this side of Overland, which is called Bowden and, then, it brings connectivity to Roaring Springs, as well as connectivity to this westerly property. This signaled entrance here will also serve as the entrance of the future development over here, which is most likely to be, you know, some kind of retail development as well. So, overall, we would like to -- if -- well, let me just back up a little bit. All these agreements are in place. The only one we would need to work -- finalize right here, the White- Leasure on this area, and I would say if we can work this out with White-Leasure and make this area work where we have connectivity together, if we can work that out -- I have been working with Walgreens and White-Leasure to make this happen, if we can make that happen, we would request that this connectivity here be removed as a requirement. And I stand for questions if there are any questions. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Other than why don't you just move the building towards the road. Smith: Move this up like that? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Bird: You don't want parking behind it. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 17 of 68 Smith: I'm sorry? Bird: You don't want parking behind it. Smith: Yeah. That's just very difficult to access. These retailers have studied that a lot. Many have tried that. In large, large, large cities perhaps it will work. In these areas these retailers just will not do that. Bird: There is not one big box store -- Smith: I'm sorry, Councilman Bird? Bird: Not one big box store, it's a -- it's more than one retail outlet? Smith: This right here is just one retail store. Bird: Oh. Okay. Smith: It is just one. De Weerd: If I can find areas other than large, large, large cities that make it work, would that make a difference? Smith: Here they just won't do it, so -- it just makes the most sense for this layout to happen this way. This road is going to be widened. By bringing people all the way around I think you create other issues as well, just being able to have it here. Visibility also is a very important element from this area. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I agree with -- if you can get White-Leasure to go through down there on the north end. To me that works out better than -- that way they only have to go through a small part -- that development only goes through a small part of the parking lot before they get on -- Smith: Right. Bird: Or if you bring it through here they got to go down the side. Smith: This really increases the safety of the drivers here, as well as the potential drivers here, and especially Roaring Springs. It really -- this whole corridor becomes much safer with this layout. And believe me, Madam Mayor, we would love to do that, but the depth of this thing is just such a shallow thing -- I don't know if you would want to Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 18 of 68 have a full road that way, even if you could with the layout, just because your depth is so short, so shallow there. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Comments? Okay. Bird: Getting the signal in there takes care of two problems. De Weerd: Oh, yeah. It's difficult getting out of Sandman and JB's and that gas station, I would imagine that that would continue west and access at that first access point that lines up with your development; is that correct? Smith: I believe this one will remain, because that's in use currently. What we were able to do is the people who had rights here, we were able to move them further to the west -- farther to the west, as well as White-Leasure's. He has a permitted full access here as well, but by moving these -- all these accesses farther to the west it keeps them out of the stacking lane and it just cleans this up as well. So, all these owners have been involved, they have been very good to work with. It's taken some negotiation, but, overall, it seems to be a great plan for the entire area. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Is this -- I'm just curious. Is this on the slope, on that decline right there? Smith: Yeah. As you come in here -- this is the least severe topography right here. Right here you will come in and you will go down a little bit to enter Walgreen's. Borton: When you're on Overland heading east, though, were you headed -- are you well into the descent down the hill as you try and turn in? Smith: No. Right here -- this line here is the property line. Up here you're above the hill and, then, the hill falls right there. But it is less severe here than especially here. This would be a huge ramp of up to 12 to 15 feet that would be -- I don't know how much this would be used even if that large ramp were used -- were placed there as well. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: If, in fact, the agreements are in place or about to be in place, I would applaud Brighton for doing the negotiations to get that done and once we had those agreements run through our legal staff, I would be happy to entertain a possible solution, but I'm not going to entertain anything as it relates to changing the access until I see that those agreements are in place, because sometimes they -- they are fleeky at times. So, not that what they have done is a bad thing, they have done an excellent Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 19 of 68 thing, and I think it really solves some future problems with ACHD's development out there, but I'd just like the assurance that those are in place and I'm sure ACHD would as well and they advance the design for that improvement. So, with the receipt of those, I would be okay with entertaining their request. De Weerd: Okay. Any further comment, Anna? Canning: Yes. The applicant would need to -- or White-Leasure would need to modify their development agreement just from Mr. Smith's information. So, I guess once you have those -- it sounds like Council, once you have those other agreements in place, would like a miscellaneous applicant for a DA modification. And I see nods. Smith: Of White-Leasure's? Canning: Yes. Bird: That would be my -- Smith: Just -- Madam Mayor, if I may speak. ACHD, that is exactly what they have required, is that we -- obviously, they don't want to do any of these things until we have those agreements in place, which is just fine. One thing that probably would help us, so we wouldn't have to come back, if this says if, indeed, we were able to get those and ACHD were to sign off, that it would be allowed, as opposed to having to come again and request that. De Weerd: Does that sound reasonable? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I believe that they would have to do something to modify the Findings of Facts, so though I could agree that it's reasonable, I don't feel that I can agree without having some process to modify the record. I leave it to Ted or Anna to answer that. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, for White-Leasure I know we tied them to a concept plan that this differs from. So, we definitely need to modify that development agreement. For the other properties, I have not done the research, but I don't believe they have development agreements on them. For the changes to the parking lot design for Roaring Springs, they will just need a certificate of zoning compliance. That's just a staff level. De Weerd: So, it doesn't sound like this applicant would need to come back, just White- Leasure. Canning: Yes, ma'am, Members of the Council, this was approved and annexed with a development agreement that was dropped in 2004. Mr. Nary did the research, apparently, and the Queensland Acres development agreement was dropped. So, it has zoning and no development agreement at this time. Yeah. I was surprised, too. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 20 of 68 De Weerd: Okay. So, Mr. Baird, what do we need to do from Council at this point to indicate support? Baird: Madam Mayor, I think you have given staff direction and the representative here from Brighton direction that they -- to added to the negotiation list, they have to help White-Leasure bring in their modification of the development agreement. So, what I'm hearing you say is if we bring that forward and everything's in place, that you take action on that with the proper documents in front of you. So, I don't think any motion tonight is necessary. De Weerd: Does that give you what you -- Rountree: I'm more concerned about folks here, that they understand what they need to do without some false expectations. I think we can make it work. I guess that's what we are saying. Smith: Okay. Rountree: Fairly straight forward. Smith: So, my understanding is just -- Madam Mayor and Council Members, just to be very clear, we need to help White-Leasure -- White-Leasure needs to bring in and modify that curb cut, moving it, basically, on our property, but that as far as that access -- is it at that point that you will remove that requirement or is the requirement removed as that occurs? Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we are talking chicken and egg here. I think that the planning staff can sort of give you the road map of the miscellaneous application for that development agreement change, but it is currently part of the development agreement that White-Leasure has a cross-access easement, so that would definitely have to be removed before any of these changes are to be considered by the Council. It could all be considered at the same time. Smith: I see. Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: And to the extent, like Councilman Rountree brought up, that we can secure the agreements for the access -- the cross-access -- excuse me -- the alignment to the properties to the north, we see that as -- well, that's -- Smith: And, Madam Mayor, City Council Members, that's a requirement from ACHD. So, they will not let that through until that occurs. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 21 of 68 De Weerd: Okay. Smith: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, if I kind of disappear in the middle of one of these items -- my mother-in-law and sister-in-law are arriving from Holland and they were going to stop by here to say hello. So, it's not anything you said, I'm just going to step out for a moment. Okay. Item C-3. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I believe you received or had an e- mail forwarded to you with -- from Mr. Pete Friedman with Ada County asking the City of Meridian to waive the 45 day review period for their new Ada County Comprehensive Plan. We have been on the steering committee since the inception and have actively participated in that. They had a draft out to us in July, so as staff we felt we didn't need the other 45 days. We have already provided our comments. Since that request came this morning, they were not able to get one of the city's to agree to it, but if the City of Meridian would still like to support the process the Ada County has gone through to this point in taking in all our opinions from the beginning, you can still do that or you can just not do that, because it's going to end up they are going to have to wait the 45 days anyway. That wasn't very clear. So, if you would like to -- Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, what -- staffs happy with it? I mean they have-- Canning: We have provided our comments already. We felt we had adequate time to comment on it. We don't need the 45 days. Bird: I don't -- I don't see any problem with it, then. If they feel comfortable. De Weerd: Okay. So-- Canning: If you could take a vote, then, I will just let them know that the Council voted to waive the 45 days -- De Weerd. Okay. Canning: If that's the way the vote ends. Rountree: Madam Mayor, my vote will be swayed somewhat by Ada County's timeliness in working on the applications we have before them as well and they were unclear what their time line was going to be the last time I asked and I understand they Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 22 of 68 are busy, but so are we. If we give them 45 days here, might they give us a couple weeks on ours? I don't know. Canning; Madam Mayor, Members of the -- Rountree: If there is some way we can request a waiver. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, when we noticed that this was going up, we called immediately and said, hey, by the way, is our area of city impact amendment on there and we were told that the file had not yet been opened. We have requested a very specific timeline on when that file will be addressed. It could not be addressed with the Comprehensive Plan, they would have had to have noticed last week, so we are at least six months from whenever the planning and zoning commission takes action on the Comprehensive Plan. De Weerd: There is the cheery news for the day. And I will keep you -- we will nag them until we get a specific timeline and I will make sure that the Mayor is aware of whether or not they meet those timelines. Rountree: Well, I guess maybe we could do better. But it's not going to buy us anything. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Understanding that there is another city yet to be named that is unwilling to grant the waiver of the 45 day review period, but to the extent that the City of Meridian continues to be, always has been, and always will be at the forefront of cooperation of planning throughout this valley and be a leader, a pillar for other cities to follow with regards to any opportunity to work hand in hand as one region to facilitate a greater good, I would move that we waive the 45 day period with Ada County understanding that that we do so in eager anticipation of their continued cooperation with the City of Meridian and their expeditious work on our applications, maybe finding the file and opening it and our receiving word of our vote. Rountree: I will second that gentlemanly approach. Bird: Question, Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Discussion. The maker of the motion -- now, that's -- we are just waiving it for the Ada County Comprehensive Plan; right? Borton: Yes. Correct. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 23 of 68 Bird: Okay. Not for everything. Borton: No, sir. De Weerd: No. I guess I would ask Dean to, please, submit that language to the planning director so she can appropriately communicate that to Ada County. If there is no further discussion, I will ask Mrs. Smith to, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. Canning: Yes, Madam Mayor, I was going to ask how you wanted me to memorialize that very eloquent speech, so -- Rountree: With a ribbon. Canning: Okay. I will do that. De Weerd: A scroll would be -- a red ribbon. Rountree: Maybe with a watch. D. Parks Department 1. Discussion of Proposed Fencing Changes at the Meridian Youth Baseball Complex: De Weerd: For our next -- our parks department, Mr. Strong. We have a lively group, Mr. Strong. Strong: Kind of hard to follow all that. Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I have an update for you to consider tonight on construction that's progressing on the Meridian Youth Baseball complex and I hope at this point in time that you have all had the opportunity to drive by on Ustick Road and see that there is progress being made there on that particular project. But in a recent meeting with representatives from Meridian Youth Baseball and McKlvain construction, the general on the project, one of the issues that came up is the fencing of the ball fields, which is -- we are at that point in construction where that's one of the next things we will be doing on the larger field that you see -- this is, actually, north is this direction. So, these are -- the two large fields on the eastern portion of the complex. The reason I'm here tonight is when you originally approved this concept design we discussed installing removable outfield fences on about -- that would start about here and go north this way, so that in the off season for Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 24 of 68 baseball it would make the soccer fields that are currently being used there available for soccer play, Optimist football practice, or those kind of events. That was a couple years ago. And since that time with progress on the PAL soccer complex on North Ten Mile and some of the -- the opening of the other parks for more practice fields in town, the need for that additional play space or practice space doesn't seem to be as important as it was back at that time. So, in looking at construction costs and that, what's being proposed and what I'm here to discuss with you tonight, is the installation of permanent outfield fencing, rather than temporary outfield fencing. For a couple of reasons. Probably, the most important reason is just the maintenance of the putting them up and down and the wear and tear on fencing as you do that and a current example of that -- apparently Heritage Middle School has removable outfield fencing that Meridian Youth Baseball is currently involved with and in just the short time that that school has been open and they have been working with those fences, they already see considerable wear and tear on that fencing as they take it up and put it down and, of course, the other issue as we develop the park is storage of that fencing when not in use. It doesn't change our ability to program those fields for use, because we can -- we can, actually, put full soccer field inside the outfield fence. The other issue that came up that was not discussed the last time we looked at it was out -- there is about, I think, a ten foot strip that's kind of a warning track as you go -- as you're headed out to get an outfield fly, it's kind of a soft warning that you're about to hit the fence and that's a permanent installation that goes in and so that if we took the fencing out that outfield track area would still be there, so it really makes more sense to just move any fields that we need in the future inside the fence. So, what I need from you is your approval to make that kind of minor change in how we proceed with the installation of the fencing on that property and I want to point out very importantly that it costs less to do it this way. It also costs less over time to maintain. So, there is kind of prudent use of public money here, too, in making this change, which I think is very important. De Weerd: Thank you. Strong: With that I will stand for questions. De Weerd: I'm glad you got that pointer to work, just for the record. Strong: I pushed the button -- I don't know. De Weerd: Too bad he already left. Okay. Council, do you have any questions? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I think it's a great idea. I think we need to put it in permanently. Temporary fences are maintenance nightmares. Strong: I agree. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 25 of 68 De Weerd: It sounded good at the time, didn't it, Keith? Bird: Uh? De Weerd: It sounded good at the time. Bird: Yeah. It did sound good at the time, but we didn't plan on having that nice 30 acre park out there for soccer. De Weerd: And, Council, that is the reason this is in front of you, because that was part of the discussion and we didn't want to make any changes without Council's knowledge and opportunity to comment. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Certainly I agree. I think it's a -- permanent fencing is -- would be -- certainly could cost less and would maintain much better. I think it's a good idea. I'm interested to hear about -- not at this time, but at a later time how you can layout some soccer fields within that outfield area. Bird: Absolutely no problem at all. Wardle: And also understanding that the warning track's important and while you see some of videos on ESPN with people going through the wall, it looks like it hurts, so I would certainly support the permanent fencing idea and continue with construction. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I agree. I think that we were talking temporary at the point in time when we had limited facilities. Now with the expansion of the soccer complex and this, I know of fields that we have in Meridian, not necessarily in the Parks and Recreation Department that have temporary fences that have never been moved. So, I think this is a right move, so -- De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Borton? Borton: Madam Mayor, I agree with the fellow Council members. The fact that it saves money is definitely an added perk. I'm also saying that I think, Doug, you were looking for some direction with regards to the warning track on the inclusion of that, incorporated with permanent fencing? Strong: We can certainly add that. That was not discussed when we talked about temporary fencing, but that is fairly typical of these larger fields where they are headed Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 26 of 68 out, usually at full speed, so it is kind of an important consideration. The smaller field you don't have that kind of play, where it's less of an issue. Borton: It makes sense, Madam Mayor, at least for the large fields, to include the warning track, which you referenced with the permanent fencing. De Weerd: Okay. I don't think we need a motion, we just needed to have the discussion. It sounds like Council is favorable and if there isn't any opposition, we will just go ahead and move forward. Council, any issues? Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: With the chance to do so publicly, again, thanking you and Trace. Tell Trace to continue with the hard work in getting this project going quickly. We appreciate it, so -- Strong: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Rountree: I second that. De Weerd: I third it. You can never say you come to this Council and they make decisions before they get here, because this is public discussion at its finest. E: Public Works J. Award Bid I Approve Contract for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Biosolids Improvement Project with The Ewing Company: De Weerd: Okay. We have one last item under Department Reports. That's our Public Works Department. We have removed item J from the Consent Agenda and it is in front of you right now. I'll ask Len for comments. Grady: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you have received the package for award of contract for 10.3 million dollars for the bio solids expansion at the wastewater treatment plant. That award would go to Ewing Construction. We are a little bit concerned about budget and with this budget ending, we would like award of that contract conditional and conditional pending a budget amendment the first part of next year, which is a couple weeks away. So, we'd like to push forward as quickly as possible with award and, then, just hold final signature until we complete a budget amendment. That budget amendment would be two to three hundred thousand dollars. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 27 of 68 De Weerd: Okay. Len, have you talked with Ewing Company and are they fine with that? Grady: I haven't, but it's -- we normally allow ourselves quite a bit of time before actual award, so I think we are ahead of that time frame. And, then, additionally, they normally take about ten days to get contracts back to us. So, I'm thinking first part of next year, October -- first Tuesday in October they will really be lucky to have the contracts back to us. So, this is really just in interest of public disclosure. De Weerd: Oh, this is budget year, not-- Grady: That's correct. De Weerd: -- calendar year. Grady: Sorry. De Weerd: I thought, wow, we are really missing some weeks there. Okay. Council, any comments about this request? Rountree: Madam Mayor, no comments about the request, but I just want to point out that this is an excellent bid that we have received. The engineering estimate was for 13 million dollars. So, it's not like you have gone to a sale and saved 13 million dollars, but, in fact, the estimate that we received is a good one and it's far below what we anticipated. De Weerd: And I guess, Len, to add to that compliment, is that the next bidder was like 14,000 -- Bird: Sixteen thousand. De Weerd: Sixteen thousand dollars away. So, the bid project -- or bid package was very well written and we appreciate that work. Grady: Yeah. It was very tight. I think that's less -- that's around 1.5 percent difference. So, we are pretty proud of that, so -- De Weerd: Very good. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Could I bring up -- you know, actually, what we do on budget amendments, usually have always done in the past is we do it once a year and it's towards the end of the fiscal year. So, what -- normally you get with your liaison and do it and, then, it Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 28 of 68 comes before the Council in August. We usually take care of all that stuff -- that deal. So, I don't know why we have to -- this is on a recommendation. I mean the paperwork and stuff isn't going to be done before October 1 st anyway. Grady: No. I think it's more just in the interest of public disclosure that by awarding it this year -- this year's budget we are around, you know, a couple hundred thousand dollars shy. We do -- we can make a budget amendment October -- first part of October and make that difference up. Finance has closed the budget amendment for this year, so -- Bird: And another thing, Len, that I look at on it -- and I -- we do need to disclose it, but that's not a year contract. That's going to be, what, two years? Grady: Yeah. Bird: Two years. So, you're getting into fiscal '08 budget. Okay. I just want to point that out, that we normally do our budget amendments at the end of the fiscal year. De Weerd: And that's correct, Mr. Bird, but as we know of the difference between cost and budget, we like to have Council's actions just to okay that overage and it is taken care of in one major motion, but we like to have them happen as they happen, that that made sense. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: That's Item No.1 0 on our agenda this evening. Bird: Yeah. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: If there is no further discussion, I would move that we approve a 10.3 million dollar bio solids expansion to the wastewater plant to the Ewing company, recognizing that there will be a budget amendment in our next budget cycle. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second awarding the bid to Ewing company. Is there any further discussion? Okay. Mrs. Smith, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 29 of 68 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. That item was removed from the Consent Agenda, it was the only item removed. Item 8: Tabled from September 5, 2006: FP 06-038 Request for Final Plat approval for 5 single-family residential building lots on 1.06 acres in an R- 8 zone for WindsonQ Subdivision NO.2 by Landmark Engineering & Planning - north of Ustick Road and west of Linder Road: De Weerd: So, I will move to Item No.8, tabled from September 5th, FP 06-038, and ask Anna if she has any comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we do have a letter from the applicant on Wind song stating that they are in agreement with the conditions of approval. De Weerd: Okay. And they have accepted condition number nine? Canning: Yes, ma'am, they have. De Weerd: Okay. Council? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve FP 06-038. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8. Mrs. Smith, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES, Item 9: FP 06-041: Request for Final Plat approval for 26 single-family residential building lots on 4.17 acres in an R-8 zone for Paramount Subdivision No. 14 by Paramount Development, Inc. - west of Meridian Road and north of McMillan Road. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 30 of 68 De Weerd: Okay. Item No.9 is FP 06-041. It looks like the applicant is in agreement with the staff conditions? No, it's not. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is Paramount Subdivision No. 14 and it's this area right at the center of the spine road that comes into the -- the school lot and it is an alley-loaded product, so you can see the two alleys here and the road down the center of it. For the Paramount preliminary plat they -- the applicant requested both detached and attached dwellings along alleys, but they did not specify in the preliminary plat where those different units would be, they just asked for a mix of them. They had different standards for the attached versus detached. Given the width of these units, one would anticipate that they would be detached. The attached units were approved with a much narrower width, 27 feet versus 36 feet, I believe, so what has happened is Public Works has asked for their standard five foot public utilities drainage and irrigation easements on the interior side lot lines for areas where the structures will not be spanning the lot lines and the applicant would -- does not want to do that, because they haven't determined exactly how those attached units may sit on those lots yet. They are allowed to have up to four dwellings attached, so four, then, three, then, two, then, two, then, four, however they want it, but there would never be five dwellings creating in one structure. So, staff -- as I said, Public Works staff is looking for that -- what they call the PUTE easement. We did work up some language that may be acceptable -- I had forgotten to run this by Mr. Walker, but I can -- I'll read it now -- graphically depict a five foot PUTE easement along interior lot lines, not being spanned by structures prior to signature on the final plat. That's the one that's in there now. Or submit a CZC for each structure. You will be required as part of that approval to record a five foot PUTE easement along interior lot lines not being spanned by structures prior to occupancy. So, this seemed to meet both needs, but it means that we will have to do a CZC for every structure. Now, a structure may have three or four dwellings, but we would be required to do a CZC for each structure as they go in on those. It could just be one dwelling also. De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to comment? If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Walker: Yes. Thank you. Madam Mayor and Council, Jay Walker representing Brighton Corporation, 12601 West Explorer Street, Suite 200, Boise. I think what Anna has proposed -- may I ask one question of Anna? Does a CZC -- remind me of -- of the process there and the timing, Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if you'd like me to. The certificate of zoning compliance is a staff level approval. It takes from one to two weeks. We are trying to get it back to one. It was up to two weeks for awhile, but we are trying to get it back to one. Walker: And that was my only concern. We are currently with the PUTE designation over some interior side lot drainage and utility easements. We are in an eight month laborious process to try to get those vacated on another subdivision and that was the Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 31 of 68 greatest fear, actually, to have to go through that laborious process, not knowing which are attached and which are detached at this point, until those lots are sold to our building team and they make that determination. I just at this point wanted to avoid that conflict and avoid that laborious arduous process of trying to relinquish those easements. So, if -- I would -- I guess I would prefer not to have this -- the request of a CZC as well, I mean if we could eliminate those side yard lot easements, interior lot line easements, that would be my preference. But if this is a happy medium and one which the Council and Madam Mayor request and require, then, I am definitely able to meet that demand. One week or two weeks is far better than eight months is what I'm saying. Wardle: Council, questions? Rountree: I think -- Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I don't know if there are any other issues -- any other conditions. That was the only one that you were -- Walker: Yeah. Councilman Rountree, that was -- we are in compliance with all of the other staff comments and conditions. Rountree: Thank you. Walker: Thank you. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'd like to hear from Mr. Len on -- regarding a Public Works view on this deal. I got some concerns on those right of ways -- easements. Grady: Councilman Bird, we have been -- we have tried to be consistent in requiring those drainage and utility easements. We have gone to the UCC and talked to the various utilities and although they are not used extensively, where they are required they are very very useful to these various utilities. It's one of those that we are -- they are difficult -- people don't like giving them, but one of these days in the future they are going to be very useful. If Council wishes to relax that, you know, I'm okay with that, I'm just trying to support what's required from the city engineer's standpoint, so -- they are also a drainage easement, so, you know, drainage coming down through those lots, you don't want permanent structures built on those in addition to the utility easement. Wardle: Thank you, Les. Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 32 of 68 Rountree: Mr. President,another question for Len along those same lines. Given that there would be, under the CZC -- it's hard to -- it sounds like a rock group. Under that condition there would be not necessarily uniformly spaced, but incrementally spaced in a development like this. Would that typically meet the requirements and a follow up to that is there a utility easement on the alley-loaded portion of that as well? Grady: To answer your first question, yes, we are all right with running in between the structures. We think that's fine and we believe that's a compromise that we can enforce. As far as an easement on the alleyway, I'd have to take a quick look. I can't say for certain. Rountree: Mr. President, maybe that's a question for the applicant, if they are aware of an easement required in the alleyway. Tough questions tonight. Walker: As I'm looking at the preliminary plat, there does not show any requirement of an easement along the alleyway. Rountree: Okay. Grady: Just a follow-up note. The preliminary plat did have the requirement for the PUTE. So, this is not a -- this is not a new issue, it's just to try to accommodate the attached structures. Rountree: Thank you. Wardle: Council? Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I would move that we request the final plat approval FP 06-041, with the condition that the CZC, as opposed to the PUTE -- Bird: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to require the easements to come forward as a condition of zoning compliance of the planning staff in the approval of Item 9. Mrs. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Rountree: Anna has -- wants a clarification I'm sure. Wardle: Anna, additional -- Canning: President Wardle, Members of the Council, I think perhaps I wasn't clear. What we were recommending is that you give them the option. If between now and Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 33 of 68 signature of the plat they are able to work with their builder team and determine where those attached units would be, we wanted to leave open the option that they show them on the plat, thereby, making it easier. So, if you could -- if you're comfortable with the wording I have provided, if you could reference that that would -- Wardle: To clarify the motion -- the maker of the motion referencing planning director's suggested language within this motion? Rountree: I agree with that. Bird: Second agrees. Wardle: And second agrees. Thank you. Please call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Public Hearing: Amendments for 2005/2006 Fiscal Year Budget: Wardle: Item No. 10 is Public Hearing on Amendments for 2005-2006 Fiscal Year Budget. I will begin with our finance director. Kilchenmann: Okay. You have before you a color-coded budget amendment and all these items we have discussed previously, so I'm not going to go over each item, unless there is a question. What we are doing is we are taking a budget of 89,315,371 dollars, amending it for 3,103,134 dollars, to arrive at an amended FY-06 budget of 92,418,505 dollars. And as we have noted through this process -- and you can see by the handout this is all not just strictly an addition of expense, but often expense offset by revenue. For example, for park impact fees, different grant revenue, some donations, et cetera. So, are there any questions? De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. I would need a motion to approve. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: It's a Public Hearing. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 34 of 68 De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry. Just trying to help the process. Is there anyone in the public who would like to testify on this item in front of us on the budget amendments? Okay. Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Bird: So moved, Mayor. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item No. 10. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Is there any discussion or do I have a motion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I believe we need to read the ordinance by title only and, then, we can pass it or- Item 11: Ordinance No. Year Budoet: 06-1264 : Amendments for 2005 I 2006 Fiscal De Weerd: Yes. I will move, then, to Item 11, Ordinance No. 06-1264. I will ask Mrs. Smith to read this ordinance by title only. Smith: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. We have -- and pardon me, I got ahead of myself here. Ordinance 1264, an ordinance of the City of Meridian, Idaho, amending Ordinance No. 05-1180, the appropriation ordinance for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2005, and ending September 30th, 2006, appropriating additional monies that are to be received by the City of Meridian, Idaho, in the sum of 3,103,134 dollars and allocating additional expenditures and providing an effective date. De Weerd: Thank you, Mrs. Smith. You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety? Thank you. Okay. Council? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve Ordinance 06-1264 with suspension of rules. Rountree: Second. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 35 of 68 De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 11. If there is no discussion, Mrs. Smith, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from September 12, 2006: MI 06-007 Request for Modification of the Development Agreement for Cherry Lane Christian Church for removal of the Conditional Use Permit requirement for construction north of Ten Mile Creek by Cherry Lane Christian Church - northwest corner of W. Franklin Road and N. Ten Mile Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 12 is a continued Public Hearing from September 12th on MI 06-007. Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Cherry Lane Christian Church project, located at the northwest corner of Ten Mile and Franklin. The project is currently zoned C-N. The applicant seeks to remove the requirement for detailed conditional use approval for development north of Ten Mile Creek. This is a development agreement modification. To support that request, they are presenting a concept of how that area will develop and I will -- this is the concept plan for the whole site. What they are asking for is just approval to develop this triangular portion without having to go through the detailed conditional use approval. The development in that area includes a gazebo that they received temporary use approval for for their grand opening. They would like to keep that there. And, then, just in general they are developing this as a park area for the church. It's kind of a rose garden and walking paths and landscaping and the gazebo and, then, it also has a caretaker dwelling for oversight of the area and for general oversight of the church property. So, they are asking for just this corner to be exempted. The rest of the property would still be subject to detailed conditional use approval at the time they would like to develop and to refresh your memory, the reason you did that is because at that time they -- they have had this kind of footprint for the structure, but they have not had any elevations to go along with it, and because they weren't able to provide those, Council asked that they seek detailed conditional use approval. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: Let's see. I think -- the staff is in general support of their request. We don't see any need to do the Conditional Use Permit for the area north of Ten Mile. If Council does decide to approve this request, if in your motion you could direct the legal department to draft an amendment to the development agreement, we would appreciate that. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Any questions for staff at this time? Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 36 of 68 Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Pardue: Steve Pardue, 1010 South Allante, Boise. De Weerd: Thank you. Pardue: BRS Architects is the applicant for Cherry Lane Christian Church and we are in full agreement with staffs recommendations at this time. De Weerd: Okay. Pardue: Open for questions. De Weerd: Mr. Rountree? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question on -- not the concept, but the plan we see before us has three points of access off of Ten Mile for that relatively small parcel and I'm not sure if that's what you intended to do and if you have agreement from ACHD, but it seems to me in trying to consolidate and minimize the points of access on some of those major arterials, that one ought to be sufficient. So, what is the concept with that? Pardue: Councilman Rountree, that the northeast corner property is actually a property that's subject to purchase by the City of Meridian to be used as a future well site and so that's, actually, proposed access specifically for that well site. Rountree: So, that is an individual lot up there? Pardue: It is. Rountree: Okay. Pardue: And the other two access points below that -- this other one is primarily for public and church use to access the park. And, then, the third access, the triangular area below that, is, actually, for access to a maintenance building and bus parking. And so that's more an accessory function specifically for larger vehicles whereby those were not intended to be mixed with public vehicles. It's a limited use. Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council? Okay. Thank you. Pardue: Thank you. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 37 of 68 De Weerd: This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone in the public who would like to provide testimony on this application? Seeing none, Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I would have a question for Gary on the access, if he would - I hate to see you waste your evening and not get an opportunity to say anything to us, so -- Inselman: Thank you very much. De Weerd: We have been working hard on that lately, haven't we? If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Inselman: Gary Inselman representing ACHD, 3775 North Adams, Garden City. Rountree: My question, Gary, is you heard the explanation on the curb cuts on this with the future expansion of Ten Mile. Is that something that's consistent or would be approved by ACHD? Inselman: I have to admit off the top of my head I don't remember what we approved with the original applicant. I do remember discussion of trying to consolidate those and not understanding why the city couldn't access through the church property and needed their own driveway to the well lot or a driveway at what was an existing house, which has now been removed, you know, we would prefer that, you know, these limited use driveways be removed and take access off the parking lot would be our preference, but I don't recall what we specifically approved with the original app. Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Len, do you have any comments on accessing through the parking area? Grady: Madam Mayor, I think we could make do if -- if required. However, I just -- the amount of traffic going into that well lot will be, you know, once a day to check for problems and when we -- a lot of times when we do access those well lots it might be with a service truck or in extreme cases even be drill rigs. But if required we could take access off the main parking lot, provided we have some sort of cross-access easement or something along those lines. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Rountree, do you have any further questions? Rountree: I have no further questions for now. De Weerd: Okay. Would the -- Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 38 of 68 Pardue: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the current approach as indicated are the -- are the current plan and layout of the design of what ACHD has actually approved, just for the record. De Weerd: Would you be open to allowing the city cross-access through the parking lot? We certainly look to minimize access points where at all possible. Pardue: This is, actually, the first comment received from the city in regards to that request. I think the Cherry Lane Christian Church could be amiable to that suggestion, but this, obviously, is the requested plan. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council? Thank you. Okay. Council? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Hearing no more discussion, I move we close the Public Hearing on MI 06-007. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item 12. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: For Anna I guess -- well, actually, Madam Mayor, if you can answer this for me. At what point -- we sort of danced around the access issue on the northernmost access. They are sort of agreeable to it and we sort of want to get rid of it? When is that issue going to be resolved? De Weerd: In your motion. Borton: Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'll make one statement. It certainly don't affect my vote one way or the other, but I don't have any problem leaving the access up there for our well lot for the simple fact is if you got something going there and we need to get in there with a service truck or a Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 39 of 68 larger truck or something, I don't want our guys to have to run through a parking lot full of cars and kids and everything else. And I don't think it's that close, there is not going to be that -- that much traffic in and out of there and that area is used to three cutouts anyway. There was two houses there that each had their own driveways and farm equipment come out of the other, the northern one. So, that certainly isn't going to weigh my vote one way or the other. I don't see why we can't leave it in. De Weerd: I guess, Council, our overall goal has been to limit access points and, in particular, on busy arterials. Ten Mile will be one of those busy arterials. It already is. And three points of access in less than a quarter of a mile is -- can be confusing to the motoring public. I do understand Councilmember Bird's concern about traveling through a parking lot, but one trip each day is not excessive. Certainly, we would ask this of others for this kind of consideration, I think we should ask it of ourselves. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: If there is no further discussion, I'll make an attempt at a motion here. I move that we approve the request in Item 12 for MI 06-007, directing legal staff to draft an amendment to the development agreement as stated in the staff report and with the added condition that the staff, Meridian Planning and Zoning, and that the applicant and their staff sit down and consolidate the points of access on Ten Mile Road to accommodate potential use by the city for a well lot and use by the church for access to their maintenance facility. Bird: Before I second that, are you -- are you stating one access -- De Weerd: Mr. Bird, I'm sorry, you need to second it and, then, have discussion. Bird: I'll second and, then, I'll ask questions. De Weerd: Thank you. Bird: I second it. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Bird: Now, are you going to have two accesses or one? Rountree: One. Bird: One access. Baird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 40 of 68 De Weerd: Mr. Baird. Baird: Could I ask a clarification to the maker of the motion? Would that include the requirement that the church grant the city a cross-access easement through the parking lot, so we could reach our well lot? Rountree: Yes. De Weerd: Unless the city could accommodate the church property or vice-versa. Baird: Vice-versa. Okay. De Weerd: Okay. This is -- this is different from the questions that were asked. Is it enough to ask the applicant if -- I guess -- Baird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Baird. Baird: I hate to suggest that we delay this another week, but some issues have come up that are going to require some negotiation between the parties involved. Perhaps it might be wise to bring back a firm proposal, if that's your desire. Rountree: Madam Mayor, the maker of the motion would recall my motion. Bird: Second would agree. Rountree: And make a motion that we continue this Public Hearing for another week, with the opportunity of staff and applicant to get together and talk about the access issues off of Ten Mile as it relates to the future well site for the City of Meridian, parking access for the park and access by the church for their maintenance facility for the park. Bird: Madam Mayor, I would second that and you did reopen the Public Hearing; right? De Weerd: With this motion we will. Bird: Okay. Rountree: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to continue -- reopen and continue this until next week, so that the staff and applicant can get together on the access points to Ten Mile. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 41 of 68 Borton: For discussion purposes, I'd just point out that I agree with the reasoning and goal of Councilman Rountree in his original motion and in support of that concept the parties work together to, hopefully, come to that conclusion. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. I would ask all those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 06-040 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.38 acres to an R-8 zone for Bellabrook Subdivision by JE Development, LLC - 300 South Locust Grove Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 06-038 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 residential lots and 4 common lots on 4.38 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bellabrook Subdivision by JE Development, LLC - 300 South Locust Grove Road: De Weerd: Okay. Items 13 and 14 are Public Hearing AZ 06-040 and PP 06-038. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Bellabrook project. It's located south of Franklin Road and east of Locust Grove Road. So, the C-N property you see is the LOS stake house, so that gives you an idea. We have got Woodbridge to the south and this is kind of in between. It is an application for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat. The applicant requests R-8 zoning for 4.38 acres and preliminary plat approval of 20 single family residential lots. All of the homes within the development are proposed to be single family detached homes, with -- they are all single family detached. Here is the LOS church to the north. Here is the Five Mile Creek coming through the west -- east end of the property. And you can see the flood zones there. All that area is within an open space lot. This is a single family home here. They got all the topo lines on, so it's a little hard to read. I don't know if -- here we have one. And, then, these two would be stand alone single family houses without shared drives. All of the other units are proposing to share a drive. And let me explain how that's going to work. Here you have the street out in front. You have a shared driveway between two units and, then, you have your garage at the back of your unit. That way as you come down the street you don't have a wall of garages, you have a streetscape similar to an alley, except that the units are loaded in the -- or accessed from the back. Or accessed from the front, but the garages in the back of the lot. And they have some elevations here of a project that's in Eagle. You can see the common driveway going back and, then, the garage is at the rear of the property. I believe these example houses -- the applicant can tell you, but I believe these are, actually, on smaller lots than what they are proposing. However, the average lot size in the development is 4,961 square feet. And approximately 18.3 percent of the site is being set aside for usable open space. So, that equates to about 22.7 percent. I'm going to Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 42 of 68 talk about that open space for a moment. As you see through Woodbridge, you get the -- the flood plain area was left -- and generally it's open state and you can see the riparian vegetation still through there and the walking paths are along that area as well. There is an opportunity to extend that all the way down to Franklin. This would be one small sliver in connecting that, but it is an important little slice. A lot of this property here is in the flood plane. This is one of our more sizable flood planes, actually. It spreads out fairly wide in this area, as you can see on their map. So, here you have the -- the flood way is not channelized, so it's fairly broad and, then, you have got the flood zones on either side. The gross residential density is 4.5 dwelling units per acre and the net density 6.02 dwelling units per acre. The Planning Commission did recommend approval at their August 3rd, 2006, Public Hearing. Ross Erickson spoke in favor of the application. No one was in opposition. Rod Cullip did comment on the application. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were whether the proposed R-8 zoning makes a good transition from R-4 and the surrounding rural properties, when this property is actually shown as mixed use on the future land use map. And they also discussed the feasibility of building and maintaining a fence and micropath and a flood way. The key Commission changes to staff recommendation were to delete a condition of approval related to curve radii on common drives. And, again, that was because the applicant is proposing straight common drives. To our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council and I will answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Anna, would you go to the aerial? What kind of issue is created with the parcel to the east of that with -- which, apparently, would have access off of Locust Grove on that strip? Is there room to do anything there, to get a road in there, to -- Canning: This piece of property? Rountree: No, the -- Canning: This piece of property? Rountree: Right below the directional signal. Canning: Right here? Rountree: No. Down. Below the flag. Right there. Canning: Oh, there we go. Rountree: The flag lot. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 43 of 68 Canning: This -- this piece of property is the -- kind of the ying to this yang or the yang to this ying, I suppose. What they have done is provide a stub at this location. These are common lots along here, so this property owner has the ability to kind of mirror this pattern for a little while going back here. Because of the flood plane they will have less development opportunity. There is that flag coming out here that we would hope would be addressed in some fashion. It's not enough of a flag to put a roadway down. Rountree: It doesn't have a lane on it, does it? Canning: No, sir, it does not. That would have been the first thing I would have told you about had it. I believe it's a 30 foot flag. So, we can try and address that when this property comes in. It probably needs to be just relegated to open space. We would anticipate that these two developments would share a homeowners association given their connectedness or their ying and yang, as the case may be. De Weerd: Is that a planning term? Canning: Yeah. New planning term. Rountree: Madam Mayor, follow up. Do you anticipate that next parcel coming in or has that -- Canning: That may, in fact, Mr. Cullip and he has not approached the planning department. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any further questions for staff? Would the applicant like to provide testimony or comment or both? Nickel: Madam Mayor and City Council, Shawn Nickel, 148 North 2nd Street in Eagle, here tonight representing the applicant. As staff has indicated -- and as you can see, this is another one of those fun county parcels of questionable layout with the flag going back to the creek there. Be that as it may, though, we approached this layout looking for something that met the Comprehensive Plan that did provide for transition between the Woodbridge Subdivision, which is zoned R-4, and the church to the north, which is actually zoned commercial. De Weerd: Excuse me, Shawn. Nickel: Yes, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Just to let the public know, we are looking at what you have already seen up on the screen, at this, as well as the larger -- well, the zoning areas. So, we are not seeing anything different than what you have seen. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 44 of 68 Nickel: Thank you, Madam Mayor. As staff has indicated, we do have within the concept plan approximately 24 percent common area, of which 18 percent is usable. We did incorporate a pathway and the anticipation of that continued regional pathway that comes through Woodbridge, traveling along the creek and access to that. To address Councilmember Rountree's question about development to the east below that panhandle there, this right of way, actually, has been changed from that -- that black and white plat that Anna showed. What we are proposing is the entire boundary -- eastern boundary right here to be right of way. That will allow this property more flexibility to develop with the stub street or to have direct access onto this local street, if you wish, and, then, a street to the east for connectivity. That is a 34 foot wide roadway surface, so we can't provide parking on both sides. We are not proposing any deviation from the setback requirements of the R-8 zone and we did provide you with elevations and this is the Winding Creek Subdivision in Eagle. We have shown these elevations to you in the past, because it is really a neat development, and it does have that common lot -- or that common driveway concept, unlike some of the developments that we bring in front of you that have four taking access on that, this only has two. They are detached. We showed you the configuration right here on this diagram. This would be the elevations that will be on the lots. House sizes would range from 1,600 to approximately 2,600 square feet in size and -- I apologize for my voice. This is in a mixed use designation in the Comprehensive Plan and it does provide for the medium density of 4.57 dwelling units per acre, which is about the middle range of the medium density designation. The reason I provided that zoning map for you is just so you can kind of see -- and I know you guys know this area well, but to kind of see the mix of uses in this area, not only residential single family, but also there are some multi-family, there is industrial, there is commercial, a police station is over there. There is a church. It's quite an array of land uses on Locust Grove, which is -- as you know, has been recently improved with a stop light. So, we are real proud of this layout that we have right here. You know, it's a little tough to work with a strange parcel configuration, but I think we did a good job. We do have the connectivity in the open space. Because this is a smaller development, we weren't required to have any open space and I think we have provided a good transition and that future pathway, I believe, is very important to the city and to the residents to have that pedestrian connectivity throughout the city. So, with that I'll stand for questions. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you, Shawn. Nickel: One last thing. The developer is in agreement with all the conditions as proposed by staff and P&Z. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Council, seeing no further public Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 45 of 68 testimony, is there any additional information or discussion that is needed at this time? Okay. If not, do I have a motion? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we close the Public Hearing on Items 13 and 14. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the Public Hearing on Items 13 and 14. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Any discussion? Okay. Council, if there is no discussion, do I have a motion? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we approve Item 13, AZ 06-040. De Weerd: I have a motion to approve Item 13. Do I have a second? Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Hearing none, Mrs. Smith. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Well, it really is unfortunate, Shawn. I wanted to -- we wanted to give you a hard time. Oh. Okay. Do not have a lost opportunity. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 46 of 68 Wardle: I move we approve Item 14, PP 06-038. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 14. If there is no discussion, Mrs. Smith, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 15: Public Hearing: AZ 06..029 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.39 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Silversprinas Subdivision by Reed Kofoed - south side of McMillan Road and west of Locust Grove Road: Item 16: Public Hearing: PP 06-029 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 29 single-family residential lots and 4 common / other lots on 9.88 acres in a proposed R-4 zone Silversprings Subdivision by Reed Kofoed - south side of McMillan Road and west of Locust Grove Road: De Weerd: Okay. Council, Items 15 and 16 are public hearings on AZ 06-029 and PP 06-029. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Silversprings project. It's located south of McMillan Road and east of Meridian Road. It's about halfway between Locust Grove and Meridian Road and Redhorse Way adjoins it on the western boundary. That's the entrance into Copper Basin, which was final platted as Cobre Basin and preliminary plat approved as Havasu Creek. So, I had to get all those names out there for you, because it becomes important. These are applications for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat approval. The applications include annexation and zoning to R-4 for 19 -- or, excuse me, 9.88 acres and preliminary plat approval of 29 single family residential building lots and four common lots. The gross residential density is 2.94 dwelling units per acre. And this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of low density residential. I noticed as I was preparing tonight that the staff report says medium density residential, but that's an error that we will correct with the findings with Council's direction. The proposed subdivision is pretty straight forward. They have an entrance from McMillan Road, a kind of L-shaped connecting property and fair sized lots with one large lot accommodating the existing residence. And, then, drainage open space lots kind of in the center of the development. The tricky issue with this is actually -- with this preliminary plat is actually something happened with the final plat of the properties to the west. When you all approved Havasu Creek you required a stub street to this property. When that was final platted -- when the final plat was approved somehow that went from being a stub street to being a cross-access. So, there is currently on the property immediately to the west a cross-access easement that's 50 feet wide, shaped exactly like a stub street would be shaped, but it's only a Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 47 of 68 cross-access, it's not a stub street. We spent a lot of time researching the issue. We spent a lot of time talking to ACHD. We spend a lot of time really pushing to get that access opened up as a stub street for this property. We met with the homeowners association and they were opposed to the -- giving up the area for a stub street, because they felt that the added traffic from this going out to their entrance road would conflict with the newly opened elementary school just south of this property. We talked at length with ACHD. ACHD staff was unwilling to use eminent domain to acquire that easement as a public right of way. At that point there wasn't much staff could do, so we went ahead and processed it as you see it. The applicant's engineer was kind enough to show -- there are -- as you will see, a series of five acre lots. You're seeing this one tonight. We have done pre-apps on the next three properties and you have an application currently in the works on two -- or just recently approved on these two. So, we are seeing all of these five acre lots come in and we wanted to make sure that there was a way -- a concept that we had at least to reference that was acceptable to ACHD on how these properties could all develop. And that's what you see before you here. You have two stubs coming from -- or three stubs, excuse me, coming from Cobre Basin/Havasu Creek, so you do have an interconnected system throughout here and, then, what this concept shows is two more access points to McMillan Road. So, there would be a total of three in this approximate half mile area. We do not have elevations before you tonight. They are larger parcels. The Commission recommended approval at their August 17th, 2006, Public Hearing. Ross Erickson spoke in favor of the application. No one was opposed or commenting. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the clarification of the ingress-egress easement at East Copper Ridge Street. I'm sorry. It wasn't Redhorse Way, it was East Copper Ridge. And why a stub to this property was not provided. The key Commission changes to staffs recommendation, there were none. The outstanding issues for City Council as we see them are this previously approved stub street and where you may want to direct staff to go, if anywhere. And, then, if you do choose to approve this project, could you, please, direct staff to correct the information of the Findings regarding the Comprehensive Plan designation. With that I'll answer any questions. De Weerd: Anna -- I don't have any questions. Council, any questions? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question that doesn't really relate to this, it does given the circumstances that how can we have a final plat approved that represents something that we didn't approve? Canning: That's a very good question and I researched it, I was not able to find any -- I was not able to find real documentation supporting that. The staff member who worked on it doesn't work for the city anymore. It shouldn't have happened. Rountree: My comment is I hope we don't see that happen again, but it seems to me that there is a legal question if that's even a valid subdivision, even it's all built up. Bird: I would agree. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 48 of 68 Canning: We suggested to the homeowners association that Council may find that the case. If you found an invalid subdivision, you could refuse to accept any further building permits on the subdivision as a whole or maybe you could -- you would want to secretly go about that. We pushed really hard, as hard as we could, and we weren't successful as staff and that's why I raise it as an outstanding issue for City Council. Rountree: I appreciate that. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any other questions for staff before we ask for applicant comment? Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and address. Erickson: Ross Erickson. 1854 East Lanark in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Erickson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we are here tonight to request approval of the Silversprings Subdivision preliminary plat, annexation, zoning to an R-4. The development is located -- I guess staff's already given you an orientation -- just on the south side of McMillan and west of Locust Grove. The project includes 29 single family detached building lots and four common lots, on Lots 1 and 2 of the original Crestwood Estates Subdivision that as platted along McMillan Road there. The R-4 zoning designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and this project blends well with the surrounding subdivisions, with Copper Basin to the West, Havasu Creek to the south, and Saguaro Canyon across the street. The subdivision is directly to the north of the Prospect Elementary School and you can see on our preliminary -- or I guess our landscape plan here that we are providing a micropath connection to the school sight. We coordinated that location with the school district. There is, actually, another connection from Havasu over down here on this corner to the school site. There is a pathway that kind of wraps around the boundary that we would connect into for kids to access school from the -- from the houses there. The project includes a 36 foot street section that will accommodate parking on both sides and we actually -- as you can see on the landscape plan, there is a significant amount of trees on the site and we met with the city arborist and went out and took an inventory and come out with an enormous mitigation number that we had to meet, so rather than just providing those trees to the parks department, the developer decided to design the project with an eight foot parkway parallel to all the internal streets and actually install those trees with sod and irrigation on all the internal streets. The landscape plan that you see actually falls short by 30 caliper inches of what the mitigation requirement was, which equals 15 trees and we are agreeing to provide those trees to the parks department if we can't find a way to work them into the project during construction, if there is maybe some extra space we could sink one in, we would like to do that. There are two existing homes on the project -- on the project, one on the westerly parcel and one on the easterly parcel, that will be retained. Those parcels will be platted -- or those homes will be platted around per the city code and the existing wells and septic systems will be taken off line Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 49 of 68 and will be connected to city services with the project. I guess with that I will stand for any questions and just ask for your approval. De Weerd: I guess I just have a question in your open space. It looks like you -- it appears to be the drainagE3 field as well. How does that drain -- I mean how fast does it drain and you have a wet year and you have a lot of concern about standing water and mosquito traps. So, what is the plan regarding that? Erickson: Madam Mayor, the design of the swale is kind of key to getting the swale to perc. We did a groundwater investigation on the site and found that the groundwater is down around 16 feet, which is favorable for this type of a design. So, typically, what we will do is we will over-excavate the bottom of the pond and bring in some sand and blend it with a clay free top soil that will be a certain specification and actually seed the bottom, rather than put sod in it, to insure that we are not importing any unwanted clay materials that would impede any percolation to the bottom. The pond is actually designed to perc within a 24 hour period for the design storm. That's per the city's requirements and we will certainly meet those with the design. De Weerd: What kind of grade do you have on that? Erickson: Madam Mayor, the side slopes of the pond are designed at a four to one. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant? Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who is here to testify on this application? Okay. Seeing none, any further staff comments? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Question for legal Council. Mr. Baird, is -- without getting into any specifics, is there some benefit or need for this item perhaps to be continued, is there any discussion that we could have or should have concerning the access issue that Councilman Rountree brought up, how we have missed, what the city's options may be, if there are any options? Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, at your direction we can certainly look into that. However, the application before you stands on its own. If we can get those issues resolved, it would only enhance what's before you. On the other hand, if you're not ready to bring this in to the annexation until you have the problem solved, that's certainly within your discretion as well. I might -- this is the first I have heard of the Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 50 of 68 problem. I haven't looked at the facts, so I certainly can't give you an opinion tonight, but I might look to the planning director to see if she has any additional thoughts on the interrelationship between this particular application and the general problem. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if you do wish to seek that connection here, this is where it would be. It lines up with the other public street. So, it would require modifying the final plat. I think the applicant stated at one point that they were willing to provide that stub. That may be what he's trying to communicate to me right now, but I think they said that, you know, if Council wanted them to stub to there, that they could provide that stub. Is the Public Hearing still open? Thank you. Erickson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council-- and, Anna, correct me if I'm wrong, but I pulled the minutes for the final plat -- or, actually, I think it was the preliminary plat for Havasu Creek that this was preliminary platted under, and originally there was a condition in there that stated that it needed to be a public stub street and it's not that I think it was ignored, I think the condition was actually changed, because it said change the stub street to a cross-access easement, if that makes sense. Bird: Madam Mayor. That was in the minutes? Canning: I'm not aware of that. Everything I saw still had it as a -- as a stub street. The only time I saw it changed was with the final plat application and I believe I looked at the minutes and staff didn't notify Council that they were changing it from a stub street to a landscape easement. Bird: Yeah. I can't believe we just had it as -- Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: It's a fundamental concern of mine and probably other members of the Council as to whether or not that connectivity between the two developments was intended that connection would occur and I'm sensitive to any particular delays, but it sounds like there was a couple unanswered questions here. I don't know, perhaps Anna or Ted, if you have an idea -- are we talking within a week we might have an opportunity to understand what our options are, if any; clarify what the record says on this issue, and perhaps bring it back in a week or however long you think it might take to clarify that, because it seems to me a huge concern and, obviously, impacts the layout and connectivity of the two subdivisions. Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we can certainly do a staff review of the facts within the week, if you want to continue this for one week, and, then, depending on what we report back to you, you can decide whether to continue for further action or to act on it next week. But that would minimize the delays for this particular applicant Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 51 of 68 while we get a handle on what appears to be a difference of opinion about what's in the record right now. De Weerd: And if you could work with staff and point out where you saw reference to that, it would be very helpful. Rountree: Madam Mayor, are we still discussing? De Weerd: Yes. Okay. Hold on, please. Just a moment. Rountree: Go ahead. Kofoed: Reed Kofoed. I'm at 6040 North Jericho Road, which is about a mile north of this, in Meridian. In our discussions with the city and the homeowners association, one of the -- I think major things that came up was the situation with the school that's just barely been built below this, south of this. I know the school has said that at some future point there is going to probably be a light there at McMillan where Copper Basin and Saguaro Canyon are there. At that point there would be a light and there would be crosswalks and the mile to the north of this, which is, actually, where I live, many of the kids would have to walk to school. So, I know the homeowners association -- this is just for public record, in the meeting that we had down at the city, in having a stub street coming out there, they felt that that would -- all the buses coming in and out of there to hit McMillan, a lot of kids, if that light goes in, are walking from that mile north of there, that there would be a huge safety concern in having that stub street. So, I know that that was brought up and we all discussed that and I believe that's why the homeowners association was very adamantly against it. I know that with my children possibly in the future being -- having to walk down that street, if there is a stub street there, I would certainly be concerned for safety reasons. So, if that makes a difference, I know that that was the major reason why the homeowners were adamantly against having a stub street there. And I believe we have provided good connectivity through those other five acre parcels being developed in the near future. De Weerd: Well, I think it's appreciated. You have done everything you can within your power. I think there still remains some unanswered questions as to what happened and the situation as a whole -- I guess in light of a traffic signal being there, it, actually, makes it a little bit safer. You have less people in all of those five acre lots going out on the arterial and, then, having to travel into that the subdivision. I guess, you know, it's kind of an argument on either side as to what would be the safest, but as far as traffic flow, it would be nice to have that connection there. Kofoed: Yeah. We do -- I know the engineer pointed out that there will be a pathway into the back of the school for the children, so that also is a -- De Weerd: And that's an appreciated amenity. Kofoed: Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 52 of 68 De Weerd: Thank you. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, on this project as a stand alone, which I think it should be considered, do you have any problems with the exits out and, of course, they have got the other stub that will be going to the other five acre lots as they come in. Do you think this stands alone if it don't have a stub street? Canning: If there is a connection to the Copper Basin entrance road, I -- I think we would all prefer that the access to McMillan become a cul-de-sac. Bird: Okay. Canning: And I guess I should say we meaning also -- I believe ACHD thinks this -- believes the same. Yeah. And I am getting nods from Mr. Inselman. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I guess my comment is that I -- in fairness to the applicant I think they have done their due diligence. Apparently the city and ACHD didn't do theirs and I don't feel that it's our point at this point to try to correct the wrongs with this application. I think there is wrongdoing and there is future building permits to be issued in the adjacent subdivision, then, they pay the price in terms of delays and rectifying the problem. So, I guess I -- I understand what Joe is saying, but time is money and we delay a lot of things for more clarification, but I don't know that this is one in particular that I can -- I can buy that we need to rest on the shoulders of this application. That's my opinion. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would agree with Councilman Rountree, I don't believe that this application should be delayed and put it on his shoulders to find something that we fouled up. I'm with Mr. Rountree, if there is building permits and stuff over there still going on, we -- I guess that's the only out we have or the only leverage we have and I would suggest that -- that we use it and I hope that we as a Council and Mayor and staff become more closely watching between preliminary and final plats and make sure everything gets to final plats. Canning: Just to absolve myself, this was passed the day before I took my position. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 53 of 68 Bird: We are not blaming anybody. Rountree: Some of us are not to blame either, but we did it, so -- as a city. De Weerd: We can buy you some worry beads. Canning: Madam Mayor, I'm a little confused by the last two statements by Councilmember Bird and Councilmember Rountree. If you go forward with this application, then, the need to create that stub is gone. So, I wasn't sure if you wanted me to try and still obtain that stub street or not. Rountree: The record is still not clear as to whether or not that's a stub street or an access and that needs to be taken care of and cleared up. So, if the other subdivision needs to come in and have a Public Hearing and request that that be eliminated, that's fine. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Anna, in our standard conditions of approval, which I assume are included within the application, it is the city's policy to connect stub streets; correct? Canning: Yes. Wardle: Okay. So, I would just -- if it's determined -- if it's unclear at this point and in the future that were to be, those findings wouldn't change, it would still be the policy of the city to attempt to connect the stub street; right? Canning: Correct. De Weerd: That's correct that this plat would not show connection to it. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: That was exactly my point. I think the comments of Councilman Rountree and Bird are the exact type of concern which planning and legal stay could bring the adjacent development to see if -- before the approval of this particular project that stub street agreement could be provided and if that's provided that, then, would change the present application. So, I think if we move on this particular application tonight, the question of what the subdivision to the west does is moot, because the decision -- the implication of whether or not there is a stub or not is -- would be a done deal. So, I am sensitive to the time and delay and expense to the developer and hopefully a week -- try and keep it as short as possible, that provides us as a Council an opportunity to -- exert Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 54 of 68 some leverage might be a strong way to put it, but capitalize on an opportunity to encourage connectivity in the stub street that is intended, I'm all for that and I think it's worth the delay, with all due respect to the applicant. So, that was my comment, to try and seize that opportunity there. De Weerd: Mr. Baird, I guess I would have a question as to if this preliminary plat was approved and the city continued to pursue the details on if that's a stub or not, the applicant has said -- or Anna has indicated the applicant was open to, then, amending that, would that be considered substantial in changing from a preliminary plat to a final plat that it would have to go through the process again on the preliminary plat before final plat? Baird: Madam Mayor, that's a-- De Weerd: Did I ask that correctly? Baird: -- complex question that does -- it interrelates both planning and legal principles. My thought on that -- and, again, I'm going to ask that Anna chime in, because her staff is the one that has to take a look at these and compare them, but if you make your approval contingent upon providing the stub street, if, indeed, the street in the adjacent subdivision is proven to be a stub street or some agreement is reached, but the problem with that is the timing. I mean how long do we have to prove that? And I think that's why the one week request -- possible request for delay would allow us to find out exactly where we are and what it would take. That way when you're considering this you'd know whether that stub is going to go or not. I'm starting to ramble. De Weerd: No. Unfortunately, you're making a lot of sense. It's scary. So, Council, what would be your preference? Anna, do you have anything to add to that? Canning: No, Madam Mayor. I agree with Mr. Baird in that the real question is -- I suspect we will come back to you with more documentation that shows that it's unclear. So, you'll still have this question of what do we want to do, where do we want to go, but I suspect that it will still be unclear. You may decide to pursue it more aggressively, based on more information, though. With regard to whether the approved preliminary plat would still be consistent if they lost a lot and dedicated a street and turned the entrance road into a cul-de-sac, by the definition in the UDC, they are probably okay, because this issue was discussed at length now at both hearings. So, it's -- that access has always been up for grabs. They are not gaining lots. The relationship of the lots on the surrounding properties don't really change, it's just the entrance and if the Council decides there is a required stub street there, then, that access point shouldn't be an issue, but -- Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 55 of 68 Bird: I think Anna hit it right on the head. In one week I don't see -- we are going to see -- you know, we are just going to find out that the minutes said something and we approved a final plat that said something and we have still got the same leverage if we want to use it and these people just sit and wait, which I don't think is fair to them. They didn't get themselves into this predicament, we did. De Weerd: Okay. So, what would you like to do? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I'll just take a stab at a motion. I move that we continue Items 15 and 16 is it? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Borton: Items 15 and 16 for one week to the 26th of September and direct legal and planning staff to investigate the matters that we have discussed here and report back what our options are. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue these two public hearings until next week. All those in favor say aye. Okay. Those opposed say nay. Okay. Well, I would say aye. I think there is enough that Council needs to get further information from staff and it would be helpful if the applicant can help provide them what point of reference that you had. So, we will see you next week. And since it will be a continued Public Hearing, you will be closer to the beginning. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS. MAYOR AYE. Item 17: Public Hearing: AZ 06-036 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.94 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Bitterbrush Point Subdivision by Majestic, Inc. - east of Meridian Road and north of Victory Road: Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 06-039 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 27 single-family residential lots and 4 common lots on 10.94 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Bitterbrush Point Subdivision by Majestic, Inc. - east of Meridian Road and north of Victory Road: De Weerd: Okay. Items 17 and 18 are public hearings on AZ 06-036 and PP 06-039. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is Bitterbrush project. Bitterbrush Point project. Excuse me. It is located approximately one quarter mile northeast of the Meridian Road, Victory Road intersection. It is an application for Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 56 of 68 annexation and zoning and preliminary plat. The annexation and zoning request is to R-4 and that's for 10.94 acres and the preliminary plat approval is for 27 lots -- single family residential lots and four common lots. The lots range in size from 9,600 square feet to 25,200 square feet. And the average lot size is roughly 12,950 square feet. Access to the development at this time will be from an existing stub street, East Loggers Pass Street, which is proVided from Observation Point Subdivision to the east. The applicant is also proposing a stub street to the north. We just accepted an application for a development -- actually, we didn't accept it, we just kicked it back out of the office, but there is an application for development just north of this one. We are waiting for some additional information before you accept it. The gross residential density of this project is 2.47 dwelling units per acre. The net density is 3.07. The applicant has provided about .81 acres of landscape open space and that's largely in the form of an open space along the piped canal to their southern -- at their southern boundary and there is a landscape lot and, then, some small common lots in the center of the cul-de- sacs. Most of it is passive in nature and, again, most of it is within that Kennedy Lateral easement. We do not have elevations for you. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval at their August 3rd, 2006, Public Hearing. Richard Beck, the applicant, spoke in favor of the application. Mark Canfield, the developer, also spoke in favor. B.J. Alloway, Kristen Helk, Mike Hart and Judy Hart all spoke in opposition and Jim Rosette commented. The key issues of discussion by the Commission -- staff had been a little concerned with the orientation of lots in this center area and we had proposed some specific orientation of those lots. The Commission decided -- talked about those and decided they weren't necessary. So, the key Commission changes to staff's initial recommendation were they added a condition to install a temporary peak flow storage system and they also added a condition that the applicant could use their current access to Meridian Road as temporary construction access, if allowed by ITD, and this is so that the construction trucks wouldn't be coming through Observation Point. The outstanding issues before Council -- I did notice in my review, just before Council, that the pathway stops at the end of this micro-path lot and this is a piped facility, so there is no reason that the applicant that I'm aware of that they couldn't extend it to the actual property line and, then, as Mussell Corner develops, hopefully, we can get a pathway going down into that development. So, we did -- Amanda did call the applicant, they are agreeable to adding that condition. We would need to have Council include that in their motion and to leave the applicant probably a little bit of wiggle room to work with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District on that. I'm not aware of them opposing pathways over covered facilities, but just in case. De Weerd: There is always that chance. Canning: Yeah. And with that I will answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for staff? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant -- Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 57 of 68 Nickel: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council. Again, Shawn Nickel, 148 North 2nd Street in Eagle, representing the applicant. Pretty straight forward development. I can honestly say that we are -- we are a lower density development than you're used to seeing us come forward with. We thought it was -- we thought it was very important, Mayor and Council, to work and be compatible with the Observation Point development. As you know, this is a commercial designation and development to the south. There is a bit of a grade difference and with the fact that we are taking our main access at this point out to the east through Observation Point, meeting with the neighbors, the neighborhood meeting, we thought it was appropriate and responsible for us to work with them, provide some nice compatible lot sizes, as staff indicated 9,600 to 25,000 square foot lots. Be very similar to Observation Point. The staff also stated that the connect of the stub street to the north will provide -- and I guess they must have hired the wrong planner, because they didn't get their application accepted the first go around, but I can't do them all. What this means is that we will have a connection -- De Weerd: Shawn, you just opened yourself up. Nickel: Okay. Well, you told me you were going to beat me up a little bit. Madam Mayor, what this will provide is probably provide another access north to Edmonds Street, which will go out to Meridian Road. So, that will relieve any concerns that the neighbors would have -- or have or had about the connection and additional traffic through Observation Point, which with the lower density it wasn't going to be that much more of a negative impact. So, with that I will stand for any questions you may have. De Weerd: Shawn, I see you did your neighborhood meeting and don't see a room full of people, so I assume that that meeting went well. Nickel: It did. Again, the main concern was the -- was additional traffic. They did appreciate the larger lot sizes and the compatible homes. I think that is a tell tail sign that they are not here to really beat us up that we did a good job working with them. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for Shawn? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Shawn, I take it that you have no objection to connecting that micropath to the property line? Nickel: No. That would be fine. Again, with the -- I'd ask staff to just give us a little bit of wiggle room. I don't want to be the first one to have the irrigation district not allow us any easement across the -- I guess there is always a first time. But, yeah, we are fine with that. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 58 of 68 De Weerd: Okay. Anything else, Council? Rountree: I have nothing. Bird: Nothing. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Shawn. Nickel: Thank you. De Weerd: This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? It's so odd seeing industrial people doing subdivisions. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Seeing no further comment, I move that we close the public hearings on Items 17 and 18. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 17 and 18. 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 Item 17, AZ 06-036, for annexation and zoning. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 17. If there is no discussion -- Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: That includes the staff -- Rountree: Staff recommendation. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 59 of 68 Bird: Yeah. De Weerd: Thank you. If you will call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 18. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve Item 18, PP 06-039, request for preliminary plat. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 18. If there is no discussion -- Anna has a question. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the last motion you said was staff comments, but there is not a development agreement. I'm assuming you actually want that additional condition for the pathway listed on the preliminary plat. Rountree: That's on the preliminary plat. Yes. Canning: Thank you. Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Mrs. Smith, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. Bird: Thank you, Shawn, for a nice project. Item 19: Public Hearing: AZ 06-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.85 acres from R-1 to C-G zone for Cope Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker - east of Meridian Road and north of Overland Road: Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 60 of 68 Item 20: Public Hearing: PP 06-035 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4 commercial lots on 4.31 acres in a proposed C-G zone for Cope Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker - east of Meridian Road and north of Overland Road: De Weerd: Okay. Items 19 and 20 are public hearings on AZ 06-037 and PP 06-035. will open these two public hearings with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Cope Subdivision. It is located generally at the corner of Overland and Meridian Road. It's currently zoned R-1 in Ada County. It's just south of Gold's Gym and the ACHD park and ride lot. Just north of Southern Springs. This is a four lot subdivision. The applicant is also requesting C-G zoning on the property with their annexation. The access -- the primary access will be from Country Terrace Place to the east and it does have frontage along Overland Road and they are proposing access, but no full access on Overland Road. It's right out -- right-in, right-out only and ACHD has conditioned them to build those intersections as such so that they don't -- so that they have the physical barriers to making the left-hand turn. This is a conceptual plan for the area. On this one they have shown a single building on the western properties and two other buildings on the eastern properties. The applicant hasn't proposed any exact square footage for the commercial development at this time. They have provided elevations and I had not seen these. Had I known they came through this poorly -- they have got several of these, so I will -- these are general concepts. What transpired was -- well, I guess I'll move on and you will hear what transpired. Sorry. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval at their August 17th, 2006, Public Hearing. Ron Van Auker spoke in favor. I think that was Ron Van Auker, Jr., probably, spoke in favor and the key issues of discussion by the Commission were the importance of the conceptual design and elevations for the site, because it was located near the gateway road into Meridian and they also discouraged buildings that look like boxes or blank slates facing the street. With regard to the changes they made to staff's initial recommendation, they did delete a requirement for a 20 foot wide commercial drive aisle, sewer and water shall be stubbed to the property located at 130 East Overland Road, I believe that was --- they removed that at staff's request. I believe it was an error. They added a provision to provide staff with elevations ten days prior to the City Council meeting and those are the elevations you're seeing in here. 'And they moved the preliminary plat condition related to design review requirement to the development agreement, instead of -- yes. They moved that from the preliminary plat to the development agreement and they also subjected Lot 4 to design review. So, all four lots would be subject to design review. So, the outstanding issues before City Council are whether or not you want to include the -- incorporate the proposed elevations and/or the site plan that I showed you into the development agreement provisions or if there are just certain aspects of this that you would like to see incorporated into the DA. So, that's your task before you. I'll answer any questions that you may have. De Weerd: Anna, can you show the first fuzzy picture? What is that? Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 61 of 68 Canning: This looks like a hotel is what it looks like to me. It looks like -- that scan really went bad somewhere in there and -- De Weerd: I thought it was an orb chart. Canning: It looks very Japanese for some reason. I don't know. De Weerd: Thank you. We definitely want to tie our conditions to that. Canning: The unscanned version I think would be appropriate. De Weerd: Do you have an unscanned? Canning: I'm looking for them. I think I do. De Weerd: Okay. While you look I'll ask the applicant if he has comments. If you will, please, state your name and address. Van Auker: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Ron Van Auker, Jr. 3084 East Lanark Street, Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Van Auker: This is the Cope Subdivision. I'd just like to say for the record it was a lot easier to get the name approved, as opposed to our last Porky Park development, and in favor of this parcel all the surrounding zones are consistent with this project. We are proposing a C-G zone. It's a Comp Plan commercial in the Comprehensive Plan. I'd like to note the conceptual plans you see here are very conceptual. Currently we do not have any tenants or prospective purchasers of the property lined out for the project, but have had a lot of interest from hotel uses or office uses. I'd like to assure you that the construction on this property will be of a high quality, nice curb appeal, as it is a entryway corridor going both ways into the City of Meridian and the submitted site plan, as well as the elevations, aren't set in stone, as I mentioned before, but it's an example of how we may see the property develop. And with that I would like to answer any questions. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Ron. Any questions from Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Van Auker: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 62 of 68 Canning: Madam Mayor, I was -- I was filing through those elevations. Would you like me to do it again? Did you see them as they went up? Rountree: Uh-huh. De Weerd: Okay. They do look much better not scanned. De Weerd: Yes, they do. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Council, seeing none, if you don't need any additional information, I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Bird: Madam Mayor, before we close I'd like to make a statement. On a development agreement -- I hate on something like this to tie elevations to the project, because as -- as their tenants come in they might not want what the elevations are showing at this point and having a track record with this developer, they have always built something that's been appealing to the eye and has definitely not been offensive, so I would like a development agreement, but I don't think we need to tie these existing elevations to that development agreement. Is that satisfactory with you, Anna? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Bird, you could just -- they don't technically have to meet the gateway provisions, because there is an intervening lot between this property and the gateway and the gateway does not go down Overland Road. So, rather than tie them to these specific elevations, you could just tie them to the design review standards in the UDC. Kind of extend the gateway designation to this property. That will get you -- primarily all that has is the varying roof lines. The articulation of the front entrance. Some requirements regarding parking. Generally we are concerned with parking facing the entryway corridor. In this case all the parking is, really, going to be facing away from the entryway corridor. So, you could clarify that those provisions wouldn't apply if you would like or -- this concept plan, actually, as submitted would meet the requirements. Bird: Well, anything they do up there will look nicer than what's in front of it. That drainage that we got down there. De Weerd: They made it look prettier. Bird: It's a beautiful gateway, Mayor. De Weerd: I never said it was beautiful. Prettier. Bird: Put a sign out there. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 63 of 68 Wardle: In response to Anna's comments, you know, they have been working with the - - how to tie specific commercial designation to -- to the look and feel that the development is bringing forward, I think that extending that gateway design requirements that this development makes sense. I think that's what is being proposed today. The applicant, in my opinion, is asking for the flexibility to be able to maneuver within those criteria. So, I would be comfortable with just extending that. De Weerd: And having a staff review with a similar type of look. Bird: Yeah. That would be fine. De Weerd: But nothing in concrete. Bird: Just have a development agreement. Is that fine with you? De Weerd: Can the applicant live with that? Okay. Rountree: As long as it isn't a Walgreen's. De Weerd: Just don't make it a Walgreen's, okay? I think the drainage lot looks prettier than that. Bird: Oh, come on. Canning: Madam Mayor, if the maker of the motion, when they make it, could clarify, because I just heard two different things. It may be that it's getting late. So, just when someone makes a motion, if they could clarify what they are looking for, I would appreciate it. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close public hearings AZ 06-037 and PP 06-035. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 19 and 20. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 64 of 68 Bird: Sean, go for it. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Let me get a point of clarification from staff before I make my motion. Anna, when you were suggesting that this exact criteria be extended to this property, did you mean doing that in the form of a development agreement or just providing that in the zoning? Canning: The development agreement. Wardle: Okay. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we approve Item 19, AZ 06-037, and to require a development agreement which extends the design criteria for this commercial property to be -- extend the gateway design criteria to this parcel of property. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve this application with the comments as noted. Is there any discussion? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: The motion appears clear. I'm just curious if there is a nod as to whether or not that it's sufficient. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, it was clear. I had heard also a -- and let staff decide if it's consistent and I wasn't sure if that meant consistent with these elevations, so that's why I asked for the clarification. And I also wasn't sure if it was referencing the concept plan, so I'm okay now. Borton: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion, Council? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Mrs. Smith, will you call roll. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 65 of 68 Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Next item. Twenty. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we approve Item 20, PP 06-035. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 20. Is there any discussion? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Mrs. Smith, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 21: Public Hearing: MI 06-006 Request for a Miscellaneous to Amend the proposed Development Agreement (AZ 05-065) Site Specific Condition 6.1.5, page 5 to allow a temporary construction fence along Lot 5, Block 3 to limit public access to Lot 19, Block 3, rather than a permanent fence along Lot 5, Block 3 limiting public access to the Ten Mile Creek waterway, an approved amenity with pathway system in the preliminary plat (PP 05-058) for Harks Canyon Creek Subdivision by Franklin Centre, LLC - 1845 W. Franklin Road (request to be continued to 10- 10-06 due to posting requirements: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 21 is a Public Hearing MI 06-006. I do need to open this Public Hearing. It was not posted, so we will need a continuation. Can I open a Public Hearing that wasn't posted? Baird: Madam Mayor, I'd suggest that you do. That way everything gets caught up when it comes to the next date. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 66 of 68 Rountree: I move that we continue Item 21 until October 10th, 2006. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to continue Item 21. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 22: Ordinance No. 06-1265 : AZ 06-024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.17 acres from RUT to an R-4 and R-2 zone for Napoli Subdivision by Briggs Engineering - east of Eagle Road and south of Zeldia Lane: De Weerd: Item 22 is Ordinance No. 06-1265. Mrs. Smith, will you, please, read this ordinance by title only. Smith: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. We have Ordinance No. 06-1265. This is an ordinance for AZ 06-024, Napoli Subdivision, for annexation of property located in a portion of Lot 3, Block 1 of Zaldia-Selatir Subdivision, located in the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 28, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said lands from RUT, Ada County, to R-2, Low Density Residential District and R-4, Medium Low Density Residential District, 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 rules and providing an effective date. De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard this read by title only. Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety? Thank you so much. Council, seeing none, do I have a motion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve Ordinance 06-1265 with suspension of rules. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 22. Mrs. Smith, will you, please, call roll. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 67 of 68 Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 23: Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(c) - (to conduct deliberations concerning labor negotiations or to acquire an interest in real property, which is not owned by a public agency): De Weerd: Okay. Item 23 is an Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67- 2345(1 )(c). Do I have a motion, Council? Bird: So moved. Rountree: Second, De Weerd: Okay. Mrs. Smith, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. EXECUTIVE SESSION: De Weerd: Council I would go ahead and entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session. Rountree: So moved. Bird: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Rountree: So moved. Bird: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor. Meridian City Council September 19, 2006 Page 68 of 68 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED: 11 :05 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) WEERCV )0 / 21 / Ob DATE APPROVED