Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 18, 2007 C/C Minutes• • Meridian City Council December 18, 2007 Page 74 of 87 Item 15: Public Hearing: CPA 07-014 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment of 7.43 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community for Woodland Springs by Morgan Development, Inc. - 1630 & 1720 East McMillan Road: Item 16: Public Hearing: AZ 07-014 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.55 acres from RUT and R1 to a C-C zone for Woodland Springs by Morgan Development -Northeast Corner of McMillan Road and Locust Grove Road: Item 17: Public Hearing: PP 07-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 4 commercial lots on 7.55 acres in a proposed C-C zoning district for Woodland Sprins~s by Morgan Development -Northeast Corner of McMillan Road and Locust Grove Road: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Item 15, 16, and 17 our public hearings on CPA 07-014, AZ 07-014 and PP 07-019. I will open these public hearings with staff comments. Hood: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. We are moving down Locust Grove a little bit further to the south. We are now on the northeast intersection of McMillan and Locust Grove. The subject site is seven and a half acres. This property is currently zoned RUT and R-1 in Ada county and currently it's designated for medium density residential land use in the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan. The adjacent land uses include a single family residence zoned RUT in Ada county. To the south is an Idaho Power substation and McMillan Road. To the east are future single family homes in the Portico Place Subdivision. That was approved at the zoning designation of R-8. And to the west are single family homes zoned RUT in Ada county. You may recall in late 2006 an annexation application was submitted for 2.4 acres of the subject seven and a half acre property. That annexation application requested L-O zoning. The City Council denied that application on February 13th of 2007. And that application included just this 2.4 acre parcel right on the corner. Since that time the applicant has acquired the approximately five acres surrounding that previous application and is bringing the whole thing before the Council tonight. The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan how the site may be developed with a convenience store, gas station, amedical-dental-professional office building and amulti-tenant commercial building. I guess I should back up and note that the applicant is requesting, similar to the other two applications that had Comp Plan amendmE;nts tonight, a change to the map designation from medium density to mixed use cornmunity and also an annexation of 7.55 acres to C-C and a preliminary plat for four commercial lots. On this submitted conceptual plan, the applicant has depicted one full access driveway to Locust Grove Road. It's right here. And no access to McMillan. ~iNhat the applicant is proposing to do is at Portico. Place Subdivision, that I mentioned earlier that was zoned R-8, is directly at the east property boundary, so what this applicant will be required to do is finish off that portion of Beethoven Street that lies on their property, finish off that Meridian City Council December 18, 2007 Page 75 of 87 street section, and, then, take another driveway access off of Beethoven. The applicant is proposing to landscape approximately 25 percent of the site. There are 25 foot wide buffers along Locust Grove and a 35 foot wide landscape buffer required along McMillan. Further there are land use buffer requirements. Again, there are single family homes that are existing in the county or proposed in Portico Place and depending on the zone, either a 20 or 25 foot wide land use buffer will be required. As I mentioned earlier, the applicant requested C-C zoning and community commercial designation on the future land use map. In staffs analysis of this report, we thought it would be in the best interest of the city and the surrounding properties to actually designate this property to neighborhood commercial and zone the site to C-N, which we talked about earlier tonight. It's a little bit more neighborhood friendly. Does call for the buildings to be smaller in size without having -- or -- and requiring design review and you still get the nice land use buffers to nonresidential uses. So, that is a change from the original applicant's request when they submitted their application. They are in agreement with the revised zoning proposed by staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission. I do want to run through quickly -- I know you guys have executive session next, but I do quickly want to run through some of the development agreements that staff is proposing and that the Commission also agreed to. One of those is to provide a truss structure, a picnic table, and landscaping .within a plaza area near the center of the development. Now, the exact details of this will be determined at a later time when this Lot 2 comes in and I'll touch on that here in just a second, too. But they do have this nice plaza, open space area shown in the middle of their commercial development. This is a little trellis resting area with a couple benches that are shown in the center of that. Again, the design will be worked out, but it does need to be consistent with this concept plan showing that trellis structure in the middle of the development. I think the site plan does a little bit better job of showing access to that, too, and how it really is in the center of this project. You can see there are pedestrian walkways tying sidewalks on McMillan, to and through, up and out to Locust Grove in front of the buildings, even out to Beethoven and the residential subdivision. They have done a really good job with -- with making this site very pedestrian friendly, with some stamped or scored concrete and some other things that will kind of designate some of those pedestrian ways, too, so I did want to call that out. They also have little benches -- excuse me -- a little bench area in front of this office building -- professional office building and in staffs report we did limit the hours of operation for these two buildings specifically, because they are so close to the residents, to be from 6:00 to 11:00 -- 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. And that restriction includes the deliveries and trash compacting and, then, I told you I'd get back to this. They are proposing a C-Store with some fuel stations here. That is not a principally permitted use in the C-N zone. That will require a future Conditional Use Permit. At that time we will further evaluate if this is an appropriate location for this use. What that building should look like and if the hours of operation need to be limited and to what hours they are. So, right now they can build professional offices and retail and things like that, but this use is not approved with the subject application and would require another Conditional Use Permit. All other permitted and accessory uses in the C-N zone are condition -- are principally permitted, so no further public hearings. And, then, all Meridian City Council December 18, 2007 Page 76 of 87 buildings in the development are subject to the administrative design review process stated it the UDC. We want them to construct the pedestrian walkways and paths shown and all the buildings need to substantially comply with the submitted elevations. I do have some elevations I believe in here that I can show you as well. Here are -- this one, I believe, is the L-shaped building that we looked at just real quick. This is the same building, I believe, and they showed a couple different variations of what those buildings may look like. Some of the materials on the buildings include cultured stone, faux timbers and beams, stucco and stucco accents, and metal standing seam roofing. The applicant did also submit a picture of an existing Maverick store. I have left that out of the presentation, just because, again, that wouldn't be principally permitted in the zone. I can let you know, though, that that Maverick did have a metal roof. The colors, if recall correctly, the roof I think was red, actually. And we weren't -- I wasn't overly excited about the color scheme that they had going on, but it was a fairly nice building. But I have let that -- that slide out, again, because that really isn't on the table. So, the elevations are really geared more towards the L-shape building and the other smaller -- about 4,500 square foot building located further to the south. The Commission did recommend approval at their November 1st, 2007, Public Hearing. Testifying in favor of the project was Todd Meyers, Matt Morgan, Don Lillyquist and Doug and Clyde Brennegar signed up for, but they didn't testify. There was no opposition to the project and the only written testimony that I have received on this project is from the applicant, the applicant's representative. In fact, that's -- well, in my presentation is with the most recent correspondence that they had with the applicant -- let me back up for a second. The Planning and Zoning Commission did -- one of the changes they made was they did require an eight foot tall vinyl fence around the perimeter of the site and the perimeter was defined as abutting the residential, essentially, not along the arterial streets. That was a change. The applicant is now requesting that that cannot be amended to reflect a six foot tall fence, rather an eight foot tall fence. And staff also will clean up condition 7.3 in Exhibit D, which is ACHD's conditions. They have a new dollar amount required for the road trust for the McMillan Road sidewalk. It's going to change from 11,000 -- or a firm 15,650 to 11,375. So, staff will make that change in the staff report and will leave the fencing discussion up to the applicant and Council and any other public that may want to testify on that. With that I will stand for any questions you may have. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Does the applicant want to make comment? Meyers: Thank you. Todd Meyers. 645 Hickory Lane, Idaho Falls. I am with Morgan Construction and, first of all, I'd like to thank you for staying up late and hearing this tonight. We appreciate that. If we could go back to the aerial photo. As mentioned earlier, this project originally came with the corner piece that was there and went • • Meridian City Council December 18, 2007 Page 77 of 87 through Planning Commission with quite a bit of debate, was my understanding and, then, went to City Council and was denied. And that's about the time, then, that I get hired and so I have to go back through the city records and try to figure out exactly why did it get denied. Before this -- taking this job I had a very similar job to Caleb, except for the city of Idaho Falls, and so I was able to look at it more as a city planning issue and try to understand what took place. And as I looked at it, first of all, you have this piece right here that reaches down -- it is just to the east of the original site. Immediately east of that is a street called Beethoven. Well, that kind of creates a weird piece of land that the city is going to have to deal with in the future. Also, with the size of it, it had some problems with how do you meet the requirements for access? Are you going to have to amend the standard requirements for the highway district and, then, also landscaping. McMillan is an entryway corridor street. With that there is 35 feet of landscaping and so you start throwing on some of these different requirements and, basically, I don't believe the project -- the size of that property was large enough. About that same time Morgan Development had a neighborhood meeting, because they were going to make resubmittal and the woman that owned the kind of L-shaped property showed up to that neighborhood meeting and in the past my understanding is always kind of chased them off. Do not talk to me. I don't want to hear it. She had changed her mind and she came to the neighborhood meeting wanting to talk about her property being purchased. And so I think it all worked out well and I do feel that this new project probably now is in the best interest of the city and before I'd have to acknowledge that I don't think it was. If we could go onto the landscape plan. I have a few things I want to talk about. First of all, the site. The site is the corner of two arterial streets, McMillan being the corridor gateway street into the city and Locust Grove, of course, now connects over the interstate. Because of this we feel that there is going to be additional traffic and this is a very visible property and we think that it has some good value, not only to commuters, but also to residents in the area to provide neighborhood services. As Caleb said, the request was originally C-C and that's what we had talked about in our original meeting with the planning department, but after making the application they did call us and said that they did not feel comfortable with that. When you look at the type of uses that are allowed in the C- zone -- and this is going to be right next to residential. Our property doesn't include those uses, so why have the possibility of those uses. You know, whether it be redevelopment or whatever takes place. And so the restricted use is, I feel is very appropriate for this area. Along with that, there are some additional requirements, such as with the size of our buildings we are going to have to go through a design review. Again, we are right next to residential. That's pretty appropriate for us to have that. The convenience store, we have -- had lots of discussions with Maverick. They were going -- they, of course, were very happy with a C-C, because that doesn't require a Conditional Use Permit. Well, they are happy now -- I mean they understand that this is what it' going to take in order to make this a good win-win for both the city and also the developer. Some of the -- we had numerous meetings with the planning staff and a-mails and so forth going back and forth and they have done a super job of communicating to us, basically, the city's Comprehensive Plan. And one of the things we did point out is that this property on the west side of Locust Grove and on the south • Meridian City Council December 18, 2007 Page 78 of 87 side of McMillan there is a planned pathway that would go through and so it's very appropriate, then, for us to access going through our property. And so they did a great job on giving us some tips on that. There is -- and it's mentioned in the staff report this access here -- really love that pedestrian access coming in off McMillan. As a matter of fact, an earlier plan we had aright-in, right-out right here, which we are hoping would limit how much access would go over to Beethoven. And at that point this corner here, Lots 3 and 4, was designed differently. When the project went to the Ada County Highway District, even though that right-in, right-out met the 220 foot requirement and it also kept Beethoven in compliance, because it's just a little over 500, that access was denied and I think a lot of it comes down to is they haven't designed that street and when that canal gets moved from the south side to the north side, they don't know if that canal is going to be covered or un -- however that's going to end up being. And so if it's uncovered, that would cause quite an additional cost for a bridge to go through there. We offered to pay for it, they said no. And so in the staff report it does mention that if that is left open, that this access we would need to move it and most likely where we would put that is just going right off the edge of the sidewalk above Lot No. 2 the Maverick site. As you look at our pedestrian pathways, what we have tried to use is those landscape islands as much as possible. We think, first of all, it's easier for vehicles to identify where those pedestrian pathways are going to be, because there will be landscape there, but also those landscape islands will have curb and gutter, which means they will be about six inches up higher than if it just was normal pavement going through there and so, hopefully, that will help pedestrians. And, then, we have kind of brought them in, as Caleb I believe mentioned right here, Lot No. 4 just right off their front door, we do have two benches. Morgan Development, our bread and butter is medical dental buildings. I think we are going to do somewhere between 15 and 20 of them this year alone in southern Idaho and we do have a dentist that is looking quite a bit at that lot number four and just it just made sense to us, so let's go ahead and kind of open their lobby up outside and let them be able to sit out on those benches, but also when you come in from Beethoven, I mean we have just kind of angled that sidewalk coming .right on in there. So, we feel that's pretty good benefit there. Landscaping, if you -- if you go off the city ordinances for the buffer requirement, we would be required to have 34 trees. However, we have some trees and you can see on this landscape plan there is three right in that L-shaped building, there is one or two -- let's see, it looks like two down on the convenience store site. Those have 24 inch calipers, which means we have got to replace a lot of trees. And so that puts it up to about 86 trees. And so as you look at the site, you can see there is lots and lots of trees and where I want to go into that is it's back to the fence issue. I was asked to enter into the public record at Planning Commission whether or not we would put up a fence and I said yes. It was about 12:30 at night and I said an eight foot fence. Didn't realize it until after I had sat down and the Planning Commission said, hey, you have committed, that's where it is. And I have every intention to live up to that. However, I have been calling around and at this point I have not found anybody that provides either a wood or a vinyl fence that is eight foot. And some of the reason why is wind loads. The wind can just blow those things apart. What I would ask that we would do is that we would take maybe some of these trees, Meridian City Council December 18, 2007 Page 79 of 87 • work with the city forester to figure out how many trees we could put along the north and east side, but not so many that our trees end up being overgrown and -- I want them healthy trees back there. But I'm sure the city forester can help us with that. The reason I noted four of them on here, I'm hoping that I could talk you into reducing that fence size. First of all, as I mentioned, we are going to reduce that zone, so it is uses in the Comprehensive Plan, you know, the N-C -- the zone that you put next to residential and, of course, we are agreed to that and more than supportive. You also have -- the hours of operation have been limited in the development agreement. My understanding is that that's probably something that's going to be added to this N-C zone in the future anyway and so it just keeps in line with that future zone and that we are more supportive of that. The other thing that we have done is that we have taken this building and we have lined it up so that I -- I feel the building does a pretty good job of shielding the residential from the noise and lights that happen within the parking lot. You have your doors that would be mainly on this with the -- facing into this development and also, you know, it's this street -- traffic continues, you're going to have the noise and headlights of cars. And think, again, our buildings do a pretty good job of buffering that. Just wanted to -- just out of time there. Borton: Keep going. Meyers: Can I go? De Weerd: Yes. I'll tell you. Meyers: Okay. Phase one would be Lot No. 2, the convenience store and that will be sold off -- De Weerd: You are now out of time. If you would just wrap up. Meyers: Wrap up? Phase one and two, the office buildings and the convenience stores would be -- would be built at the same time and the office could also have some limited retail and that would include the access off of Beethoven and up towards Locust Grove. In the staff -- staff asked that we also include an access easement to make sure that each of these properties will have access and as you come in this private drive, this will be shown on the plat, it will go up the lot line that separates two and three and just north of two out to Locust Grove will all be shown as an access easement. So, each lot will have two accesses, so they can get out to both streets. De Weerd: Okay. Meyer: And I think that's everything. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions? ~ s Meridian City Council December 18, 2007 Page 80 of 87 Bird: I have none. De Weerd: None? Okay. Rountree: Madam Mayor, a question, suggestion, comment. You have quite a forest that you're proposing and you do have a bunch of trees. I'm wondering have you considered the possibility of putting some trees randomly in some of the planning boxes that you have in the parking lot? Meyer: Yes. Yes. Each of these landscape islands will definitely have trees. You can see there is a big one here and also some out in front of those buildings. Rountree: Okay. De Weerd: You know, just as an FYI, we have found an eight foot tall vinyl fence. Meyer: Can I get the company from the staff, then? De Weerd: You can get it from Robert in the back. Meyer: Oh, good. De Weerd: We are now experts at vinyl eight foot high fences. So, that was just an FYI. I have no questions. Any other comments, questions? Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I just had a comment. How fortunate you are that the property owner of the L-shaped piece of property came to you. When this came before us earlier or when I was on the Planning and Zoning Commission, it came before us before it came to Council. The. applicant at that time, for only the smaller piece, made it very clear that the homeowner was almost violent about chasing people off her property and not wanting to sell. You're very fortunate that that attitude changed. I think this is a much better project than the little piece could have done. Much better accesses for certain. Meyer: And all of the access -- I mean all of our discussions with her were limited to her attorney. She still wanted her attorney only to chat with us. Zaremba: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. If there is nothing further -- thank you. I did have one other person signed up and it's Corey Stanfield signed up against. Is that you. No? Zaremba: Gave up. De Weerd: I know you're Gary. Okay. Meridian City Council December 18, 2007 Page 81 of 87 Zaremba: Does anybody anticipate having any questions for ACHD? Can he go home? De Weerd: You're excused, Gary. Zaremba; Thank you for hanging in there. De Weerd: Is there any further testimony on this application? Any additional comment? Okay. Council, any further information needed? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I don't need any additional information. Depending on how we go with this, if it is approved, I would want signs immediately put on that particular property out there that that's, in fact, what it is and what's going to be there, potentially, and I'd also like stipulations that there wouldn't be a car wash in there. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: If we take the staff recommendation that this be zoned to C-N, instead of C-C, would that preclude the car wash? Bird: You'd have to go with a CUP. Rountree: Caleb's on top of that. He'll tell us. De Weerd: I think even a car wash requires a CUP, doesn't it? Bird: Yeah. Hood: Correct, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. In the C-N zone a vehicle washing facility requires a Conditional Use Permit, but you could -- if there is a development agreement you could cut that off before they even apply for the CUP and just say it's not allowed, so -- if you so choose. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I would pose it as a question. Are we in favor of the C-N designation? I am. Rountree: Given the location I think it fits with the power station across the way and a major intersection. So, are we going to close the hearing and let David make a motion or -- Bird: Madam Mayor? • Meridian City Council December 18, 2007 Page. 82 of 87 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing on CPA 07-014, AZ 07-014 -- Zaremba: Second. Bird: -- and PP 07-019. Rountree: Second. Zaremba: Second. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and asecond -- are we all getting rummy? -- to close the Public Hearing in Items 15, 16 and 17. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, actually, I did have a question for staff. Somewhere in the staff report it mentioned that -- I don't know how to put this. This may not be the plat the way the Planning and Zoning Commission saw it, but there has been a revision to it and my question would be -- I couldn't find the date for the amended plat that I would like to reference as I make the motion. Rountree: You can't read that on there? Bird: I can't either, David. I was looking at that. I couldn't find it on my computer. Hood: Madam Mayor, Commissioner Zaremba, the date that I have on this one is 8/19/07. So, August 19th, '07. Let me see if I have a revised -- Bird: I was going to say, is there a revised note? Hood: -- date on here. I'm not seeing it anywhere. That very well may be the same date that was put on the original one that was submitted, too, so typically, you know, the professional will update that date. I don't know that that's the case here. Let me just check the original and see what date. Okay. That one's dated 8/19 as well. • Meridian City Council December 18, 2007 Page 83 of 87 Zaremba: I may have an answer to that. If you would tell Mr. Hood. Unfortunately, we have closed the hearing, so you can't tell us, but if you'd tell Mr. Hood he can tell us. Details. Hood: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the date's the same on both of them, the old and the new. We can tell you what the changes were. The changes were the right of way requirement change from ACHD along McMillan and, then, as the applicant mentioned in their testimony, the buildings on Lots 3 and 4 kind of moved up a little bit based on that driveway going away. Unfortunately, though, the only way to reference it is the 8/19 date. There is nothing on these that separate anywhere to tell the difference between the two, other than those things. Zaremba: Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor, follow up on that. I mean how would you have a revised deal with the same date? Hood: Madam Mayor, Councilmember Bird, I don't know -- you probably can't see it from there. This is how I do it, I put on there revised and old on this one. So, basically, do not use, old, and, then, I -- but that's -- like I said, typically, the engineer or whoever is preparing this will put a revised date on here, some way to call this out that this is different from that or -- Bird: You can write that, but what is the engineer going to say if it goes to court? Hood: Well, I can show a plat that has that date, too, what the city's -- Rountree: It's on the plat, if it's revised. Zaremba: Mr. Hood, is there a stamped received by the clerk date on there by any chance? Hood: Not on my copy. This was submitted directly to our office. Let's see if our office stamped it. Bird: You surely stamp it. Hood: Yeah, our office should -- in this case this one didn't get stamped. But the clerk's office would have that same chronological order, too, whatever, was submitted with the application will have a received date from the clerk and, then, when the revised comes it will have a later date it was received, so you can tell it's -- if it's not the exact same plat, it was received later on in the process. Not an ideal situation, not typical, but we can tell the difference anyways. Meridian City Council December 18, 2007 Page 84 of 87 • Zaremba: I'll make it up when I get there. Did we discuss the six or eight foot fence? Do we -- I, actually, thought our ordinances specified six foot fences and didn't allow eight foot fences. Bird: As many trees as you have got going around there, six foot will be fine. You won't see the fence anyway. De Weerd: It can be allowed. Zaremba: What's the Council's preference? Bird: Six foot is fine with me. Rountree: Make a motion. Bird: Make the motion. Zaremba: Okay. I'm just trying to get the details in. All right. In that case -- Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Zaremba: I move that we approve CPA 07-014, request for a Comprehensive Plan land use amendment -- map amendment of 7.43 acres from medium density residential to mixed use neighborhood for Woodland Springs. That's a change from community to neighborhood. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second on Item 15. Any discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Item 16. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve AZ 07-014 to include all staff comments and including the changed designated by staff that this be a C-N zone. I'm sorry, was there a development agreement attached to that for the hours or -- De Weerd: Yes. Meridian City Council December 18, 2007 Page 85 of 87 Borton: Yes. And use. • Zaremba: And that among the items included in the development agreement, as per the staff, that the hours be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. And that the fence -- the perimeter fence be allowed to be a six foot fence. And I believe that's the end of the AZ motion. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second on Item 16 to approve with the conditions. Any additional comment? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Would the maker of the motion add to the development agreement that no car wash would be permitted? Zaremba: That is an excellent idea. Yes, I would add that to the motion. Bird: Second would agree. De Weerd: Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Is that -- is the intent astand-alone car wash or accessory to a service station or either? Rountree: Either way. Borton: Okay. Zaremba: In discussion, the C-N zone and the hours that we have don't preclude them doing a Conditional Use Permit for the Maverick; right? Rountree: No. Bird: No. Meridian City Council December 18, 2007 Page 86 of 87 Zaremba: They would be able to do that, but it would require a conditional use. Okay. All right. Then, the motion stands. De Weerd: Okay. No further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we approve PP 07-019 for Woodland Springs and refer to the latest version of the plat received by the clerk October 26, 2007. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 18: 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): De Weerd: Okay. Council, we have an Executive Session for five minutes. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(a). Borton: Second. Rountree: Five minutes. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.