Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 12-05 Meridian City Council Meetina December 5, 2006 A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:35 P.M., Tuesday, December 5,2006, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Shaun Wardle, Keith Bird, Joe Borton, and Charlie Rountree. Others Present: Ted Baird, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Len Grady, Bruce Freckleton, Ron Anderson, Joe Silva, Gene Trakel, 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 will go ahead and call tonight's meeting to order. We appreciate your patience with us. It is December 5th. It's 7:35. We will start tonight's meeting with roll call attendance. Mr. Berg. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: De Weerd: Item NO.2 is the pledge of allegiance. Usually we have youth members to lead us, so tonight I will ask President Wardle to lead us in the pledge. (Pledge of allegiance recited.) De Weerd: Councilman Wardle, I would offer you a City of Meridian pin for leading us tonight, but I know you already have one. Wardle: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Chris Short with Cherry Lane Christian Church: De Weerd: Item NO.3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Pastor Chris Short with Cherry Lane Christian Church. If you will all join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of silence. Short: Please join me in prayer. Father, we just thank you for this evening and we pray for the agenda and the leaders of this Council and the city. Lord, I just pray that you would bless -- bless their speech, discussion, all the items that they have. Lord, I just pray for your hand in the city and just your hand in the community and everything that .. -- ------- Meridian City Council December 5, 2006 Page 2 of 30 you do here. I just pray that your Spirit's here tonight and we pray this in Jesus' name, amen. De Weerd: Thank you. Pastor Short, I would like to offer you a City of Meridian pin, since I was spared the expense by Councilman Wardle. Thank you for joining us this evening. Short: Thank you. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: Item 4, adoption of the agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: On the agenda, the one we are working on, the fourth revision, dated 12/04/06, under -- under the Consent Agenda it has been asked that item number H be continued until December 12th, 2006. And with that change I would move that we accept the fourth revision of the agenda as published. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as stated. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of October 24, 2006 Pre-Council Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of November 8, 2006 City Council Special Meeting: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06- 048 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 32.75 acres from RUT to a C-G zone (8.74 acres) and I-L zone (24.01 acres) for Creamline Park Subdivision by Creamline Associates, LLC - 1200 West Franklin Road: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06- 050 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 industrial lots on 24.01 acres in a proposed I-L zone and 4 commercial lots on 8.74 Meridian City Council December 5,2006 Page 3 of 30 acres in a proposed C-G zone for Creamline Park Subdivision by Creamline Associates, LLC - 1200 West Franklin Road: E. Water Main Easement Aareement for Centrepointe Subdivision PI Connection by Blue Marlin Investments, LLC: F. SHP 06-010 Request for a Short Plat to Create 2 Commercial building lots on 2.61 acres in a C-G zone for Halker Subdivision by Hawkins Companies - 3150 West Cherry Lane: G. Approve Bid for Water and Sewer Improvements in Coni unction with ACHD Overland, Linder to Meridian Road Proiect: I. Approve Contract for Jericho PRY Installation with Star Construction for $79,919.00: J. Approve Memorandum of Understandina with Meridian Rural Fire Protection District for Modification of the Method used to determine the Contract Service Fee and the Capital Outlay Expenditure for 2006/2007 Fiscal Year: K. Invoices for New City Hall Project for Ideal Demolition Services Invoice No. 0601238 for $219,408.20: Petra, Inc. Application No. 001 CM Fee $57,400 Petra, Inc. Application No. 001 CM Reimbursable $7,001.67 Anvil Fence Company Invoice No. 15289 for $999.60 De Weerd: Okay. Item No.5, Consent Agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: On the Consent Agenda, item H, the contract with Owyhee Construction has been asked to be pulled until December 12th, 2006. And with that I move that we approve the rest of the Consent Agenda and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all papers. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as -- or Consent Agenda as changed. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Meridian City Council December 5, 2006 Page 4 of 30 Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Department Reports: A. Planning Department 1. Blueprint for Good Growth Update: De Weerd: Okay. Under six, Department Reports. Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I felt it important to give you an update on the Blueprint For Good Growth process and document at this point, because I need some direction. Generally in the past I have been fairly comfortable about where the city leaders would want to take the city with regard to this, so I haven't come to you very often, but I need your help. To give you a little bit of background, the consortium, which is kind of the representation by the elected bodies for Blueprint For Good Growth, has conceptually approved the Blueprint For Good Growth document, the plan as it were, and at that meeting each mayor promised to not annex outside a 20 year area of city impact and this was a very important component of that approval or that -- working together, that not annexing into someone else's territory or what's perceived as their future areas of growth was very important and everyone recognized, though, that you would need a 20 year area of city impact, which we currently don't have. We have about a ten or five year area of city impact. In addition to that, each of the elected officials expressed support for the plan and in moving forward and especially they all agreed that there is a need to fix the way that we do the area of city impact negotiation process. Both the county and each mayor agreed that it was a broken system and needed to be fixed and agreed that that may need to include fixes in the state code as well. So, that kind of ended the first phase of Blueprint For Good Growth and from that phase we move forward into the implementation phase. And, again, this implementation phase has always been my focus, because I want the growth management ordinances, the concurrent ordinances, things like that. So, that's been my focus and what I wanted to get out of this and making sure that the plan as it moved forward accommodated that. Then, about a month ago Dr. Freilich produced two documents, both without -- one with regard to the area of city impact process and one with regard to an intergovernmental agreement for the specifics of the implementation phase. And I'd like to talk about the area of city impact negotiation one first. This document was produced without talking to the cities in a special -- you know, getting the cities together, getting the county together or anything, it just showed up. It completely missed the mark. I can't tell you how disappointed I was and I actually just got to about the first half of page and quit reading, because it was so far off the mark. It didn't address a single one of the issues that any of us had raised and, in fact, it asked the city to give up what power it has now. It asked you to give up your ability to annex property, whether or not it's inside an area of city impact, to give that up, to say, no, we will leave it to the county. So, in return for giving that up, all we got was a more bureaucratic Meridian City Council December 5, 2006 Page 5 of 30 process, not less bureaucratic. It didn't fix a single thing. I wasn't alone it's turned out. All the cities got together -- the representative staff from all the cities got together, even including Kuna and Garden City. We got together and we all agreed that this didn't meet our needs at all. We came up with a process, if not specific document, but at least a process by where we felt we could get a document that outlined a negotiation process and we took that to the steering committee. The steering committee for Blueprint For Good Growth, applauded the cities for talking to one another. I think that they were encouraged to see that at least the cities were talking to one another and could come to some consensus, and they said, okay, steering committee, we understand you can't support this Freilich proposal, go forth, meet with the county, come up with a counter proposal and come back to us on December 14th. So, we arranged the meeting, it was held at Ada County, and after about an hour of discussion or nay saying, perhaps, we were, basically, told, no, we are happy with the proposal that Dr. Freilich has and we will not be asking him to change it. I just looked at Patricia Nelson from Boise city and said, okay, I guess we will come up with an alternative. I mean I was dumbfounded. It was just -- it went absolutely nowhere. The cities after that had yet another meeting -- I'll get to that one, because that's a little later, but we did have one more meeting. Let's talk about the intergovernmental agreement for a bit. The intergovernmental agreement does have the scope of -- proposed scope of work for the implementation phase as proposed by Dr. Freilich. We were asked to get that on an agenda for you for adoption by December 15th -- or it's the 14th, actually, and I just at this time felt that there was no way we were going to pass it, so I haven't even asked for it to be on your agenda. So, the scope of services is not very specific as to the work products. It's not really clear as to whether we are getting model ordinances versus something we can readily adopt. A lot of them I think were geared towards some of the cities that perhaps need more -- that don't have extensive planning staff, some of the smaller cities that may need those. What -- again, perhaps I erred, but I did not ask the clerk to put it on your agenda for -- to meet the December deadline. So, that's where we are there. So, where we stand now is we had one more meeting between the city staffs and Karen Doherty, who is the Blueprint Coordinator, and we tried to figure out, okay, where are we, where are we going. The first thing that -- as city staff that we all agreed on is that there is no way that the cities and the counties are going to be able to figure out this area of city impact process without some help. We asked Karen to look into some conflict resolution, to look into what kind of fees there would be to have somebody come into town that's familiar with that negotiation process and sit down with the cities and the counties and try and come up with something. That's the first item. The second item is the steering committee at the December 14th meeting will go through the scope of work in detail and figure out what bits and pieces we are really interested in, because I don't -- I don't think at this point most of us want everything that's on there. For instance, since that draft scope first came out the city has -- the City of Meridian has hired a consultant to do all our fiscal impact fees analysis, to take and modify that work for a concurrency management or facilities ordinance, there wouldn't be that much additional work. So, we have already done a lot of the work toward that end and I think that as a city we could fund that for ourselves and get a lot more out of it than participating to have Blueprint do it for a kind of generic document where we are already two-thirds of the way there. So, that's a kind of very concrete example of the kinds of discussions we will Meridian City Council December 5, 2006 Page 6 of 30 be having at the steering committee. The third thing that we as city staff agreed on is that Karen Doherty's assistance and the service she has provided throughout the Blueprint process has been very useful and we encouraged her to come up with a second contract for this implementation phase separate from Dr. Freilich's or whomever we may select to go forward with the implementation phase. So, we did encourage her to do that. So, the questions I have for City Council are these: One. Are you in favor of the city participating in a conflict resolution process regarding the area of city impact, understanding that you don't have a price yet, but is that a direction you're willing to go. The second one is do you wish to continue the contract with Dr. Freilich. At this point I would not recommend that. I just don't see that he's been able to listen to us and respond to our needs at all. Three. Do you support continuing the contract for Karen Doherty. And I suppose -- if the answer to all of those three questions is no, then, I suppose the fourth question is do you want to pull out of Blueprint at this point or stay in, so -- that's not on my list, I just thought of that a moment ago, but -- those are my questions for Council. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Rountree: I have a question for Anna. Anna, you talked about the conflict between the cities and the county. Where did ACHD fit in this? Because they were a major mover in all of this at the beginning and a major funding of this. Did they just kind of fall to the wayside or what? Canning: They are still very actively involved. We did have an ACHD representative at this last meeting we had with Karen Doherty. He was, perhaps, too new to chime in much and, therefore, didn't. But I think they are interested in Blueprint moving forward and they are interested in some of the implementation aspects, especially as they relate to roadway funding, which is a big part of it. De Weerd: Council, I guess Dr. Freilich has thrown a lot of people for a loop in his most recent shenanigans, but I don't -- I don't think that means that Blueprint is something we should pull out of. I think we were in it for all the right reasons. I do believe that it had come to a pOint where many on the coalition with -- were starting to question if Freilich was the one to take us to the next phase and if we could utilize more local talent and that, too, would answer some of the funding deficits as well. It would pacify and smooth over some of the ruffled feathers and -- and I believe it is the opinion that we can take this with the talent that we have and find the concurrency plans that many of us had hoped to walk away with and find implementation and I do know that those from the steering committee that are not on the coalition would like to see this continue and continue through implementation. So, I don't want it to seem like we are at such an impasse that this is time wasted and it's totally no longer something that's of value, because it is. Wardle: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council December 5, 2006 Page 7 of 30 De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I guess my comments in response to that, you know, certainly the City of Meridian was in this process for all the right reasons. I think the Council and -- when we heard a request for matching funds and to make up some additional shortfalls, really said if everyone else is in the process, then, we would support it. It does not sound like everyone is in the process. My personal opinion is that we need to rework what the expectations and outcomes of this are going to be and it sounds like we have in the process itself a split in the players. There are certain entities that no longer wish to go down a common road, but we do have, apparently, a coalition of cities that would like to get out of this process what I think we were led to believe would be the result. And so I certainly support that collaboration. I'm a little more skeptical about the ultimate makeup of what is now becoming -- or now has become Blueprint For Good Growth. So, Anna, could you give me a little more insight to that? Canning: Yes. And let me back up on what you perceived as a fracturing at this point. I'm not sure there is. Eagle is making noises one way or the other, but I think if we can move forward with this negotiated dispute resolution and fold that into an area of city impact some changes at the state level, as well as the local level, I think they would stay in. Karen Doherty actually spoke to Jerry Armstrong with Ada County Development Services and he's in support of a negotiated agreement. So, they haven't wanted to pull out of it, I think that we all just realized we can't get there ourselves, but they are still interested in getting that. So, that's part of what you asked -- and you look like you want to say something, so I'll save the rest of what I was going to say until you ask. Wardle: Madam Mayor. One of the questions I had, Anna, when you look at a negotiated area of impact agreement as you're talking about, the one real question for me would be what's the validity down the road? We have got a county interpretation of a state statute and we are kind of wrestling with that idea. Is there going to be a push for change in legislation to clarify that? Canning: Yes, sir. The area -- the Association of Idaho Cities is already working on that and Mayor Merrill is part of that group. What we had as -- the meeting we had, we- - what we felt was important was to move forward with a revamped process, keeping that area -- that state amendment in mind and adding comments to that state amendment. De Weerd: Well -- and I think, too, Councilman Wardle, it's similar to some of the discussions we have had with the Eagle City Council and that if you draw a line for your area of impact, that your Comprehensive Plan considers that, your service -- long and short-term planning considers that and that there would be agreements that you don't annex outside your area of impact into someone else's or that would compromise that planning and those facility plans that is associated with it. And, certainly, the state code would allow it. It's more that memorandum of understanding that Eagle asked is if we Meridian City Council December 5,2006 Page 8 of 30 come to an agreement are we going to stick with it. And that's -- that's the looming question out there. And I think that's the one that's being struggled to answer. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I guess to answer Anna's question do we enter into conflict resolution with the county with respect to impact areas -- only if the county is supportive of that and I don't view Jerry Armstrong as speaking for the county. So, I would like to hear that from the commissioners and I'd also like to hear that they are willing to participate in the cost of doing such an activity. With respect to Dr. Freilich, no surprises there. It's unfortunate. I think a lot of people's hopes were high and I think they probably still have some enthusiasm for the concept of what was trying to be accomplished with Blueprint For Good Growth. I think all the players that formed that LLC need to take a step back and do some soul searching, including Meridian, but I think all the players in that little corporation -- and commit to come forth and be honest and what is it that they want and what is it that they can't give up. Because that's always undermined all the activities with that group. I mean I read in the last day or two that -- and it was in the paper, so I - - it's some suspicion there, but Eagle's talking about, well, what happens if we pull out of ACHD. Well, that's a silly question, but there are those things coming back again. So, to me, everybody needs to take a step back and say what do I want out of this thing and if we all can't agree what we want and what we are willing to give up, then, it's fruitless to move forward. And as far as retaining Karen, I would suggest if we want to move forward with some of the activities with new players, that we reform the scope of work to the agreement of all the players and ask for a statement of qualifications or do an RFP for a new player. And nothing against Karen, but I think it's new, it's -- I think the second phase of Blueprint For Good Growth, if I'm not mistaken, was something on the order of 400 or 800 thousand dollars. It's too much money, it's, you know, too quick a decision and, to me, the players aren't being honest with one another. So, that's my three recommendations and I've not been in the thick of it as I had been in the past, but De Weerd: Not much has changed since you have. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I would echo Councilman Rountree's thoughts on the deal and until the players will be honest with each other -- and I'm including the Mayor and City Council of Meridian, Idaho, too -- this isn't going to work. I think it's been a -- I think it's -- they have had some good points, but I also think it's been a waste of money. I think if you want to continue on you do like Councilman Rountree said, we get out an RFP and get the most qualified people. But before I would ever put any money -- vote to put any money towards that, I want some true feelings and I also want to know what the Meridian City Council December 5, 2006 Page 9 of 30 commissioners of Ada County -- not what their planning director thinks, what they think, how much they want to participate. We know that ACHD was originally a big time player in this. Are they still participants after having problems? Anna, no, no, no is my answers to your three questions. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: Just to throw my two bits in and I preface it with all due respect to Karen Doherty and everyone that's worked months and months and years trying to accomplish this project. My answers on this are pretty simple. I kind of foreshadowed my position last time when we were asked for additional funding. I hate few things more than studies that are based on false assumptions and one of the greatest false assumption with Blueprint, from my perspective is everyone's in the same boat and everyone is sacrificing for the common good and I get the impression following this process, not nearly as closely as staff and maybe some of my fellow council members, but that many members within the Treasure Valley are jumping in the same boat and making agreements with their fingers crossed behind their backs. To answer your particular questions. Number one, I'm totally opposed. I think it's a waste of time, in light of what we see of Ada County's position. Conflict resolution process has got to be one of the dumbest suggestions, from my perspective. The parties agree to disagree. People are retaining their own individual interests -- call a spade and spade, you're not going to do anything but spend money on a negotiator to come in and tell everyone to hold hands -- nobody wants to, people aren't really interested in all getting into the same boat. We saw the private businesses which were intended to be participants and have been completely nonexistent. We have got some municipalities -- I don't know a specific list right now that are still waffling about whether or not they are going to make the additional contribution. I know last time I raised my concern that, you know, we would be willing to share with -- when Mayor Merrill was here and asking for additional funding, we would be willing to participate, conditioned upon all the other governmental entities, with or without the private businesses continuing to participate. When you lose that, the whole success of the plan is premised upon the assumption that we are all in it together. So, when you lose that you're throwing good money after bad and I don't mean to insult the people that are working so hard at it, but to the extent we need to be honest and provide clear direction, I can be crystal clear that I don't support it and perhaps it was a mistake and perhaps this Treasure Valley is not ready to sacrifice for the greater good. So, I think, number one, I think the solution is amending the Idaho Code. AIC is doing a good job trying to accomplish that. That's the only way to really fix the area of impact problem. Conflict resolution process would be a waste of money. Question number two. I agree with the recommendation of staff on that record. And question number three, to the extent that this is some cost and we have expended funds already, I don't -- I don't know Karen well enough to give her credit or blame for any of the problems, I doubt she's entitled to the blame. So, I'm not necessarily in favor of canceling it. Perhaps we are going to -- we are going to utilize the funds already provided and expended, but I had a hard time supporting it last time there was a request Meridian City Council December 5, 2006 Page 10 of 30 for additional funding, it's going to be near impossible for me to be interested in it going forward, so -- Canning: Madam Mayor? Borton: Go ahead. Canning: Could I clarify a little bit about the funding. What the -- the funding that we committed to, the 30,000, was going towards this implementation phase. We had anticipated that the conflict resolution and Karen's would be part of that overall funding. So, it's not to ask for additional funding. We haven't actually approved the funding. It was just kind of a tentative approval for that 30,000. It wasn't -- it wasn't final until this intergovernmental agreement that you have not voted on, So, this isn't asking for additional commitments, this would just be deciding how that money that has been tentatively committed by Ada County, by ACHD, and by the cities, how that would be spent. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: It was my understanding that the 30,000 check had been cut and provided. Canning: No. So, this would just -- that's what all this is about is how to spend that money. And the thought is now that we don't need the 800,000 dollars worth of studies that we can probably trim that way back. But that one thing we do need is a better area of city impact process. But as you say, perhaps the better thing to do is just devote staff time or try and get more input and influence into the Association of Idaho Cities draft that's going forward. That's a possibility. De Weerd: I hate to contradict our planning director, but I do believe that the check was cut and -- because the other cities had committed -- they hadn't actually paid, but they had committed. So-- Canning: Oh, I'm sorry. But it is about how to spend that money. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I guess just one of my statements, regardless of our direction; I think we are getting pretty clear here. I think staff time would be well spent looking at Ale's direction and the legislation, because regardless of what really comes out of Blueprint For Good Growth, ten to 20 years from now that legislation to going to impact whatever decisions are made. So, I think that is a key component, regardless of which direction we move here, to get involved in that process. Meridian City Council December 5,2006 Page 11 of 30 Canning: So, let me summarize. At this steering committee meeting I will go forth and _ - well, I'm a little -- I'll either -- we will talk about what components of the implementation we want. I will say that my Council would desire for that to go out for RFP or the RFQ process with separate contracts for the administrator and that there -- that you mayor may not be interested in the conflict -- well, actually, I think I can say that you're not interested in the conflict resolution -- De Weerd: I think you could say that. Canning: -- portion of that and that -- okay. Is that correct? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I think I heard Councilman Borton say that was the dumbest idea -- Canning: Yeah. When he said that I was trying to think of -- Rountree: Whose idea was it? Canning: -- whose idea was it and it wasn't mine. It wasn't mine. That's alii remember thinking. Oh, that wasn't mine. Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: Again, with all due respect to whoever said it, I think -- when Councilman Rountree says, you know, we have got to be honest and up front, I think that's honest, that everyone seems hesitant to question or strike down an idea, because we all have this hope and vision that there is going to be a light at the end of the tunnel, but there is -- in my opinion it's a dumb idea. Canning: Thank you very much. This helps me a lot going into that steering committee meeting, because I was at an impasse. I didn't know -- so, thank you. That was it. As if that weren't enough. B. Fire Department 1. Discussion of Proposed Ada County EMS Ordinance: De Weerd: Okay. And now after all the fun on that one, we will ask Chief Anderson to - - to just carry on that tone. Meridian City Council December 5,2006 Page 12 of 30 Anderson: Oh, boy, there seems to be a recurring theme here tonight. To follow along that line and conflicts between cities and counties, what I have before you tonight is I have passed out a copy of a draft -- or a draft of a proposed Ordinance that Ada County is presenting relating to emergency medical services and I also have before you tonight a letter that I have prepared that I would like you to ultimately end up signing after discussion that states that you are opposed to this new ordinance and there is -- to give you a little bit of background on it, as you guys are aware, I mean Meridian has been providing emergency medical services for over 30 years now and it started off with a basic QRU and EMTs and we have now evolved into a full ALS, advance life support service -- excuse me -- with paramedics on our fire engines. A little over a year ago when we started down the road putting the paramedics onto the fire engines, we were assured by Ada County EMS that they wanted to work closely with us and that we were going to be partners in the delivery of EMS services and we have been working towards that end and a couple weeks ago I found out about this proposed ordinance and it was kind of the same type of situation as Anna talked about, that there wasn't a lot of advanced warning, there wasn't opportunities for us to sit down at the table to have input into this ordinance or any of those kind of things, but yet we are clearly spelled out here as being a partner in that EMS service and I guess we are just supposed to be the silent partner in that EMS service. But in this ordinance Ada County is -- actually, I think what they are trying to do is eliminate all competition and they want to be the only ambulance service in Ada County. And, in fact, it comes right out and says that, that they would be the only emergency 911 ambulance service, and that is contrary to state law, because state law does provide that cities have the right to decide who their ambulance service is. And so not only are they taking some liberties that are not allowed by state law, but they take this ordinance a few steps further and now they are trying to regulate, I guess, what all the fire departments and the quick response units in the county do as well. So, they are saying that our medical director, who we hired last year and who oversees our paramedics program and whose license we operate under and who authorizes the procedures that our paramedics can do and writes their standing written orders and reviews their charts, he will be subservient to Ada County's medical director in this new ordinance, as well as for us to be able to do standby events in our local community we must go ask Ada County first if we can do that and must have their permission. There are just a number of things in this ordinance that they do not have the authority by state law, but they are somehow going to try to take that authority by county ordinance. It's interesting in their ordinance they talk about that they are responsible and authorized by state code to be in charge of EMS matters in the county, but yet when you read the state code it clearly talks about that when ambulance services are not otherwise provided, the county has the right to establish an ambulance district and that they also have the right to oversee their ambulance districts. It doesn't talk anything about the right to oversee other city's fire departments or quick response units or those types of things. So, it's going to be interesting. This ordinance is scheduled for a hearing on December 12th at 9:00 a.m. in the morning. We understand that they are going to try to pass this ordinance with suspension of the rules and have all the readings that day. So, it appears that this is kind of on greased wheels and is trying to get through before the end of the year. So, we certainly would like to be on record having the Mayor and Council opposed to this ordinance. We will be there at the Meridian City Council December 5,2006 Page 13 of 30 public hearing, we will testify against the ordinance. We will talk about all the reasons why we think it's a bad ordinance, but I have a feeling that this ordinance is going to be passed in spite of all the opposition. We had a meeting last Monday where we invited the Ada County EMS director to explain to all the fire chiefs in the county the purpose of the ordinance, the contents of the ordinance. There is not a single fire department in Ada County that supports this ordinance. So, I guess I'm coming to you tonight to ask for your support and direction and I would stand for any questions that you might have. De Weerd: Council, questions? I would have a couple of corrections to the letter. Anderson: Okay. De Weerd: But any-- Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: A question for legal counsel. Can an ordinance -- if we have got by state statute the right to provide EMS services, can a county-wide ordinance strip us of that right? Baird: Madam Mayor and Councilmember Borton, it's pretty much textbook law that once a city incorporates, the county ordinances have no effect within the city limits. So, you know, your -- you have the right to establish -- the chief hit everything on the head. Everything that we are doing should not be subject to the county's ordinance and I was just sitting here thinking what the alternatives would be to us to address that if the county does pass that ordinance and we probably would have to have a separate discussion about how we would react to that as a city in order to allow us to maintain our autonomy that is afforded us under the state code. So, all I'm saying, really, is just supporting everything the chief said. I think he's on solid legal ground with his analysis. Bill Nary has reviewed it and we are just scratching our heads why the county thinks they have the right to do what they are proposing to do here. De Weerd: And, Council, we did meet on this and -- along with the rural fire district. They are in full support of opposing this and also will consider signing the same letter, maybe a little bit different, but in their opposition to this ordinance as presented. And certainly the manner in which it is moving forward. So, I guess I would appreciate your direction on -- is this some -- is this letter something that you would like to proceed forward with. We did not want to approach it and I will acknowledge Chief Anderson and I think Bill Nary helped with the drafting of it, in approaching in a partnership approach and the due process and collaboratively approaching an ordinance of this sort and looking at maybe the unintended -- or maybe they are intended consequences of it, but that there would be given more time and consideration before they pass such a policy. So, this is more of a proactive way in saying we are interested in being part of Meridian City Council December 5,2006 Page 14 of 30 the dialogue and hope that they will not be hasty in their approach. So, would like your direction on how to move forward. Yes, Councilman Rountree. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I, too, have a couple of corrections for the letter, but I think it reads well and states pretty much what Ron was saying. I would make a suggestion in terms of testimony. Certainly from the fire chiefs perspective those issues with the ordinance that create a conflict with our delivery of services to our customers is something that would be in your venue, but I would caution you not to speak about statutory and legal analysis and we might also want to take one of our attorneys to testify to that aspect, so you don't get caught up in, well, you're not a lawyer and that's probably a good thing. De Weerd: We have wanted to keep maybe the legal implications out of this and let the -- our legal staff is going to work with White Peterson, who is representing Nampa, and coming together more verbally in that regard to have -- clear up to the hearing time to really bring together their ideas of how to challenge it maybe on -- in that vein. Rountree: That would be even better. De Weerd: Okay. Anderson: Councilman Rountree, our approach is going to be kind of two pronged. We feel like there is a number of legal questions regarding this ordinance and so attorneys from Boise, Kuna, Meridian, Nampa, are all going to address the legal ramifications of this and, then, we would also like to approach this from the political front and, again, if any of you are able to testify on the 12th, we would love to have you there, because you carry a certain amount of clout just because of your position, that sometimes the county commissioners will listen to you when they won't listen to the fire chiefs, so -- De Weerd: Ron, the only thing -- and maybe we can change it while Council is in Executive Session and so we can get signatures. But in the third paragraph, to keep the first sentence and the last sentence, but take the middle out, which raises the legal question. And, then, I just have a couple of hyphens and changes on the second page to -- that I could -- that are just more clean up. Anderson: Okay. De Weerd: So, Council, I guess the bottom line is do you feel comfortable signing this if we clean it up real quick and -- Bird: Bring it forward. Rountree: Yes. Wardle: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council December 5,2006 Page 15 of 30 De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I certainly support -- I support our opposition to the ordinance. I think it's important for us to have the best service for our citizens and I don't understand how this would help us serve our mission and so certainly I'm willing to sign a document and potentially look at my schedule on the 12th and would suggest -- Rountree: It certainly seems odd to me, Madam Mayor, that probably 18 months ago we heard a plea from the county that they needed a tax levy to increase fees so they could operate emergency medical services in the county and now they want to take them over. It doesn't pass the smell test to me. So, something is going on here. Anderson: That's a very good point. It was just about a year and a half ago that they went before the taxpayers and asked them for an increase in their mill levy, said they didn't have enough money to operate, they were going to have to lay people off. That mill levy increase failed and today they are telling us that they have no financial troubles and that they are doing fine and I think part of the -- this ordinance may be part of that strategy of how they are doing fine, we are just going to eliminate the competition. De Weerd: Okay. Well, we will clean it up and bring it to you at the end of the meeting. Ron, do you have this on electronic -- Anderson: I don't have that electronically with me tonight, so I guess maybe what I would ask is that you get the -- a motion to approve the signing and, then, we will collect -- or correct the language tomorrow and, then, send it around to all of you for signature, if that would work. De Weerd: Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: I would move that we approve the opposition -- City of Meridian's opposition to Ada County's ordinance and the signing of the letter and our opposition in writing to the county commissioners opposed to this ordinance. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the letter to the Ada County commissioners in opposition of the ordinance in front of you. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council December 5, 2006 Page 16 of 30 De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: Ron, did you say that's 9:00 o'clock on the 12th down at the county commissioners? Anderson: Yes. Borton: Okay. Anderson: If you guys would just make whatever corrections you want to that, just one copy of that letter, and, then, I will collect it from Will and, then, we will make those corrections tomorrow, would that work? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think those 9:00 o'clock meetings are in their offices up on the third floor. They are not in the hearing room, as I understand it. They didn't used to be. I don't think they are. De Weerd: They are encouraging great participation in having that-- Canning: Well, if there is no one downstairs, they are upstairs. Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: Item 8: Tabled from November 21, 2006: FP 06-048 Request for Final Plat approval for 50 residential building lots, 32 commercial building lots, 1 City park lot, 21 common lots on 62.01 acres in R-15 and C-G zones for Gramercv Subdivision No.1 (fka Kenai Subdivision> by Kenai Partners, LLC - East Overland Road and west of Eagle Road: Item 9: FP 06-049 Request for Final Plat approval for 29 single-family residential building lots and 4 common lots on 9.88 acres in an R-4 zone for SilversprinQs Subdivision by Reed Kofoed - 905 & 805 East McMillan Road: De Weerd: Okay. Well, thank you to our audience out there for bearing with us while we go through city business. Item 8 was tabled from November 21 st and it's FP 06-048. Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there are no outstanding issues regarding the Gramercy Subdivision No. 1 plat and we do have a letter from the applicant stating they are in agreement with the conditions of approval. Meridian City Council December 5, 2006 Page 17 of 30 De Weerd: That's goes with Item 9-- Canning: Yes. De Weerd: -- final plat as well? Canning: Yes, ma'am. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve FP 06-048 and FP 06-049, final plats. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Items 8 and 9. Ifthere is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Public Hearing: MI 06-009 Request for Modification of the existing Development Agreement to remove the requirement for Conditional Use Permit approval of Lot 3, Block 1 of Resolution Park Subdivision for Resolution Park Medical Office by Phil Burk - 1828 South Millenium Way: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 10 is Public Hearing MI 06-009. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Resolution Park Medical Office. It's located about 750 feet south of Overland Road and east of Millennium Way. You see the kind of flag shaped lot on the screen before you. This is a DA modification, development agreement modification. The applicant is proposing to amend the development agreement to remove the obligation for the future use on this site, which is Lot 3, Block 1, from obtaining Conditional Use Permit approval. Some of you will recall that when the property was annexed they did not have a concept plan and, then, therefore, every use was subject to conditional use approval. This, I believe, is actually the last vacant lot in the subdivision. So, this would -- if approved, this would be the fourth amendment to that development agreement modification. Some of those amendments have been to remove this conditional use requirement. The applicant has Meridian City Council December 5, 2006 Page 18 of 30 provided a conceptual plan and we also have building elevations. So, these are the building elevations. North would be facing Overland. The east elevation faces the back side of another structure, so you really wouldn't see that east elevation much. The south elevation would face the high school. And the west elevation faces Millennium Way and some other office buildings. This is the site layout. Just a moment, I need to get my laser pointer out. I forgot it. De Weerd: I can point for you. Canning: I got it. There are a number of access points or cross-access easements already in place. One being here to the east. You have this aisle to the west. And you will note it looks a little confusing up there. That's because they are shifting the shared access pOint. Currently it's right here. They are going to shift it to this flag portion of this lot and we do have agreements from the surrounding property owners. Those details will be worked out as part of their certificate of zoning compliance, but they are, basically, shifting this entrance aisle to this location, so that it comes directly into this site and, then, you have cross-access and cross-parking agreements between these properties as well. We also have a cross-access, cross-parking here on the east and, then, one up on the north. Now, we did note that they had not connected to the one to the north. As you can already tell, there is -- it's planned for and accommodated and there is a trash canister there, so that is the site plan. So, staff has proposed some alternate language for that development agreement and you will see that it, basically, states that with further restriction that all uses and development of the subject real property shall be governed under the Conditional Use Permit process as a planned development and the new language, excepting Lot 3, Block 1, all uses and buildings on Lot 3, Block 1, shall be governed under the city's Unified Development Code and shall be subject to administrative design review as set forth in UDC 11-3-8-19, C-1 and 2. And we did -- you will notice that C-1 and 2 are in bold and double underlined. That's not how your staff report reads at this time, but we felt it important not to -- to exempt them from some of the parking and site design requirements, because this is already worked out. I didn't want to put limitations on how many parking spaces could be in the front, just because it's such a tight aisle. But I would -- if the Council wishes to approve this development agreement modification, I would also ask you to note that the applicant does need to connect to that cross-access to the north, that we will be looking for that at certificate of zoning compliance. And with that I will answer any questions. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions? Bird: Not at this time. Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion? Bird: This is a Public Hearing. Meridian City Council December 5, 2006 Page 19 of 30 Rountree: It's a Public Hearing. De Weerd: Oh. Sorry. I tried to get you out early tonight. Morris: Hi. Good evening. I'm Lisa Morris with Cole and Poe Architects and I represent the owner in this case. De Weerd: If you will also give your address, please. Morris: With the firm -- De Weerd: Yes. Morris: 519 West Front Street in Boise. 83702. De Weerd: Thank you. Morris: As the planning director mentioned, staff has recommended approval for the development agreement modification, based on a number of reasons, and just to simplify some of the reasons to support development agreement modification in this case, the original project as it was originally proposed in -- as Resolution Plaza, it was a large 47 acre project. It's been almost entirely built out and this is one very small 1.2 acre parcel out of that whole 47 acre parcel that's just a one last little piece in the whole puzzle, particularly in this area. One last vacant lot. Most of the neighboring parcels have been built out. This is also an interior or flag lot, as you can see, so we have neighbors all the way around us and it backs up to the school along the south. development agreement modification has been approved prior for neighboring parcels. Just the parcel to the east, I believe six parcels there, development agreement modification was approved for them. So, it seemed to be right in line with what was happening in this particular area to remove the requirement for the conditional use and just to go right in line with what is currently consistent with existing zoning that is overlaid in this area. So, what we put together was consistent with existing L-O zone and consistent with the city's unified development code. We weren't proposing to do anything alternate to the zoning code. And so that's what was proposed originally, was completely consistent with that. What the staff proposed was to support and we had already put forth a CZC application, which is in for review currently, actually, but in the staff report they did recommend that we submit a design review and the owner would prefer at this point in time that we can proceed with our application without going to the design review process, if that's possible. And the reasons to proceed without design review would be because under normal circumstances the project would not be required under the unified code to go through the design review process, because we are under 10,000 square feet, which is the cap, is my understanding, which would trigger us under normal circumstances to go through design review. So, it seems like a bit excessive, but if staff does feel that is absolutely necessary for us to go through that process, we understand that it's only an additional 100 dollars and it will only add, it's our understanding, a few additional days and so if it is absolutely necessary, the owner will Meridian City Council December 5, 2006 Page 20 of 30 go through that process in order to just get moving forward. So, that was our only issue that we had this evening. And, then, it was brought up by the planning director with regard to that access -- through access and I just wanted to bring forward that the adjacent land owners have made it very clear that they have an issue with that cross- access. So, I'm not sure what to do about that at this point in time, if that's a recommendation that we have to do that, then, something will have to be done with our neighbors. De Weerd: And which one is that? Bird: The north one. Morris: That is the -- there is -- there is an existing curb cut along the north right through there and they have made it very clear that they -- they have chained across there and they have made it very clear that they don't want that to be used and so that's why the site was developed and designed without that particular drive aisle. De Weerd: Now, I guess, Anna, that would have allowed cross-access out onto Gala, is that -- Morris: Yes. That's correct. Canning: Yes, I -- yes. De Weerd: And Millennium Way is sometimes very clogged up, so I guess I -- I think I remember when that application to the north came in, why we stubbed that out. Canning: Yes. We -- Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we were very adamant and some of those owners were opposed to the stubs that -- and cross-access agreements that were conditions of approval, but we do -- I would imagine we have a cross-access easement in place for that property and that's why it's shown as being stubbed out. We also -- the property owner to the east was not very happy about -- or to the west was not very happy about having to provide that access either, but the Council has insisted on a number of cross-accesses between these -- particularly in through here with these unusual shaped lots. De Weerd: Otherwise, you would have been totally landlocked. Yes, Councilman Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor. Anna, where does this access lead to? Canning: It goes through -- sorry, I'm having problems with this one. It's about right there and it comes up and it goes up basically like that. Bird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council December 5,2006 Page 21 of 30 De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, you're saying that the development agreement with that property there to the north, probably we required an access to the south for them? Canning: I suspect we did. As I recall, that was a three lot subdivision and I believe that that cross-access easement was required at the time of that subdivision. Bird: Because I think that's important for this project, because if they don't -- if we didn't require one, then, I don't know how we can require these people to have one to the north. But if they do to the south, then, I think we need to have one to the north. But we need to know -- we need to know now what the development agreement was on that property. Now, if they didn't have a cross-access there -- and I'm -- I, for one, am not going to require these people to have one to the north. If they do have one, then, these people can have one to the north. Canning; Madam Mayor, Councilmember Bird, I can't tell you with certainty right now, but I am -- let's say 80 percent sure that we got cross-access agreements with that preliminary plat, but a hundred percent certainty I cannot give you. Bird: But -- excuse me, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Yes. Bird: But, Anna, do you see where I'm coming from? Canning: Oh, I understand, I'm just -- Bird: How can I say you have got to have north cross-access when the one to the south I don't know for sure has one. And I mean that's not fair to these people to hang them out when we don't know for sure. I'm sure you're probably right, but I'm not positive. Canning: Madam Mayor, Councilmember Bird, I was not trying to contradict you, I just meant you will have to continue the item until I can do the research. That's all I meant. Sorry. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: I guess to Councilman Bird's comments, I see in the way that there is -- there is that access to the east and north I guess, that gets you onto -- I can't read that. Gala. Gets you onto Gala and if the property to the north it sounds like would be tickled to not have to provide the cross-access down to the south, I don't have a problem not requiring it to the north. Meridian City Council December 5,2006 Page 22 of 30 Bird: I don't disagree with that. Borton: The problem to the south is probably -- it sounds like the applicant is -- Morris: And the current property owners are fine with the current layout as it stands. Borton: Okay. Yeah. I wouldn't necessarily need a delay to -- a delay on that issue. Bird: Madam Mayor. And I agree with Councilman Borton. I don't need an access there. But, in the same token, if we have one to the south, we don't want to get something like we got out on Locust Grove there where we didn't ~- where we had an access -- we required an access, but we didn't have one. So, I have no problem not having one. I feel we have got two exits, we get to Gala through the east exit, we get out to Millennium on the west exit, I see no reason to have other cross-access, but staff evidently felt that there was a need. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it's always easier for the trash to get -- folks to get around, it's easier for the fire department folks to get around if we have the cross-access between the parcels. If Council is -- wants to make a motion tonight, but is uncomfortable with the fact that we don't know exactly about the property to the north, you could condition on if there is a cross-access agreement, then, they need to connect to it. De Weerd: I guess, Anna, when you have this cross-access and, then, this, why would you need a third? You know, I guess I didn't see the -- this one and that would get them out onto Gala as well. So, that's a lot of connections for one site. Morris: And may I add also that they are adding this one. This one currently does not exist. So, this would be a brand new one here. Bird: It goes out to Millennium. Morris: Which, actually, gives better circulation through this area and, then, back towards the trash enclosure, which we thought was better also. Canning: Madam Mayor, I -- you know, again, I'm pretty sure it was a requirement for the property to the north and there may be some questions about fairness if we don't require it to the property to the south. Even though they are complaining, it's just what we have done through here is required a cross-access and require those folks to connect. With regard to the design review, when staff wrote the staff report we did not have the elevations. I am fairly confident -- we haven't evaluated the certificate of zoning compliance, but I anticipate that given the elevations we have seen that they will meet the design review qualifications and that may not be necessary. If it's important to Council to remove that, then, that's certainly understandable. So, I'm not too worried about it one way or the other. Meridian City Council December 5,2006 Page 23 of 30 De Weerd: So, Anna, if that's a requirement to the property to the north, can you eliminate the one to the east? Is there a reason for the one to the east? I guess it's just so many different cross-accesses on one lot that they would have four different places. Is there a reason that they have to have that many? Canning: Madam Mayor -- and Mr. Rountree can help me out. The idea is similar to streets. If you have more opportunities for ways for people to go, it's less likely to have -- put all the burden on one lot. My fear would be that if you don't provide other cross- access opportunities to this, this may be the one and only desired cut through to Gala -- or to -- is that correct? Gala? Yes. From Millennium to Gala to get by that cut through. So, having other ways of getting there helps. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: We discussed the cross~access issues associated with this property when the property to the west developed, because it was evident when this building went in that this property would become primarily a drive access aisle to the benefit of this property. But the -- you know, the owners at the time and the developer understood that all of these -- it was originally just three parcels, but that all of these three parcels were really tied together and, then, the parcel to the north further split into three. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, you don't have no heartburn with three accesses if we don't have a north one, do you? Canning: Can I refuse to answer that question based on the fact that it may incriminate me? De Weerd: We will just mark it down for a rhetorical question. Bird: I was going to offer you -- anyway. I don't feel we need another one. De Weerd: Okay. Council, anymore questions for the applicant? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Seeing none, Anna, do you have any further issues for the Council? Canning: No. De Weerd: Council, anything further? Meridian City Council December 5, 2006 Page 24 of 30 Bird: I have none, Mayor. Rountree: Nothing. De Weerd: Okay. Applicant, any further comments? If you don't have further comment, you just don't come up here. But if you do you have to come up here. Okay. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Hearing no further information needed, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item 10. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion and second to close Item 10's Public Hearing. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES De Weerd: Any discussion? If not, I would entertain a motion. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I'll attempt a motion here. If staff needs to help me be more clear, they certainly can. I move that we approve Item 10, MI 06-009, Resolution Park Medical Office, to include comments by staff and applicant, specifically comments by staff and the removal of the design review criteria from the application, in addition to remove the requirement for cross-access agreement and cross-access construction to the property immediately north of this parcel. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve this item with comments. Any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council December 5, 2006 Page 25 of 30 Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 06-038 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.53 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Nursery Subdivision by Gary Fors - 570 South Linder Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 06-036 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 25 residential lots and 3 common lots on 5.53 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Nursery Subdivision by Gary Fors - 570 South Linder Road: De Weerd: Items 11 and 12 are public hearings on AZ 06-038 and PP 06-036. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments. Canning: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This next project is the Nursery project. It is located on the east side of Linder Road, approximately 1,900 feet south of Franklin Road. There is the property located amongst all annexed and zoned R-4 property. The applications before you tonight are annexation and zoning and preliminary plat. The proposed gross residential density is 5.06 units per acre. The net density is listed at 7.27, but I suspect that that's not accurate, because there is no large open space on this project, so I guess that's just excepting the road. All the lots are proposed as single family detached units. This is an in-fill project, as you will note on the properties to the north are all existing, as well as half of the ones to the south and all the ones to the east and the one -- there is one large kind of un-platted lot to the west of the property and the applicants have provided a stub street to that property. It currently has direct access to Linder Road. The Commission -- the Commission as part of their recommendation did required a revised preliminary plat and just so you're aware that is the one that's in the staff report that you are reviewing tonight. The Commission did recommend approval at their November 16th, 2006, Public Hearing. Kurt Reliford, Gary Fors and Marv Hagedorn spoke in favor. No one spoke in opposition. Julie Busman did comment. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the maintenance of the irrigation easement along the southern property boundary. This is the easement. The irrigation facility is piped to this location, so it is tiled throughout this area. And, then, it surfaces in this area currently, but I believe they plan on tiling that as part of this application. So, there is still an easement, though, so it is -- that was a major issue of discussion. One of the changes the Commission wanted to see was that that was put in a separate common lot. So, we do have a separate common lot that would be subject to -- that the homeowners association would be responsibility for maintenance of that property. Also of discussion was Lot 20, Block 1, in the adjacent common lots. This is Lot 20, Block 1. And, then, there is a common lot adjoining Linder Road. The key commission -- well, there were no changes to staff's initial recommendation. They did ask for a few changes to the plat and those have been prepared for you. To our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council and we have not received additional written testimony since the staff report. I should mention, because I forgot to put it in my cheat sheet, these -- this is proposed as the R-8 zone, as you see there. The lots generally range from six to seven thousand square feet. Now, they are not the same size as the surrounding properties. The surrounding properties are, by and large are all R-4, but, please, keep in mind this is an in-fill project and this is a very difficult site to get a layout on. As staff we saw a number of designs come through. This one Meridian City Council December 5, 2006 Page 26 of 30 did seem to work better than most and fit in with the code better than most. So it is a , difficult site to design and I think the applicants have worked with their neighbors, evidenced by no one showed up for the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. We may have some here tonight. I'm not sure. With that I will answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and address. Reliford: Good evening. Kurt Reliford with J.J. Howard Engineers, 1530 East Commercial, Meridian, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Reliford: We agree with the staff report from the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning and Zoning department. We have no issues with anything that you guys have recommended or they have recommended. We are certainly willing to comply. So, if you have any questions for me. De Weerd: Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Help me understand what's going on on this end of the development. It's pretty busy. That's the best we have got and I can't read it. Canning: There you go. Reliford: Do we have the revised below up of that area that I gave to Josh? Canning: No. Reliford: Go back to -- I don't know how to use one of these things. See what I can do here. This lot -- this is a storm drain lot right here and this is the required landscape buffer, which is, I think, 30 feet or something along Under Road, and what we did is we revised this area -- this is a common lot park area here for the residents and we combined this area along that easement to make this the whole common lot all the way down into that. In regard to this, we have this common lot that has a -- facilitates sewer for the city, the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District's Kennedy Lateral and the buffer itself. And, then, the lot -- I can't remember if that's Lots 20 -- 19, 20 -- I think this might be 21 right here or right here that goes up to the street. Does that help you, Mr. Rountree? Meridian City Council December 5, 2006 Page 27 of 30 Rountree: Further question on the development of this parcel. Since Nampa-Meridian would be co-located in that with a bunch of other things, is there going to be an access on Under Road, then, or are they going to access from -- Reliford: At this point the access would be from Tylee. Rountree: Tylee? Reliford: Yeah. South Tylee. Rountree: Okay. Reliford: To either -- to the west or the southeast there, because they have got it to get back -- Rountree: Okay. Reliford: ~. towards the landing where they have tiled their ditch and they have irrigation boxes there as well. Rountree: And one last question. What's this particular feature? Reliford: That's an existing building, an existing shop that's there. Rountree: That will be removed? Reliford: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Reliford: Thank you. De Weerd: You bet. Any further questions, Council? No? Thank you. Reliford: Thank you. De Weerd: This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. I don't see any further testimony, Council. Any additional questions for staff or the applicant? Okay. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Wardle: I move we close the Public Hearing on Items 11 and 12. Meridian City Council December 5, 2006 Page 28 of 30 Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the Public Hearing on Items 11 and 12. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Wardle: I move we approve Item 11, AZ 06-038. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 11. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Wardle: Maybe a clarification for the record before Item 12. I realize that this is an in-fill project and a difficult site to -- the density question I think is one that Council wrestles with and we will see more in the future, but certainly from what we heard from staff report and what I have seen in the file, there have been a number of designs, working with the neighbors, evidenced by lack of public outcry in this meeting I think all spells what could be the best for this site, so with that I would move that we approve Item 12, PP 06-036. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 12. Any discussion? Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council December 5, 2006 Page 29 of 30 Item 13: Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(a) - (to consider hiring a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, not to include. This paragraph does not apply to filling a vacancy in an elective office) (f) - (to consider and advise its legal representatives in pending litigation) & 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: Thank you. Okay. Item 13 is an Executive Session per Idaho State Code and just a reminder that we did move the Executive Session on the Pre-Council agenda to fold into this one as well and they are the same letter F. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1 )(a), (1 )(f), and (1 )(c). Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to adjourn into Executive Session. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Rountree: I move we come out of Executive Session. Bird: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Bird: So moved. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor. Meridian City Coundl December 5, 2006 Page 30 of 30 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:50 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) d~~~ MAYOR T A DE WEERD ATTESTED: ~~~ WILLIAM G. BERG JR., I / Z. / tl 7 \1\111111111// _ \\ \ /" I,. DATE APPROVED ",\\~ Of MEJt'i,,;>'/~/ .;:.",';:" ...-:--.----<",'"t.,,' <~ '" u- O(POff/j ",', ~. ...... _CJ t ...... '\ ; ~~ <'6\ \,:':'-:, c. "' ) ill -', I . I ,.1. ,. '~ ......:)~I"-'.~ ..:.:...._.......... r~~) *, ^'-.<'S-.J,/ " -::. "1.: U"-,.. _ . /" .0 ...;."<:> "Q I 1~3",',./1 "'''{'" ~ .;1 ~~----~--~-----'" 1rr~l""'.'.. .....~ "" 00{ "iV, '<- // ' "f. nT'". ,\'. /11 .j""~\i ft" l t \\..... III' .\\\ 1111! III I \ Ii \ \.