Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 26, 2007 C/C Minutes Meridian City Council June 26, 2007 Page 13 of 70 De Weerd: So, I need a motion. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we table Item 7-D to July 10th. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue this item to the 10th. July 10th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: FP 07-019 Request for Final Plat approval for 2 commercial building lots on 5.51 acres in a C-G zone for Gateway Marketplace Subdivision NO.1 by Landmark Development Group, LLC - SEC of Eagle Road and Ustick Road: Item 9: FP 07-020 Request for Final Plat approval for 16 commercial building lots and 1 common lot on 17.348 acres in a C-G zone for Gateway Marketplace Subdivision No.2 by Landmark Development Group, LLC - SEC of Eagle Road and Ustick Road: De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Zaremba, for catching that. Item 8 -- Zaremba: I miss the big ones, but I catch the little stuff. De Weerd: We appreciate that. Items 8 and 9 have been requested to continue to July 10th. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we continue Items 8 and 9 until July 10th, 2007. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue eight and nine to July 10th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from June 5, 2007: CPA 07-003 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map by adding and amending pathway locations for the Pathways Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the City of Meridian Parks and Recreation Department: Meridian City Council June 26, 2007 Page 14 0170 Item 11: Continued Public hearing from June 5, 2007: Parks Master Pathway Plan: De Weerd: Okay. Item 10 is a continued Public Hearing from June 5th on CPA 07-003. And, Matt, are you doing this? Okay. I will go ahead and turn this over to you. Ellsworth: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This -- this item under consideration is an amendment to the future land use map and it pertains directly to the proposed pathway alignments. What you see in front of you on the PowerPoint presentation here is actually a bit more detail to that alignment than what is actually under consideration on the future land used map, in that it distinguishes between pathway types. As you can see, some of those segments are in red, those are on-street routes. The ones in blue are micro pathways. Green are proposed pathways and so forth. What is on the table for consideration is the overall alignment itself. So, as it transfers onto the future land use map that will be the gray pathway alignment. I won't go into anymore detail than that. Part of what we did with this -- this planning process was working with the consultant team from Portland, Oregon. They came in and took a look at the proposed alignment as of the most recent iteration of the future land use map. They went out on the ground to ground truth some of those, to inventory what was constructed, what essential links were needed to make a more usable system and their conclusions are what you see in front of you here. This came before the Planning and Zoning Commission back in April. They recommended approval of the network as outlined in front of you. One additional change to staff I'd like to recommend related to the Ten Mile specific area plan and the specific change is identified on the screen there. The green is the new recommended alignment and this is a small deviation from what -- what is -- what was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The red dotted line is what was on the table at that time. The reason for this change is in conversation since April, with both the irrigation district and the land owner, it was determined that moving that irrigation facility was not an option as we initially anticipated. So, in order to make sure that the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan matches the pathways plan, we went ahead and switch it back. The green line that cuts diagonally across that parcel reflects the alignment of the creek and it's still proposed to run adjacent to the creek. So, that's the one change from the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation that we wanted to -- wanted to endorse and wanted to get in front of you. And, in addition, at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing several residents who live in the vicinity of the Nine Mile Creek pathway as proposed, both on the city's current future -- existing future land use map and the changes to that network alignment that are under consideration at this time, expressed some concern with that alignment and I see some familiar faces this evening, so I imagine they will -- they will express those to you. At that meeting during that discussion it was several -- several different things were discussed. Some of it's going to get more into the text of the plan, as far as the implementation measures, the priorities and things of that nature. I'm going to go back a couple slides. And I'm going to zoom briefly to that component, so you can take a closer look at exactly what we are -- what we are talking about here. Meridian City Council June 26,2007 Page 15 of 70 De Weerd: Matt, I originally had just opened 10. I will also open 11 as well. It looks like they are interrelated. Ellsworth: They are. They are very much so. And I was hoping, anyway, to zoom in on this specific segment of pathway, if that was at all an option, so that you could see -- and where I'm going with this is that particular segment of the Nine Mile Creek -- here we go. There are a couple of different things going on. On the one hand it's not a deviation at all from the current pathway alignment as shown on the adopted future land use map. The second relevant component that's worth -- that's worth identifying is that this is one component where the consultant actually proposes a parallel alternate route and you can see it -- it follows this A to B connection. Here we have Ten Mile Road and Cherry Lane and the segment in question is the green proposed pathway that runs along Nine Mile Creek. As you can see there is also, with a micro pathway, some on- street connections -- a parallel route and the way that that's described in the text of the pathways plan, its kind of near term solution and a long term solution. The consultant took a look at it on the ground, they noticed how constrained that corridor was and they knew that it had significant property owner impacts. As a result, they proposed that in the near term they could still create that connection and in a longer term, upon redevelopment someplace down the line, they can come in to create that pathway along the creek in making this link. However, it was not indicated as a top priority and that was, essentially, a back burner component. The concern that staff iterated to the Planning and Zoning Commission with removing that segment from the proposed alignment is that once that line goes away, the chances of getting that pathway there essentially go away with it. So, that was our take and the Planning and Zoning Commission agreed with that. So, with that I may turn it over to Doug to speak briefly about that plan document and some of the comments that were received. Strong: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we -- this process of -- with the consultants of -- as Matt has already indicated, was an effort to expand our current pathways master plan to include more language about construction of path -- what the construction of the pathway would look that, the actual diagram for that street alignment, signage of pathway connections, certainly to do the ground proofing that's been discussed. But to improve the overall description of a master pathway plan. We went through several public meetings to get input about not just alignments, but what pathways should look like, treatments along corridors and things like that. We -- in the initial draft of the plan, those public meetings that we held at the police department, comments were incorporated into that plan. We later received comments from ACHD from John Cecil, a private citizen, but also does consulting work of pathways that were primarily editorial comments to the text, those -- this -- correcting language and hyphenation and different things in the text. Those -- those comments were incorporated into the -- the latest draft of the plan that we currently have and, then, there was -- there were also some -- an additional letter from the fire department about how the pathway needed to be constructed for emergency access and weight loads that Meridian City Council June 26, 2007 Page 16 of70 were necessary for emergency response along pathway corridors and there was some discussion about the importance of that in the way that -- where pathways went and the opportunity for connectivity to areas that otherwise wouldn't be accessible. We feel that some of what's being suggested might be a little bit excessive for a pathway system that would bear up to 75,000 pounds in weight. We are suggesting some alternate ways to get connections at the half mile or quarter mile into pathway sections and things like that. De Weerd: If you will put bike racks on the fire path, so -- to promote a healthy lifestyle. Strong: And I believe -- oh. And we have discussed the pathway plan and the text at the April Parks and Recreation Commission meeting and also received public input at that meeting, the same residents that Matt mentioned from the Nine Mile Creek area were present at that meeting and provided comment. At the completion of the meeting the commission recommended approval of the draft plan. So, it -- they suggested that we bring it forward. So, that's where we are with it to date. De Weerd: Okay. Doug, the commission, did they discuss the changes to that section of the plan after the testimony or is that something that was a staff recommendation? Strong: Which section? De Weerd: That the neighbors talked about. Rountree: Nine Mile. Bird: Nine Mile. De Weerd: The Nine Mile section off of Ten Mile. Bird: Franklin and Ten Mile. Between Franklin and Ten Mile. Strong: They did discuss that. The recommendation was to leave the plan as it is -- as submitted by the consultant. De Weerd: But -- and staff has since -- the alternative comes before the Commission? Was that section discussed with the parks commission? Strong: Yes, it was. And we did receive the same public comment from the residents of that area that were present at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. As Matt discussed, there are alternate on-street routes to provide connectivity through that area without going down along the Nine Mile ditch or drain, whatever it is, until sometime in the future, if that area redevelops, then, we will want it to retain that line on the map, to retain the opportunity to put a pathway through there, if that happens somewhere down Meridian City Council June 26, 2007 Page 17 of 70 the road -- down the road. In the consultants' plan they actually -- they had sections of pathway that would be driven by development and paid for by development and sections of the plan, as you might recall, that would need to be funded by city funds, if they were to be completed. This section would be one of those sections that down the road, if it was built, would be -- have to be built by city funds. It's in the third tier, which is quite a few years out in priority. So, we certainly don't know how long it is, but third tier could be 30 years down the road. In our ten year capital improvement plan we don't have any -- any money identified for a pathway development beyond what's being put in by developers at this point. That's the first priority for development. So, all of that was discussed at the Commission meeting and that's why it was -- it was elected to keep it-- the line on the map and the text as it is. De Weerd: Okay. With the red routes as well, the on-street-- Strong: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Thank. Council, any questions for staff at this time? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Rountree: I have none at this point. De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? You would need to come up here, please. Even questions have to be on the public record. And if you could give us your name and address. Kern: Patsy Kern. K-e-r-n. De Weerd: And your address? Kern: 2151 North Massey Place. This on-street route that's been added, was that on the original map? Ellsworth: Madam Mayor, yes, it was. Kern: It was? Well, did any of you see what we brought -- we went around to a lot of the neighbors, the others, besides myself, who own property along Nine Mile Creek, and I forget how many there were now. I looked for my information before I came, I couldn't find it. Did you get a letter from us that was presented? And that was not considered or did we waste our time or -- Meridian City Council June 26, 2007 Page 18 of 70 De Weerd: This is the public process for that consideration. The first one went in front of the parks commission and their recommendation is now in front of City Council, along with the plan, and all the other public documentation and that would be part of it. Kern: So, it hasn't really changed? Nothing's changed from the original, other -- De Weerd: I guess they are suggesting an alternative to the long term and the long term is only in the case that that area redevelops. Kern: Okay. De Weerd: So, that piece would be an on-street piece. Kern: Because we do own property -- we own the property and we strongly object to it, because it's gOing to infringe on our privacy, on our way of life, and that's why we did what we did. So, I just wanted to be sure that you all knew that. De Weerd: Okay. I guess my question is you oppose the on-street-- Kern: No, I don't have a problem with the on-street route. De Weerd: Just the green piece? Kern: Yeah. That it's still on there. De Weerd: Okay. But you also understand that green piece is a section that would only develop in the case that your properties would redevelop for a different use. Kern: Every single property would have to redevelop before they could do that? Is that my understanding? Okay. Bird: Yes. De Weerd: Thank you. Any other questions? Public testimony? Rountree: Misunderstandings. De Weerd: Yes. Or clarification needed. And I guess, Anna, you might explain what that means, if a section would redevelop, it wouldn't really be a parcel by parcel type of redevelopment, it would be more of an area redevelopment. Could you comment to that? Canning: Yes, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. We have done these incrementally, but given that these are fairly small parcels that likely can't re-subdivide Meridian City Council June 26, 2007 Page 19 of 70 or anything like that, the more likely method of achieving that green line sometime in the future would be to acquire that easement through purchase or some other means like that. And we were talking way in the future conceivably. So, I think that -- I can understand why the residents feel frustrated, like they hadn't been heard, but I -- I think that the way the planning commission felt -- I wasn't at the parks commission meeting, but the way the planning commission felt is that there was a misunderstanding on how and when that pathway would occur, that we wouldn't just go and pave over their backyards, that -- without them knowing it. Waking up one day and all of a sudden there was a pathway there. So, we've tried to explain to them the process and the likelihood of that occurring and we felt like we had addressed their concerns and so kept the green line on the map, if that helps to understand. But I can see how the folks felt like they weren't heard. But we heard -- their concerns were already addressed through the on-street pathway and any future action that the city might need to do to somehow inquire that incremental or -- incremental acquisition of those easements for the pathway or some larger effort on the part of the city to acquire the whole pathway. De Weerd: Sometimes I wonder if that was really English or not, so -- Nary: It would appear not. Kern: When you say purchase the property -- De Weerd: If you would just restate your name. Kern: Patsy Kern. K-e-r-n. 2151 North Maxie Place. When you say purchase the property, I thought you had said it had to be redeveloped, that you wouldn't come in and try to purchase that area if it wasn't. Was that what you just said? De Weerd: I think at redevelopment it would be a series of things that -- it wouldn't be any easy path and that's probably why they are suggesting the one road alternative, so that a connection can happen that's realistic. That line is on the map in case in the future is ever realistic and actually ZOA-able. Kern: Well, I just heard purchase easement and I just had questions that's why I was questioning her. De Weerd: Well-- Kern: That's what she said; right? De Weerd: It would have to be purchased. Kern: But I thought it wouldn't be done unless the area was redeveloped. So, these are two different things. Meridian City Council June 26. 2007 Page 20 of 70 Zaremba: Madam Mayor, that's not contradictory. The point is if it ever happens during a redevelopment the city would have to purchase that easement. Kern: Oh. Okay. Zaremba: They are not going to come to you -- we are not going to come to you and condemn that piece of property or force you to give up -- Kern: Well, you never know. That's what I wanted to -- Zaremba: That's happened some places. Kern: That's why I wanted to clarify. But I heard her say that. Zaremba: But we have heard your concern and we are not -- and I believe I did see the original letter at some point. Kern: Okay. Rountree: Yeah. It's in here somewhere. Zaremba: If I recall, it was in the form of a petition. Kern: Okay. Okay. Zaremba: But those are not contradictory. What was being described, yes, we would have to buy the easement, but we are not going to do that forcefully. Kern: Okay. Zaremba: It would happen in the process of you all getting together and having somebody redevelop your properties. Kern: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Anything further, Councilor staff? Rountree: Well, I think there is probably another explanation, because I'm now confused. It seems to me that at some point in time, if this is a preferred alignment for the ultimate, that the city could, if they showed a need, acquire that right of way or an easement and put a path in there. So, the question for the homeowners is, is it going to happen or is it not? I guess my answer to them is given Meridian's budget situation, given our lack of park space and other needs in the city, I don't suspect most of us in Meridian City Council June 26, 2007 Page 21 of 70 the room will ever see that happen. That's the reality of it. If it -- if it stays in the plan, it's for some future consideration. So, the question is does it stay in the plan as a color or does it stay in the plan as a note that at some point in time the city may want to consider -- and, quite frankly, the residents, whoever lived there in the future, might want the city to accept the liability along the canal or the drain way and the situation that's there and let the city deal with the irrigation district, as opposed to the individual homeowners. But that's -- that's way, way, way in the future. So, it seems to me that maybe clarification in the plan is such that the green line is an asterisk that -- like to, but not likely. Or not -- would make sense if it were possible, but it's not possible. I mean I understand the concern that we could have a future council at some point in time that said I want to finish the pathways and, by golly, we are going to do it and if they can show a need, we -- the city has the ability to acquire the right of way. We haven't done that ever that I know of, but -- Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean Councilmember Rountree I mean has raised a valid point, but certainly any city council in the future could do the same thing. Rountree: Sure. Nary: I mean they can amend the plan, I mean they can do the same thing. I guess what the Council could consider is -- at least in this particular pathway -- and that may open the door to other people requesting similar accommodation, but instead of just making a note -- I mean make it -- leaving that line there, but you can certainly change the way that line looks, whether your cross-hatch it, change the color, whatever you want to do, to make it clear that that is -- that is the intention today. That it is only to -- you know, a potential redevelopment in the future or something like that, so that it's clear that right now that the intent of this Council in imposing this plan is exactly that, it's not intended to be done unless redevelopment occurs, it's not going to be done unless purchased in the future by the city, or whatever notation you wanted to make. But, again, I think the intent of the discussion from both parks department and the Commission and the staff, has been simply the opportunity would -- would be less likely if we don't preserve that today, but you can preserve that complexion of what your intentions are on that with the line and still give at least some assurance to the current property owners as to what that is. You know, as you stated, I mean certainly anyone in the future -- any Council up here in the future can change it anyway. There is a process to do it, just like this process has occurred, but that might be a way to at least make sure -- give them some assurance that at least for the time being it's not going to change significantly and not going to impact them without some other event occurring. Meridian City Council June 26, 2007 Page 22 of 70 Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Just as a suggestion, I wonder if it might help -- in those portions where we do have an alternate, that what's going to be established for now is on roadway pathway that doesn't follow the green line. I agree with the idea of keeping the marker there, so to speak, but what if we showed the green portion as a green dotted line, that we do have an alternative route, this was just being preserved for the future. Still have it be the green line, so that it shows continuous all over the map, but that portion where there is an alternate, where we don't intend to do it first, just have that dotted line. Not a solid line, a dotted line. Strong: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I just wanted to add one other note that I didn't mention before. This particular drain goes along the eastern side of Chateau Park. One of the elements that the consultant that was working with us, as we talked about connectivity through the community, is providing connections to parks, to schools, of off-street pathways. That's kind of the reason that we have hung onto it, because there is alternate ways to provide that connection now, this was not put as a very high priority, which you have already discussed. But that's the reasons that the line persists there. The property owners along this canal own to the center of the canal. It's their property, it's not -- it would actually have to be purchased property, it's not a possible easement. And to provide the pathway width -- and this is what we discussed in the meetings -- that would be necessary for a pathway, it would take out some people's backyard and in some cases the corner of their house. So, the width is not adequate along the ditch to provide a pathway at this pOint until such time that the -- in some cases the property would have to be acquired or a redevelopment opportunity would present itself to actually make a pathway feasible. So, we recognize that from the point. But to stay with the intent of the plan to provide connectivity, this became an important corridor to maintain some kind of line on the map, whether it's a dotted line or whatever, that -- I think those are all certainly possibilities to designate it, but it was a design element of the consultants that we were working with, so -- don't know if that made it clear or muddier, but -- Rountree: Well, I guess you helped me a little bit more, because this subdivision does predate the requirement to not calculate the lot square footage with the easement. So, if the easement's included in the lot square footage, anything we might do, if we were inclined to do it, would, then, cause some zoning issues. So, I guess I'm not sure that either now or in the future that's something that the city is going to entertain. Strong: That information was provided through testimony by the residents that they own to the center of the ditch. Meridian City Council June 26, 2007 Page 23 of 70 De Weerd: I guess it makes it even less feasible to even think it would happen, unless that land redeveloped. I mean I can't see it any other way. Rountree: Yeah. So, whether it's a hatched line to give better comfort to the neighbors to know that that is a special consideration area, but to leave it as a notation that that connection at some point, if it redevelops, is an important connection. Canning: Madam Mayor. Councilmember Rountree, thank you for apparently speaking in English what I was trying to articulate earlier. Rountree: Really? Canning: I did want to explain one thing about the way that the parks department plan is structured. It's -- we are really excited about this, because every segment of pathway has a description about where the pathway should be. Is it on the north side, is it on the south side or east or west, depending on the one. So, although a dotted line would certainly be an option, all of this discussion could be included just in the text with regard to that -- that segment of pathway to -- you know, Mr. Strong could add the discussion about there was concern expressed by the neighbors and Council decided this would likely happen upon redevelopment of the property or whatever Council desires. There is a whole section of text specifically for that segment and that's where it talks about on- street alternate path, because of these constraints. So, I think there is an opportunity to use the text there, rather than trying to perhaps confuse it with the map. De Weerd: I don't know, Anna. I think we have learned lately that text and map need to mesh each other and, you know, the more closer our maps can be and -- to tell the city's story and to show the value of a situation that's important. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Borton: This might simplify it back to where we started. My sense, after hearing all the comment and testimony, is just to leave the green line at it is, not given to these gradients and patches and dots and by creating a hatch here you indirectly increase our focus on the non-hatched areas and -- I think your comments with regard to a text explanation isn't necessarily unique just to this particular stretch, but to the extent the city has a concern in any pathway development over private property right easement issues, pathway location, et cetera, while it specifically applies to this portion of the plan that we are discussing, it really applies to the city's decision making on any component of the pathway plan throughout the city. It might be acutely of interest to these property owners, so your text discussion makes sense, because the roll of the Council years later that won't be any of us, in making those decisions, will utilize those parameters regardless of where the pathways are, whether it's this particular one or otherwise. So, Meridian City Council June 26, 2007 Page 24 of 70 I'm comfortable leaving it green. From my perspective, I think -- I don't know if the Council could articulate any clearer and express as we sit here today that there is a very little likelihood that we see of this particular stretch being developed, but there is nothing we can do to any map, color, dot, dash, that would preclude it from happening in the future, other than our ability to express it's not likely. De Weerd: I usually always agree with you, but I'm a visual person and I'm going to look at a map. I'm not going to read text. And if we can make our map compatible with the text, that would be what I advocate and certainly I don't have a vote, so you guys can do what you want, but most people are going to look at the map and if we can be clear in our comments, that would be more -- I know you're an attorney and like to read, but -- Nary: Careful. De Weerd: Don't you like to read? Any other comments? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I have to agree with you on the -- I think it's very important to have the text match up with the map, but I, too, am one that the first thing -- and we -- in the ten years I have sat here, we -- every time we have got ourselves in trouble is because we haven't had enough on the map. I think you're a hundred percent right, I think people look at the map and don't read the text most of the time, so I think we need to match up, but I believe it's got to be put on the map. De Weerd: Thank you. Anything else, Council? Bird: Mark that down. Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: It's a banner day. Anna. Canning: I don't understand what -- what we are doing. De Weerd: We are talking about dots. Canning: Yes, but what will the legends say for the dotted line. I mean it's still the preferred pathway location; correct? Correct? De Weerd: I would say a preferred alignment if redevelopment occurs. Meridian City Council June 26, 2007 Page 25 of 70 Canning: Okay. De Weerd: I think -- Zaremba: Preferred future alignment. De Weerd: Yeah. Rountree: Or something quite as simple as refer to text and in the text there is an explanation of what the intent is, because we haven't had that on some maps, some folks have been upset that the text told a very different story than what the zoning map said. So, refer to text and a good explanation in the text that it's the intent of the plan not to move forward with that preferred alignment unless there is a redevelopment of that parcel of -- those parcels of properties. Canning: Madam Mayor, I guess I would suggest, then, that the dotted line legend be that proposed alignment upon redevelopment of such -- of property and, then, that we have an overall note that states: Please see text for all line segments, because there is quite a bit of text for each line segment. Rountree: That's a good point. Canning: The only other question I had is this does -- now, this is the -- the planning department on the land use map is taking the simplified version of the colored map you see before you. Do you want that dotted line to transfer over to the land use map as well? Assuming that there will be a motion on this at some point. I'm sorry, I'm ahead of you, but -- Rountree: Madam Mayor, in response to that comment, if I might, if the planning department is gOing to utilize that map to provide information to the public, then, they should be aware of what the intent is, because they will just simply refer to the map and if it's green and everything else is green, they will say it's green, and they will not have referred to the text. So, the intent would not be necessarily given to the public. And I'm thinking of a future staff. We have a fairly current situation. Canning: Do we have to bring that up? De Weerd: We just know you're dealing with a situation not created by you. Canning: Yes. De Weerd: And this could be the same type of scenario. Meridian City Council June 26, 2007 Page 26 of 70 Canning: Yes. And that begs a second question. So, I wasn't -- and if -- pardon me for getting into this conversation, but do you even want us to put it on the land use map or would you rather us just refer to the pathways plan for the more detailed information? Rountree: That would be better. Bird: It would be better than the other way. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, I think it would be better to be on the land use map also and I'm strongly in favor, you know, of having a note there that refers to your text and I have a text that the layman can read and it doesn't take a Philadelphia lawyer. De Weerd: Any other comments from the Council? Okay. Is there any additional testimony from our citizens? Okay. Council, seeing no further questions or further testimony, I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing, if you so choose. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we close the public hearings on Items 10 and 11. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Item 10 and 11. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Discussion on Item 10. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I would suggest that we might consider these yet again once we see the staff's recommended approach to our dialogue up here, whether it's a dotted line or a text amendment or both and, then, take action on that plans, if -- unless that causes some grief timing-wise. De Weerd: I think the grief would be caused by leaving it up to them. I believe that they would like specific guidelines on a dotted line and the text or one or the other. Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Canning: We can come up with a few different options for Council and Mayor to consider and provide you like a one graphic only, one graphic and text, one text only, and have those options for you in a couple weeks, if you'd prefer that. Meridian City Council June 26, 2007 Page 27 of 70 Bird: Yeah. We have got to keep it open. De Weerd: Well, then, I would suggest that we reopen the Public Hearing, so that can be entered as part of these items and ask for a continuation. And just for those who are trying to follow this discussion, we agree with your concerns and we are just trying to see how best to reflect that on the map and in the text and if it needs to be in more than one place. So, that is, I guess, in a nutshell, what we are trying to decide up here. Council will be bringing -- or staff will be bringing back a recommendation for Council's consideration, so they know what it will look like and what it will read like, as will you. And, Anna, what is the time frame that-- Canning: Madam Mayor, three weeks. De Weerd: In three weeks? So, on the 17th. Okay. So, Council, what I would need is a motion to -- Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Rountree: I move that we reopen the public hearings on Item 9 and 10, take comments from staff as it relates to the Nine Mile section, and continuing the hearing until the 17th of July. De Weerd: How about ten and eleven. Rountree: Ten and eleven. Excuse me. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to reopen the two public hearings for ten and eleven and continue those to July 17th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Public Hearing: PFP 07-001 Request for a Preliminary / Final Plat approval to subdivide Lot 13, Block 3 of Vallin Courts Subdivision to create two (2) new lots for Benewah by Walker Homes, Inc. - 2673 North Ridgebury Avenue: