Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 05-06Meridian Citv Council Meetinq Mav 6, 2008 A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 6, 2008, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Charlie Rountree, Keith Bird, Joe Borton, and David Zaremba. Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Anna Canning, John Overton, Ron Anderson, Thomas Barry, Keith Watts, Steve Siddoway and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X David Zaremba X Joe Borton X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird X Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: Good evening. I'd like to welcome everyone here tonight and we will start -- oh, for the record it is Tuesday, May 6th. It's 7:00 o'clock. We will start tonight's meeting with roll call attendance. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance by Troop #463 with LDS Verona Ward: De Weerd: Item No. 2 is a-- when we have youth in our audience we always like to engage them and ask them to lead us in the pledge. After you lead us in the pledge, I do have City of Meridian pins for each your members. So, if our City Clerk can -- can just hand those off to the appropriate person. We appreciate you being here with us. We have Troop 463. They are with the LDS Verona Ward and Peter Sorensen is their troop leader. We appreciate you being here and leading us in the pledge. If you will all rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) De Weerd: Young man, can I ask you to deliver these pins to your troop and thank you for leading us and good luck with your badge. Item 3: Community Invocation: De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Pastor Mike Dodd with Capital Christian Center. If he will, please, come forward. And I don't see him. Well, in light of not having Pastor podd here, if you will, please, take an opportunity for a moment of reflection. We will pause this meeting for a moment of silence. Thank you. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 2 of 74 De Weerd: Thank you. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: We do have a couple of requests to -- to continue Items 13 and 15 to May 20th, 2008. In the Consent Agenda, the resolution number for the computer surplus to the Boys and Girls Club is 08-606 and on the regular agenda ordinances -- 19, 20 and 21 ordinance numbers are 08-1358, 08-1359, and 08-1360. With that I move we approve the agenda. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of April 8, 2008 City Council Regular Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of April 15, 2008 Pre-Council Meeting: C. Approve Minutes of April 15, 2008 City Council Regular Meeting: D. Sanitarv Sewer Easement Aareement for Selwav Apartments by Daniel G. and Carolyn A. Gibson: E. License Aareement with Nampa & Meridian Irriqation District for a Water Svstem Flush Line in Association with the Water Division Facility Phase 2: F. Resolution No. : Computer Surplus to Bovs and Girls Club: G. Encroachment License Aqreement with Nampa 8~ Meridian Irriaation District for the Water Division Facilitv Phase 2: H. Temporarv License A~reement for Meridian Citv Librarv Street Scape at 18 East Idaho Avenue between ACHD and Citv of Meridian Parks and Recreation Department: Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 3 of 74 I. Approve Beer and Wine License Transfer of Owner Application from MD Pizza, LLC to Pier 49 Pizza, at 3340 N. Eagle Rd.: J. Approve Beer, Wine and Liquor License Renewals: Pier 49 1551 W. Cherry Lane #102 Beer Fuddruckers 3421 N. Eagle Rd. Beer & Wine K. Development Agreement: AZ 07-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.84 acres from RUT to an R-4 Medium Low-Density Residential zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. - 5230 North Black Cat Road: L. Approval of Task Order 0759 with Hvdro Loqic, Inc. for Ground Water Levei Monitorinq and Aquifer Testing for a Not to Exceed Amount of $26,500.00: M. Approve Contract Amendment for Western Buildin~ Maintenance for Additional Cleanina at Parks Department for an Additional $80.00 Per Month: N. Approve Contract for McLeran Well Drillina for Well No. 14 Reconstruction for a Not to Exceed Amount of $106,790.00: O. Sanitarv Sewer and Water Main Easement Aqreement for Southeast Corner Marketplace No. 1 by James Kissler, LLC: De Weerd: Item 5 is the Consent Agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Item F is resolution number 08-606 and with that I move we approve the Consent Agenda as published, the Mayor to sign and Clerk attest on all papers. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. If there is no discussion, I will ask Madam Clerk to, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 4 of 74 Item 6: Department Reports: A. Mayor's Office: 1. Appointment of Joe Marshall to the Transportation Task Force: De Weerd: Item 6 under Department Reports. Council, I have an appointment for our Transportation Task Force. Joe Marshall will be the representative for the Planning and Zoning Commission. And so I would ask for your confirmation of this appointment. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve and confirm the nomination of Joe Marshall to the Transportation Task Force. Bird: Second. Zaremba: Second De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the appointment as requested. Madam Clerk. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 2. City Clerk's Office Question Regarding Bach Home Minutes from January 8, 2008 City Council Meeting: Amend Minutes and Adopt New Findings De Weerd: Okay. Council, Item No. 2 is some questions regarding the minutes of January 8th and I'm not sure who wants to take this one. Jaycee, you have been appointed. Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you. Madam Mayor, Council members, we were contacted via e-mail on Tuesday, April 29th, by Lars Anderson with Bach Homes regarding the City Council meeting minutes of January 8th. There was in those meetings -- in the middle of that meeting, Councilman Zaremba, there was a statement in there and they were unclear as to which word was correct. The statement was: The second agrees that the intent was that the pavement could happen later, but that the dedication of the right of way should be in agreement and that's as it was written in the minutes that we have approved. And it says second agrees. We listened to it, the Bach Homes believes that it wasn't the word agreement, it was, actually, the word Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 5 of 74 immediately. We had several people listen to it in the Clerk's Office and we couldn't clearly tell what it said. We had Councilman Zaremba listen to it tonight and I will let him update you on what he thought after he listened to it. De Weerd: Thank you. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I could not interpret from listening to it the word that I used myself. However, the clerk kindly ran it back and I listened to some of the previous conversation and the direction that it was going -- I would -- before I even listened to it the way that I would construct a sentence, I believe that the word would have been immediately. The word agreement just doesn't fit in the flow of the sentence the way I would put a sentence together. In listening to the previous conversation that led up to my statement, I would say there is no way from the tape to really know what the word is, but I would say that it would -- it would have been correct my thinking that what I mumbled was immediately and the clerk also points out at the same time that I mumbled I turned away from the microphone, so I doubt that even sophisticated analytic -- analytical equipment could produce a real word there. But my sense of what was going on at the time is the word that I intended to use was the word immediately. De Weerd: Okay. I'm sure our transcriber has never known any of you to mumble or turn away from the microphone. Zaremba: He has had to invent my words many times, along with the punctuation that I never use as well, so -- De Weerd: Okay. So, Councilman Zaremba, is that the way it was reflected, then, in the minutes? Zaremba: Would we need to amend the minutes? I'm assuming that the word agreement is what got printed in the minutes. Nary: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, what I had suggested to the clerk was after this discussion, then, if the Council wished to amend the minutes, then, to make that motion to direct the clerk to amend the minutes for that particular date and that particular spot and they can do that and approve it and be done with it or if your preference is you'd like to see it one more time, you can direct it be brought back to you for final approval. You can do it either way. But, yes, motion to amend would be your next step. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 6 of 74 Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm not familiar with the exact wording, but was it in relationship to a condition of approval or a DA provision? De Weerd: I believe it was a condition -- Zaremba: The discussion was a develop agreement and the issue is the northern street and what we were talking about was preventing a spite strip from being created between it and the next property to the north, so that access to a public roadway to the property to the north would not be prevented and in that context I think the point that we were all making was we didn't require them to pave the road right away, but we wanted immediate assurance that the right of away was given and that -- in such a way that there was no spite strip and the property owner to the north would have access to it. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Zaremba, it sounds as if we need to adopt new findings as well with the corrected DA provisions related to that sentence. De Weerd: Okay. Nary: That may be correct. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would move that we amend the minutes of the City Council meeting from January 8th, 2008, on page 76 of 81 where I am quoted and changing the last word of the sentence from in agreement to the word immediately and that along with that change to the minutes that we also have a review of the Findings of Fact and -- to determine whether that needs to be brought into compliance with that change as well. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. B. Legal / HR Department: 1. Budaet Amendment for Recvcle Revenue for Bleachers in Storev Park Mo Brooks Field for $25,000: Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 7 of 74 De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item B under our Legal Department. i will turn this over to Mr. Nary. Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there is -- first item is a budget amendment for recycle revenue for the bleachers in Storey Park for Mo Brooks Field. As you note on the budget amendment, this is actually a project that was approved in a prior budget year. I was thinking it was two years; it might even have been three. But it was -- yeah, it's been a number of years ago, but because of the nature of the project and the cooperative venture that went with both the legion and I think the Meridian baseball folks, it took a few years to get it done. So, the bleachers got done in this fiscal year, the bill came due this fiscal year and the city paid it out of this year's revenue that we have for the recycling funds. That, then, depleted the recycling fund budget. We had 65,000 dollars budgeted for projects for this fiscal year and, of course, this ate up almost half of it. There is excess revenue. There is a memo that we had received that I think it should have been attached to your budget amendment that indicated the revenue stream. There is a significant amount of money left from what is provided by SSC in that program. So, there is sufficient revenue to make this amendment from the SSC recycling revenue without impacting the bottom line of the budget. But if we make this amendment, then, the current project for this year will, then, be in the black. Mrs. Kilchenmann had caught that, that we had -- with the last projects that we had approved that we would have put the budget line in the red because of this particular one project and so her recommendation was to bring it forward for an amendment for this project and, then, all the other ones would fall into line. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions for Mr. Nary? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Hearing none, do I have a motion to approve the budget amendment? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve the budget amendment for the recyclable revenue for bleachers at Storey Park in Mo Brooks field for 25,000 dollars. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, roll call. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 8 of 74 Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 2. Budaet Amendment for Director Vacation Conversion for FY2008 for $26,341: De Weerd: Okay. Item B-2. Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. If you recall back in 2005 we amended our city handbook in relation to the directors and appointed officials of the city and we created a benefit for that group of people of which there currently are nine people in this pool and one of those benefits that we created was the ability to take a portion of the vacation hours annually by each of those directors at a maximum of a hundred hours. So, any amount a hundred or less of their vacation time, convert that into a dollar figure, and put that into a retirement program for those nine eligible people. We haven't done it for the last finro years, as we were working on the fund and figuring out the best way to do it. What we found is the best way that it works for the city is to use the PERSI Choice program that already exists and the city already has an account for. So, we were able to fund it this year with this budget amendment, but when I discussed it with finance -- and you will note on the -- on the request, finance is comfortable that there is significant enough salary savings in each of the departments to fund this particular expenditure. If not, they feel there is enough fund balance that's available out of it anyway. But there isn't any way to pre-plan the amounts per year in the budgetary process. Each year it's going to vary depending on when we do it. So, if you'd like us to do it differently, to do it at a particular point in time that's better for you, we could certainly plan. But they felt comfortable in finance that we do this annually, as long as we only do it once a year, we do it within the calendar year or within the fiscal year, they had no objection to that. So, what I did is I-- I had requested from all the directors, if they were interested. You will note on there I think there is a couple that have chosen not to do that for this year. All the rest have for varying amounts. Part of your reasoning, just to refresh your memory, part of the reason we included this in the program is the reason most of these folks have enough vacation to do that is because many of these folks don't take a lot of vacation and that's the reason they have a lot of hours. So, that was an incentive we tried to provide as a city and so this is the means to fund it. This is the first time we have done it in the last finro budget years. So, if you have any other questions I hope we can answer them for you. De Weerd: Thank you. Rountree: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 9 of 74 Rountree: I may have missed this in your discussion, but I have finro different amounts. The agenda has 26,341 and the spreadsheet I have 22,126. And what's the right amount? Nary: It's 26,341. If you look on the actual budget amendment form, Councilmember Rountree, the city has to pay FICA and PERSI and work comp for all of these, because they are considered wages. Rountree: Okay. Nary: So, we do take -- they have to add those amounts into it as well, but the -- the actual hours and the hourly rate for each of the seven individuals that opted for this program, that's what will be deposited into the PERSI Choice. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Any other questions by Council? Borton: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Bill, finro -- well, one question, one comment. I would be inclined to going forward to budget some amount for this obligation, but it wouldn't be exact, but at least it if it were expected that it's going to be something hanging out there, let's -- let's budget for it. And, second, is it -- is it a benefit that we discussed with and enacted a couple years ago, but didn't allow or -- and if that's the case why didn't we allow the opportunity two years ago? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Borton, what we did is we implemented it in 2005, we amended it again in 2007. We didn't do it the first year in 2005. One, there wasn't -- there wasn't very many people that had a lot of hours, but we hadn't had that discussion on doing it for two years worth at time. Certainly can. We do have a cap on the number of hours that all of the individuals can accrue, so the hundred hours is a significant amount of accrued amount, but, certainly, if they want to do more, we could do more if you wanted to allow that. It's just right now in the policy the max is a hundred. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: The only reason for the question was to make sure we didn't say we were going to do something last year and provide a benefit, but not allow anyone to use it. If that's not the case, then, we are okay. Nary: No. And part of the problem -- and I explained to the directors, part of the problem we were looking through some other funds, whether through VALIC, which is Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 10 of 74 one of the other 401 K-type programs that we have used for the city, and whether we could do that and there was tax consequences and after a lot of discussion, we found the PERSI Choice program is probably the best. It's the simplest for the city. Some of these folks don't have that particular program, but it is another means for them as a retirement benefit. So, they can use it even if they haven't and some of them already do use it. So, it really wasn't something that we promised something and didn't follow through on, it really was just trying to get it off the ground. Borton: Thanks. Nary: But if you want to include in your motion that we also discuss -- I can discuss with finance at least setting some placeholder amount in the budget might make some sense and you may still be doing a budget amendment, but it may only be a few thousand dollars annually. Borton: Okay. Bird: Let's put it in a fund balance. I like that idea. De Weerd: Yes. That would be my preference. Zaremba: I don't know if that came through. I like that idea. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we approve the budget amendment for the director vacation conversion for fiscal year '08 in the amount of 26,341 and for finance moving forward to create some placeholder budget category for this obligation, the amount of which I'm not sure, but some figure, 30,000 perhaps; some placeholder to make sure we account for -- account for it going forward. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: Thank you. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Okay. Madam Clerk. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. C. Public Works Department: Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 11 of 74 1. Budaet Amendment for Operations Manager for $127,156: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Under Public Works, I will turn this over to Mr. Barry. Barry: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Tom Barry, Public Works Department. You have two budget amendments before from the Public Works Department this evening for your consideration. The first is a budget amendment for an operations manager position in Public Works. This particular position would oversee and administer all of the operational functions and components of the water and wastewater divisions of the Public Works Department, including management of the department's wastewater collection, wastewater treatment, water supply, water treatment, water distribution and recycled or reclaimed water systems processes and all associated maintenance. This budget amendment simply formalizes Council's approval of this particular position on March 18th of this year. The position -- we anticipate needing this position for only two months of this particular fiscal year, after which it would be budgeted as an ongoing expense. For that reason the budget amendment, as you have seen, only is requesting $28,771.83 for that two year period. Financing will come from the Enterprise Fund and I do not anticipate any increase with this position in overall FTE counts for the Public Works Department. With that I will take any questions you might have. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Barry. Council, any questions? You know, I see our purchasing officer over there. We just have a request from purchasing as we scan these, the colored boxes turn out black, so -- Watts: Okay. De Weerd: They would be more helpful if we take the color out, at least for the scanned copies. Okay. Council, questions? Okay. Do I have a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the budget amendment for the operations manager. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: Okay. You want to reflect the amendment amount? Rountree: 28,771.63 -- 83. De Weerd: Okay. Zaremba: Second agrees. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 12 of 74 De Weerd: Thank you. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 2. Budget Amendment for Building Maintenance Technician for $ De Weerd: Okay. Item C-2. Barry: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The second amendment that appears before you from the Public Works Department involves the addition of a couple of months -- to be specific, three months of additional service for an already approved position for the building maintenance supervisor. The position was approved in the fiscal year'08 budget for only one month of service, due to the construction of the new City Hall and in addition to the services needed for building maintenance of other facilities within the city, we have -- we are requesting with this amendment an additional three months of service that we may begin this particular -- or hire and recruit this particular position an additional three months earlier. The overall increase requested is $23,818.33 for those additional three months of service. Financing would come from the General Fund, although the position would be managed or housed in the Public Works Department. After fiscal year '08, we -- this particular position would be financed ongoing with General Fund monies. So, with that I will take any questions that you might have. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Question for Tom or Bill, either one. Do we have a position description established in on the books for this? Barry: Yes, Mr. President, we do have a position description. It's in draft form. It's been circulated between the purchasing agent, myself and Mr. Nary, as well as Mrs. Powers in the HR department. And we have not finalized the position or had it classed just as of yet, but it does exist in draft form. Rountree: I'd like a copy of that. Bird: So would I. Rountree: For review. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 13 of 74 De Weerd: Council, it's not too different from the description that we had last summer when we proposed the position, but we will get that out to you. Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: We can e-mail it. Rountree: Very good. Nary: Certainly. De Weerd: Any other questions? Okay. Council, we have a request in front of you. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve the budget amendment for the building maintenance technician in the amount of $23,818.33. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the request. If there is no discussion, Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. D. Finance Department: 1. Chanqe Order No. 2 with Idaho Custom Wood Products Not to Exceed Amount of $5,541.86: 2. Chanae Order No. 1 with Intearated Interiors Not to Exceed Amount of $10,700.00: 3. Chanae Order No. 1 with Custom Glass Not to Exceed Amount of $19,784.00: 4. Chanqe Order No. 1 with Custom Glass Not to Exceed Amount of $2,137.00: 5. Chanae Order No. 2 with Commercial Paintin~ Contractors Not to Exceed Amount of $22,185.00: 6. Change Order No. 2 with Buss Mechanical Not to Exceed Amount of $12, 295.00: Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 14 of 74 7. Chanqe Order No. 2 with Suncoast dba B&B Steel Erectors Not to Exceed Amount of $2,677.38: 8. Chanae Order No. 3 with Architectural Buildinq Supplv Not to Exceed Amount of $6,122.00: 9. Chanqe Order No. 1 with Architectural Buildinq Supplv for a Decrease of $897.00: 10. Chanqe Order No. 1 with Simplex Grinnell for Not to Exceed Amount of $2,917.98: 11. Chanqe Order No. 3 with TMC MasonrY Not to Exceed Amount of $5,989.71: 12. Chanae Order No. 2 with Tri-State Electric Not to Exceed Amount of $12,059.26: 13. Aareement for Independent Contractor Services for New Meridian Citv Hall Phase IV with Terra-West Not to Exceed Amount of $338,000.00: 14. Aareement for Independent Contractor Services for New Meridian Citv Hall Phase III Architectural Buildinq Supply Not to Exceed Amount of $277,230.00: De Weerd: Thank you. Our next item is our finance department. I'll ask Mr. Watts for his comments. Watts: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council members. I have Gene Bennett here to answer any questions you may have on the list of change orders. I do want to give you a quick rundown of the process that we went through on these. I had delivered these to Councilman Bird last week for review and we did discuss these in our building committee -- our monthly building committee on Monday here in the -- in the City Hall offices. I do want to also clarify something. The change orders listed one through 12 are current. The two contracts, number 13 and number 14, were, actually, approved on previous Council meetings. Number 13 -- these are all that we are just getting the contracts in. The contract for Terra West was approved on December 11th of '07 and the contract for ABS was approved July 17th of '07 and we are just entering those contracts. Those -- both those bids were approved on those dates. If you have any questions I will ask Gene to comment on the change orders. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 15 of 74 De Weerd: Mr. Bird, as our Council liaison, has also gone through these with Mr. Watts and with Petra, so -- Bird: They have all been explained. Rountree: I hear they've all been explained and they are in order. Bird: Yeah. Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Watts: Thank you. Ask for approval and authorization for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest, please. De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you, Gene, for being here. Council, if there is no further discussion, do I have a motion? Bird: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve the change orders and I am going to read them off for public notice. Change Order No. 2, Idaho Custom Wood Products, not to exceed 55 hundred -- $5,541.86. Change Order No. 1, Integrated Interiors for not to exceed $10,700.00. Change Order No. 1, Phase 3, with Custom Glass for not to exceed amount of $19,784.00. Change Order No. 1, Phrase 2, with Custom Glass for not to exceed the amount of $2,137.00. Change Order No. 2 with Commercial Painting Contractors for not to exceed amount of 22,185.00. Change Order No. 2 with Buss Mechanical for not to exceed amount of $12,295.00. Change Order No. 2 with Suncoast doing business as B&B Steel Erectors for not to exceed amount of $2,677.38. Change Order No. 3 with Architectural Building Supply for a not to exceed amount of $6,122.00. Change Order No. 1 with Architectural Building Supply and it is a decrease of $897.00. We like those change orders. Change Order No. 1 with Simplex Grinnell for a not to exceed amount of $2,917.98. Change Order No. 3 with TMC Masonry for not to exceed amount of $5,989.71. And Change Order No. 2 with Tri-State Electric for not to exceed amount of $12,059.26. Agreement for independent contractor service for new Meridian City Hall Phase IV with Terra-West for not exceed amount of $338,000.00. Agreement for independent contractor service for new Meridian City Hall Phase No. III, Architectural Building Supply for not to exceed amount of $277,230.00. With that I move we approve. Rountree: With the Mayor's signature and -- Bird: And the Mayor's signature and the Clerk to attest. I'm sorry. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 16 of 74 Nary: Second. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Madam Clerk, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: I was thinking probably the Boy Scouts wanted those read all over again, but -- that's how interesting our meetings can be. Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: De Weerd: Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda. Item 8: FP 08-007 Request for Final Plat approval for 18 single-family residential building lots and 1 other lot on 1.383 acres in a TN-R zoning district for Gramercv Subdivision No. 3 by Tuscany Development, Inc. - west of Eagle Road and south of Overland Road: De Weerd: We will move to Item 8, FP 08-007. Canning: Madam Mayor, we have a letter from the applicant stating they are in agreement with the conditions of approval for this project and there are no outstanding issues to our knowledge. De Weerd: Okay. Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve Item No. 8, FP 08-007, for final plat for Gramercy Subdivision No. 3. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 17 of 74 De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8. Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: VAC 08-003 Request to Vacate a portion of the existing right-of-way platted on Lots 20 and 22, Block 2 and dedicate new right-of-way from a portion of Lot 22, Block 2 for Sundial Subdivision by Gemstar Properties, Inc. - south of Ustick Road and west of Linder Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 9 is VAC 08-003. Staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a rather straight forward vacation application. The current configuration of the roadway has a knuckle and they are requesting to vacate a portion of the knuckle in exchange for a T-type intersection that will be extended into this subsequent plat. Staff is -- has received all the necessary relinquishments and is recommending that the Council forward a letter of -- recommending approval to ACHD. De Weerd: And that would include the fire department's comments as well? Canning: Yes, ma'am. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Do I have a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve Item No. 9, VAC 08-003, sending a recommendation to ACHD to approve the vacation for Sundial Subdivision. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 9. If there is no discussion, Madam Clerk. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 18 of 74 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: FP 08-008 Request for Final Plat approval for 26 single-family building lots and 3 common lots on 7.70 acres in an R-4 zone for Sundial Subdivision No. 1 b by Gemstar Properties - west of North Linder Road and south of West Ustick: Item 11: FP 08-009 Request for Final Plat approval for 2 single-family building lots and 1 common lot on 2.94 acres in an R-4 zone for Sundial Subdivision No. 2 by Gemstar Properties - west of North Linder Road and south of West Ustick Road: De Weerd: Okay. The next finro items, 10 and 11, we have had written agreement from the applicant. It doesn't look like there are outstanding items on FP 08-008 and FP 08- 009. Canning: Correct, ma'am. Bird: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve FP 08-008 and FP 08-009, request for final plats on Sundial Subdivision No. 1-B and Sundial Subdivision No. 2. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve these finro items. If there is no discussion, Madam Clerk. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Public Hearing: 2008 Parks & Recreation Fees: De Weerd: Okay. Item 12 is a Public Hearing for our 2008 Parks and Recreation fees. I will open this Public Hearing with Mr. Siddoway's comments. Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Approximately three weeks ago we were before you and if you will remember, Collin Moss presented to you the fee schedule changes in some detail. The direction from Council that night was to publish the changes for a Public Hearing, which was done and this was the night for that. I-- the changes that have been published were as per the discussion of three weeks ago and with that I would just simply stand for any questions. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 19 of 74 De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for staff at this time? Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this applicant -- on this hearing? Thank you. Council, I think we got some in depth testimony by staff in the pre-hearing on this, both in the recreational programs and the youth programs that are being offered. Are there any further questions for staff at this time? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. Just the expectation that we get a report back on the demographics that utilize the programs and area of residence. Bird. Yeah. De Weerd: Okay. Siddoway: I will do my best. Currently -- I'll check the database and see what we can do and bring that back to you as part of our next round of fee discussions for this year. Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Zaremba: I would first comment that we have discussed much of this previously and while that was not officially the Public Hearing, it was a public meeting and those minutes are on record for the public to confer if they need to. And with that said and appearing that no other public testimony is going to be, I move we close the Public Hearing. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the Public Hearing. All those in favor say aye. I'm sorry. Councilman Borton was pointing out one of your programs, Red Worm Composting. We are very intrigued. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 20 of 74 Siddoway: Actually, it's very interesting. It's a new class this year and it's one that filled up the fastest. I believe there is already a waiting list for it. De Weerd: Well, you know, I have used worm composting in the past in our vegetable garden and it is -- it is very good composting material. It sounds pretty weird, though. Admittedly. I don't want to know how it's made. Thank you. Okay. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Zaremba: I move that we adopt and approve the 2008 Parks and Recreation fees. Bird: And bring back an ordinance. Rountree: Bring back a resolution. Bird: Resolution. Zaremba: That was necessary and that we have an ordinance on our next regular meeting agenda, which would be two weeks from now. Bird: It's a resolution or an ordinance? Nary: Resolution. Bird: Resolution. Rountree: It's a resolution. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to request a resolution in adopting these Parks and Recreation fees. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from April 15, 2008: TE 08-003 Request for approval of an 18-month Time Extension to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the Final Plat and commence the use in accordance with the conditions of approval of AZ 05-016, PP 05-023, CUP 05-024, FP 06-011, PS 07-003 and TE 07-004 for Umbria Subdivision (aka Silver Oaks) by Ten Mile Development, LLC - north side of West Franklin Road, approximately'/ mile west of North Ten Mile Road: Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 21 of 74 De Weerd: Okay. Item 13 has been requested by the applicant to continue. Council, do I have a motion? Bird: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we continue Item 13, TE 08-003 to May 20th, 2008. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue Item 13. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Public Hearing: VAR 08-003 Request for a Variance to UDC Table 11- 2A-5 to allow a structure encroachment into the required rear yard setback in the R-4 zoning district for Silman Setback by Stanley Silman - 1749 West Lowry Street (Lot 10, Block 16, Tumble Creek Subdivision #6): De Weerd: Item 14 is a Public Hearing on VAR 08-003. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Silman setback. It's a variance application before you. The property is located at 1749 West Lowry Street, which is Lot 10, Block 16, of Tumble Creek Subdivision No. 6. The variance is to UDC Table 11-2-A5, which requires a 15 foot rear building setback in the R-4 zoning district. And you can see the encroachment on the aerial in this location and I have some other pictures to show. This is the patio area. This is the rear yard. That's the side yard on the west property and the side yard on the east property. There is an existing enclosed patio on the property that is set back nine feet seven inches from the rear property line on the east side and nine feet one inch on the west side of the structure. The structure encroaches five foot five inches to five feet 11 inches into the required rear setback area, measured from the rear property line. And for this we are assuming that the fence is -- corresponds with the rear property line. The applicant states that when he purchased the property in 2003, site unseen, as he was living out of this area at that time, he requested that the builder, John Flaherty Construction, add an awning over the existing patio as part of the purchase agreement. John Flaherty Construction subcontracted the work to Patio Covers Unlimited, PCU, who constructed the awning within the rear setback area without first obtaining the necessary permits from the Meridian building department. Mr. Silman later contracted with PCU again to enclose the patio, but states that he did not know that the awning was constructed within the required rear setback area. Again, this work was completed without necessary permits. Abram Antonucci from code enforcement researched the subject property and setback issue and submitted the following comments. One, the complaint that the structure had Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 22 of 74 been constructed within the rear setback area did not originate from a neighbor, but from a disgruntled subcontractor that did some work for Mr. Silman. Number two. PCU stated that Mr. Silman was made aware that permits were needed for the additional work, but that Mr. Silman knowingly told them to continue construction without permits after PCU told him that the structure was within the setback area. Number three. Mr. Silman, then, hired more independent contractors to re-route the venting for a fireplace and install electrical wiring without obtaining additional permits. Number Four. Code enforcement believes that both Mr. Silman and PCU are at fault. Number five. Code enforcement has two additional structure violations pending in this subdivision for storage sheds within the setback and it would create a precedent if Mr. Silman is not required to move the structure. Brent Bjornson from the building department also submitted comments on this application. One, PCU was the contractor who perFormed the installation. The building department has confirmed numerous additional violations from this contractor recently in other parts of the city. Two. Permitting and setback violations exist on this property. Three. Mr. Silman acknowledged a minor amount of electrical work that he sought contracted, as well as an exhaust fan. Staff recommendation. Per ldaho Code 67-6516 a variance shall not be considered a right or a special privilege, but may be granted to an applicant only upon showing of undue hardship because of characteristics of the site and that the variance is not in conflict with the public interest. In order to grant the variance, the City Council must be able to make the following findings: One. That the variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district. Two. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site. And, three, the variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. Staff reviewed these findings and believed that granting a variance for the reason requested by the applicant would grant a right of special privilege to the applicant that is not otherwise allowed in the district. Further, staff believes that there are no undue hardships due to characteristics of the site that would prevent the applicant from meeting the required setbacks. So, the only -- the only finding that staff could make is that it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. We have received no additional written testimony since the staff report. With regard to the outstanding issues, approval of the variance by City Council would allow the existing enclosed patio to remain in its current location within the rear setback. Additionally, there is a ten foot wide public utilities drainage and irrigation or PUDI easement along the rear property line that is depicted on the plat for this property. Because the existing structures encroach from five inches to 11 inches into the PUDI easement, if Council approves the variance that portion of the structure encroaching into the easement wou{d need to be removed by the applicant or at the applicant's expense, if access to the full width of the easement was ever necessary. Further, if Council approves the variance, the applicant must seek a vacation of a portion of the easement that this structure occupies. Denial would require that the patio enclosure be relocated or removed if it cannot be relocated outside the rear setback and the easement areas. With that I will answer any questions Council and Mayor may have. De Weerd: Thank you, Mrs. Canning. Council, any questions for staff at this time? Meridian Ciry Council May 6, 2008 Page 23 of 74 Bird: I have none at this time. Rountree: No. I have none. De Weerd: Is the applicant here? Do you have any comments, sir`? If you will wait until you're right in front of the microphone, so we can get you on public record. Webb: Okay. De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Webb: Sure. My name is Brian Webb. I am an attorney with Angstman, Johnson, and Associates, 3649 Lake Harbor Drive, Boise, Idaho. 83703. De Weerd: Thank you. Webb: And attorney for Mr. Silman, who is also here tonight. He has asked me to kind of represent him in this issue. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Webb: How much time -- three minutes or so, is that what -- De Weerd: No. You have ten minutes. Webb: Okay. I'm not planning to talk all night. De Weerd: But three minutes is great. Webb: Okay. I understand. Well, thank you, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, for your time. Most of the facts I think that have been outlined are accurate, except for a few. I vehemently disagree with the staff opinion. The history is almost correct. The only dispute that I have I guess with the history or Mr. Silman has with the history is although PCU did inform my client of -- Mr. Silman of the need to get permits, he was just moving up here from California and he hired a builder to construct the patio enclosed on the property and when it was initially constructed it didn't have the windows that you see, but it did have the posts in the ground and the pavement and a roof and this was all done and a certificate of occupancy was, then, granted with -- you know, allegedly I guess within the setback portion. It was reviewed by the city, I suppose. Again, the certificate of occupancy was granted. The other issue is although Mr. Silman did know that permits were needed, he had just moved up here and PCU informed him this happens all the time, we do this all the time, it's not a big deal. It's going to be okay. So -- now -- so, he, then, commenced later on to hire a subcontractor to -- again, the posts and the roof were on -- to just frame around and put windows in. Client spent about 30,000 dollars putting in a patio with windows like that. He was, then -- apparently, he was turned in with a disgruntled subcontractor. That is correct. And, Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 24 of 74 again, was notified of the need to tear it down. I had communicated with -- I think Mrs. Kane from the city attorney's office advised me that filing a variance might be a proper way to handle this and it would postpone enforcement and -- and so that's what we did. Mr. Silman's entitled to a variance in this case. Standards enumerated in Idaho Code 67-6516 is the right standards and -- and this will create an undue hardship on Mr. Silman. The city first granted a certificate of occupancy and by doing so created a vested right in the portion of -- the setback portion of the property. Secondly, if he is required to tear this down, there is going to be substantial fees incurred for -- probably for a lawsuit and the 30,000 dollars expended to construct this patio goes somewhere. Not sure. So, you know, for any of us I think that is unduly harsh to have 30,000 dollars worth of work taken down and done something with. Again, when he purchased the home, the home was built with the property in the setback range and was inspected probably by the city and a certificate of occupancy was granted. Mr. Silman is not intentionally trying to avoid setback requirements, this is just a situation that is unfortunate and a variance should be granted. It's not in conflict with the public interest. I have reviewed some of this information I think Mr. Silman received. ACHD has no comments. Sewer has no comments. It looks like health has no comments on this issue. Members of the community I don't think have an issue with this. I guess we will find out shortly if they do. There is nothing that conflicts with the public interest in this case either. The findings are correct. I remind the Council of their own zoning ordinance 11-1-8 of the rights to use private property and the rights to protect private property and to enhance the values. I think the last time there were some inspectors came out, I think probably to take these photographs, commented to Mr. Silman how nice this looks and, you know, 11-1-2, 11-1-8, the purpose here is to enhance property values, one of the stated reasons of the zoning ordinance. A variance will relieve undue hardship, I think, which is another one of the findings that the members of the Council must make. Going to have to expend substantial amounts of money to remove this and -- and granting this would relieve that and would eliminate potential lawsuits. And, again, this is not detrimental to the public health and safety. I agree with the finding of staff on that. And, again, remind the Council members here, they already know, they have broad discretion in determining land use and planning matters. So, with that I request on Mr. Silman's behalf that this variance be granted. Just kind of reviewing the notes of staff here. And I guess with that I can answer any questions you might have for me. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Nary: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Could I ask a question? De Weerd: Oh, that's a tough one. Our attorney asking a question. Sure. Meridian Ciry Council May 6, 2008 Page 25 of 74 Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mr. Webb, you said your client has a certificate of occupancy for that structure or for his house? I don't see one in this report. Because the reason it's here is because he didn't get a building permit, which would have been the trigger for them to inspect it. So, is it for the house or for that structure? Webb: Correct. It's for that -- well -- Nary: It's for the house. Webb: For the house. But when the house was constructed -- and just so we are clear, the posts, the roof, and the patio, it was -- it wasn't enclosed as you see here, but that was -- the certificate of occupancy was granted with already being built into the setback portion. Nary: Right. The encroachment in the easement is what you're talking about. Webb: Correct. That was there. Nary: But the stru~ture itself, the reason it's here is because he doesn't have a building permit for the walls, the windows, the venting, all the other work that was done. Webb: Sure. Nary: I have posts on my patio. That doesn't mean I'm going to enclose it. Webb: Okay. Right. Nary: But I just want to make sure I'm clear what you're saying. The certificate of occupancy is for the house, not for that patio room. Webb: That is correct. It's for the house. But, again, it was encroached at the time that this was granted. It had already encroached at the time this certificate of occupancy was granted for the house. Bird: Bruce has -- Zaremba: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: I'm sorry, can we first -- Zaremba: Okay. Yes. De Weerd: Bruce. Freckleton: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council that was one of the questions that we wanted to answer as we were doing the research on this. We went back, we pulled Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 26 of 74 up aerial photographs that were -- that were done during the time that this house was constructed. We also interviewed -- there was -- this house was used as a-- as a model home during the development of that subdivision. We interviewed the realtor that sat in that house during that time and we also talked with the building inspectors who inspected the home. At the time we issued the certificate of occupancy, the patio cover was not there. We also talked with John Flaherty, Flaherty Construction. The patio cover wasn't -- it came afterwards. So, yeah, excuse me, the patio itself was there. The concrete slab was there, but the cover was an add on. And I believe that add on was Mr. Silman's request to have that added on. De Weerd: Okay. Webb: Could I respond to that, Members of the Council? De Weerd: Please. Webb: I have the contract, I suppose, the contract that was entered into between Mr. Silman and Mr. Flaherty and the contract states that Mr. Flaherty was going to install a patio cover and it -- and it shows the price as part of construction on the project. So, I disagree, I guess, with apparently Mr. Flaherty's statement that -- that that was there, but his duty was to construct a patio cover as part of construction of this property and I can circulate this addendum around if Council -- Members of the Council are interested in that. But clearly states that Mr. Flaherty was going to install a patio cover and he was going to use Patio Covers Unlimited to do that. De Weerd: I guess what our staff is also telling you is a CO is issued upon completion, not upon sale. So, when they completed the home it didn't necessarily mean that Mr. Flaherty had sold it yet and so that's probably where we have differing assumptions. Webb: Sure. De Weerd: That CO was issued upon completion and final inspection. Webb: And -- and I understand that and I think that's where -- and I think you're correct, I think that's where this -- this disconnect or this dispute is and can be avoided somewhere along someone's going to -- you know, there is an issue here that can be avoided. It's a fairness issue and a relief of undue hardship issue through the variance process. But I understand, I guess, what he's saying. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, the point you bring up about the undue hardship, that part of the sentence is an undue hardship because of a characteristic of the site. I haven't heard you mention any characteristic of the site that causes this to be an undue hardship. We don't normally approve variances for a hardship the homeowner created themselves. What this generally refers to is if there is a canal running through the Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 27 of 74 middle of it, that they simply can't build over or some rock formation that can't be moved. It doesn't normally refer to something that the homeowners did. If the homeowner created the hardship, that's not a characteristic of the site. Webb: Well, first, I respectfully disagree that the homeowner created this issue. And, secondly, the characteristics of the site, there were no problems in construction and -- and, again, it is part of the scenario and the characteristic, I suppose, of this site is that substantial amounts of money are going to have to be expended to remedy this. De Weerd: Council, any other questions from Mr. Webb? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Webb: Thanks. Thank you all. De Weerd: Mr. Silman? If you will -- if you will, please, state your name -- Silman: My name is Stanley Silman. I live at 1749 West Lowry Street, the home where this problem is existing. De Weerd: Thank you. Silman: I keep hearing tonight that I created this problem. I don't think I did, because when I was in the process of purchasing this home, I was living in Los Angeles and I was in touch with Mr. Flaherty. He told me there was a patio there. I said I would like it covered. I knew nothing about it needing a permit. I did not know that the house had already been completed and had this certificate of occupancy. What Mr. Flaherty said, if you could afford it and if you could pay for it, I will do it. I had no idea it needed permits. I had no idea it was encroaching into that space or I would not have done that, because who needs this kind of problem. So, I disagree with the findings of the gentleman over there. I don't think I created this problem. The same company I inadvertently hired. I did not know they were the same company that put the patio -- the roof on the patio. I have been cited not for the windows and the structure, I have been cited because the posts are within the space that they are not supposed to be there. I had nothing to do with that. When I put the windows up I was told that permits were necessary and they couldn't get it. It was the same man that put the patio roof up and I didn't know that until I was cited, which was four years later. And I was encouraged by him that it wasn't necessary, that the posts were there, nobody is going to look in, nobody cares and I know that ignorance of the law does not make me not guilty, but I certainly was encouraged and had no idea that this was going to happen. I was encouraged by Patio Covers Unlimited. He said the posts are already there. No one is going to know. I do it all the time. And that's the story. So, I went ahead and did it. I mean the roof was already there when I moved in. And, in fact, I didn't move into the house for a year, because I had personal problems and the house stood vacant for a Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 28 of 74 year. When I came it was there. I had no idea about codes. I have never built a house before and t'm not a-- I assumed that Mr. Flaherty and whoever the subcontractor would be -- because I didn't know who it was at the time -- would have known about the permits and told me it couldn't be done. They did it. Told me it would be okay. Not Mr. Flaherty. Mr. Flaherty -- I didn't have anything -- I didn't speak to Mr. Flaherty about permits. De Weerd: Thank you. Silman: So, just want you to know that. And I don't know where I created the problem. The roof was there. It was built. I paid Mr. Flaherty to have it built. I-- the money was exchanged at the time of the sale and all this is happening. So, that's what happened. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Council, any questions for Mr. Silman? Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would only comment that I'm familiar with Los Angeles and a permit would have been required there as well. So, it shouldn't be a surprise that a permit is a requirement. Silman: Oh, understand that. But I thought -- I didn't know a patio roof had to be permitted. If it did, fine. But I assume that whoever I bought the house from would take out the necessary permits to complete the structure for me. I was completely ignorant of that. 1 thought it was done. Had no idea that it was in violation. Bird: Madam Mayor, I do have a few questions. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: When you filed the closing with Mr. Flaherty, your purchase price included the patio cover; am I not right? Silman: Yes. Bird: Did Mr. Flaherty get a building permit to put that patio cover up or did he just extend it to the building permit for the house? If he had already -- he already had the permit to pour the concrete. That was part of the house, the original building of the house; am I not right? Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 29 of 74 Freckleton: That's correct. The original patio was part of the -- the house construction. De Weerd: It was a pad. Bird: But it didn't -- it was a pad, but not the -- Freckleton: But not the cover. Bird: So, Mr. Flaherty -- this gentleman bought the house thinking every -- the CO meant that that pad and everything was done and I'm ashamed to say that there is a lot of coverage like that around this valley that have no building permits. I know it happens all the time. He's not lying about that. But that -- that really -- when did -- did we inspect and giving the CO before the patio cover come up, Bruce, as I understood you? Freckleton: Yes, we did. And, Councilman Bird, we currently have about seven cases that we are -- we are tracking for this contractor, so -- I mean you're exactly right. We have got patio covers going up and -- and no permits. Bird: I could probably take you to -- Freckleton: Since we have kind of turned the heat up a little bit we are seeing some compliance, so -- Bird: Okay. Freckleton: It's a tough one, you know, because they go in people's back yards -- Bird: But I understand where Mr. Silman is coming from now. I'm like the Mayor, you know, he thought he bought a-- a house with this that was already part of it. Silman: Excuse me. When 1 was purchasing the house I asked if he would do some improvements, such as additional landscaping and he put in a pond and he said, yes, if you could afford these things 1'll do it. So, I said I'd like the patio covered and he said fine. And that's -- when I came the patio cover was there. Bird: But the patio cover and the patio enclosure is a whole different horse -- Silman: But I have been cited because -- Bird: -- on the deal than -- Silman: I agree with you, sir. Bird: But you -- you, basically, added on another room. I mean you can -- you can live out there in the winter or do whatever you want out there. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 30 of 74 Silman: Well, it's pretty cold out there and pretty hot in the summer. Bird: Well, you can put heat in it. I mean -- Silman: It doesn't work. It's too hot out there. Bird: But, anyway, that's, basically, another room and I'm sure the assessor considers it another room. It's not a patio, you -- it's not a patio anymore. Silman: I'm not trying to avoid additional property tax or paying for the permits that they never got. That is not the problem, sir. Bird: Yeah. Silman: I'm willing to do that. I just feel that I'm a victim here and -- Bird: But when you're -- but when the person that comes in to close it, what did his bid say? No permits or did it say permits? Silman: No. I said we -- no. He told me he couldn't get a permit, because it was too close to the fence and he said it really doesn't matter, the posts are already up, I do it all the time. We do it all the time. Bird: But, sir, you knew you needed permits to put -- add something like that on. Silman: Well, at this point I did. Bird: Oh, brother. Silman: But you know, sir, I will be very honest with you, I thought the windows that he was going to install for me, I really thought that that was -- the encroachment was with them. I did not realize it was the posts that I was encroaching and that's what started it and that's what I was cited for. I wasn't cited for the windows in the complaint, I was cited for the -- the posts that hold the roof up. I embellished. I did embellish. I'm an old man, I paint pictures, and I sit out there when it isn't too hot and I paint pictures. De Weerd: Council, any further questions for Mr. Silman? Rountree: No. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, while he's there, I would ask a question of the fire chief if I may. And that goes to the third thing that we have to find to do a variance and that's that it shall not be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare. And I preface my question by a discussion that we had when we were formulating the Unified Development Code, we reduced side setbacks and chose not to reduce the rear setbacks to, hopefully, provide some circulation to the fire department and their Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 31 of 74 equipment when they needed to get befinreen buildings and around buildings and I guess my question is as you reduce the setbacks, the chance of fire jumping from one building to the next and the fire department not being able to get their equipment in there to stop it becomes an issue, is -- do you have an opinion on that subject in this case? Anderson: Thanks for asking. I know most of you probably think I have an opinion about everything. Yes, from a firefighting standpoint, reduced setbacks create problems. The fire code allows for three foot side yard setbacks. We have increased our city code to five feet. But in the picture that was shown there, if there was a fire in that structure, the windows are one of the first things that go and, then, fire shoots horizontally out those for several feet, depending on how -- how severe the fire is. So, it makes it very difficult for firefighters to access and so firefighters would love to see larger setbacks and that's why we are opposed to these minimum setbacks, especially -- especially an encroachment like this, it looks like there is another building right behind that -- or a fence. Silman: May I comment on that? May I comment on that? The other building on the other side of the fence is about three feet away from the fence. Nary: Madam Mayor -- Silman: My neighbor -- my neighbor over the fence, that's how far away his building is from the -- his -- from that same fence that we share. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Nary? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there is also one of the concerns from the code enforcement folks and the building department when they looked at this, was there is a vent for a gas fireplace that vents out the back of that house. It appears from the construction of it that the vent -- and Mr. Freckleton is probably better to explain this than I am, I'm just a lawyer, but it appears to me that the vent is designed to vent straight directly out of the house. What they did when they constructed this patio, an enclosed room there, is they, basically, created a bend in the chimney for that vent, which may or may not make it function the same way, because it's no longer venting out directly, it vents up and out through the roof of this -- Bird: They put an elbow in it? Nary: They put an elbow in it. And, again, without getting a permit and not having it inspected, that's another concern. You know, just -- and I know the Council knows this, but just to make clear for the record, all we are talking about tonight is the setback. There are other issues, there are other code enforcement issues, there are other potential code enforcement criminal issues that may stem from this, as well as the other cases that are out there. But tonight we are here about the setback. And it's not here -- it's not necessarily here in front of you to determine who's right or who's wrong, it's Meridian Ciry Council May 6, 2008 Page 32 of 74 really to determine whether or not this violates our code in encroaching into the setback by creating this structure into the setback and, of course, all this other information about the permits and the lack of inspection heightened the concerns of the building department and the code enforcement folks and the fire department have. But maybe Mr. Freckleton, if I have misstated that regarding the venting of that, he certainly can correct it better than I can. Freckleton: I think you did an excellent job describing it. Nary: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Freckleton: There was -- there is the direct vent gas fireplace. There has also been electrical work done without permits. Those are the things that Mr. Silman has shared with us, things that we have observed from photographs and that sort of thing. We have not been in the structure. There could be other code violations that we simply don't -- are not aware of at this point in time. Silman: I really didn't know that there was -- you needed a permit to do everything. When -- when the structure was finished and I said what about the lights, Patio Covers Unlimited said -- gave me the names of some licensed electricians and I called someone up and he gave me a bid. He was licensed and he put some fans up for me. And Patio Covers put the venting from the outside vent from the fireplace up through the ceilings, so that there would be no fumes and I have gone through a winter using the fireplace and, evidently, I don't find it to be a danger, but that isn't up to me, that's up to you professionals. I thought everything was okay. I took the advice of the experts, which was Patio Covers Unlimited, who was the subcontractor who worked for me. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Silman. I have one other person signed up in favor of this variance and I don't know what the last name is, but the first name is Bill. And I note for the record you're supporting this. If you'd like to provide testimony now would be that time. Well, the minute you open your mouth it's testimony. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Herbert: I'm William Herbert. I reside at 1740 West Lowry. Stan's a neighbor of mine. He also happens to be my father-in-law and I just -- I don't see what -- I understand the setback issues, but as someone who lives in that neighborhood and someone who knows the people on both sides of him, he's an outstanding man. He does so much for our community. I just have a hard time understanding why we are going to punish him. You know, it sounds like building and zoning has got it out for him and I just struggle with this. I mean he does so much. You know, I wish there were more citizens in this country like him. I aspire to be like him as I grow up, as I raise my child, and he made an honest mistake. He didn't do it willingly; he didn't do it with malice. It was done. He's willing to pay to -- if it needs to be brought up to code he's willing to do it. If he -- if it needs to have past property taxes paid, he's going to do it. If it has to have changes Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 33 of 74 made to bring it to code, he's willing to do it. He's not trying to avoid all this. He's trying to be a part of the solution. That's all. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. This is a Public Hearing. Is there any further public testimony on this item? Mr. Webb, you are allowed the final word, if you have concluding remarks. It's always scary to ask an attorney that, but -- Webb: We will be here all night. De Weerd: But it is timed. Webb: My one question, I guess, for the fire -- fire chief, is that what it is? Or fire person -- good. If -- that extra five feet, how much difference would that make that encroaches right now for the fire people coming in? Anderson: It could make a lot of difference. It could mean the difference of whether that fire spreads to the neighbor's house, because it will ignite the fence on fire, that's a combustible fence, and, then, could spread to neighbors' homes to where it could take out surrounding homes. Webb: Okay. The likelihood of that occurring -- those five feet could really make that difference? Anderson: It can, yes. Webb: Okay. I guess -- okay. Just now I will request formally a takings -- regulatory takings analysis if this is denied. So, I will have that down there. I think that's pursuant to 65-16 and thank you all for your time tonight. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Seeing no further testimony, Council, is there any further information you need from the staff or the applicant? Rountree: I don't need any. De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item No. 14. Bird: Second. Rountree: VAR 08-003. Bird: I'm sorry. Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item 14. All those in favor eye. All ayes. Motion carries. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 34 of 74 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Discussion? Rountree: Madam Mayor, my comments are I sympathize with Mr. Silman and whatever happens tonight I don't think is a reflection on his character. He has testified that he was told that he -- a builder he hired could not do what he wanted done because it was too close to the property line, but the builder also assured him it's done all the time and it's okay. To me he knowingly proceeded without doing due diligence in that regard. He should have at a minimum contacted whoever the permitting agency might have been. And in several other instances throughout what I have heard this evening there was knowledge that what needed to be done was not done. Given that, I cannot see -- I could not make a motion that would support the findings that we would have to make in order to allow a variance in this situation. So, that's my position at this point in time. Bird: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Mr. Bird Bird: I echo a lot of Charlie's, plus I just -- I really feel sorry for Mr. Silman, but, you know, when you know that -- when you know that you need building permits and just because some contractor tells you he does it all the time without and -- that isn't really a proper excuse and, then, you go on and you hire an electrician -- a licensed electrician who should, to be truthful with you, have his license pulled for not going and getting a permit -- electrical is I think one of the biggest causes of house fires -- I, too, am like Councilman Rountree, I-- while I feel bad for Mr. Silman and I truly feel bad for him, I cannot support this variance. I think it's just a combination of a bunch of stupid errors. Borton: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I don't disagree. The findings are tough to make. What I would throw out for discussion is whether or not the variance is denied, if there is an ability to put a time period for enforcement and to remedy the situation out a certain time frame to allow Mr. Silman and his counsel, quite frankly, to draft a lawsuit that sounds like it needs to be drafted against Patio Covers, to provide that type of information, at least investigate that, if you're relying on people to avoid permits, and someone's feet needs to held to the fire that type of conduct, again, that's your call. But I can't make the findings to grant the variance, but I just throw out for discussion whether or not there is a means to -- to require the enforcement -- code enforcement to occur on a date certain that is set out some period of time. Nary: Madam Mayor'? Meridian Ciry Council May 6, 2008 Page 35 of 74 De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, normally -- and Lieutenant Overton maybe has some additional insight, but you -- if I'm reading the group correctly, you would get findings on this order and direction of denial of this variance in about two weeks, maybe three, depending on language. At least two weeks, so -- but the notice to him of that violation and his opportunity to remedy that and to fix that, generally it takes another couple of weeks and such, but -- so, you're talking 30, 45 days before compliance issues may come about, but it may be less than. Maybe Lieutenant Overton might -- since he oversees that division, might have some insight as to timing- wise if that's an issue for the lieutenant on enforcement, so -- Overton: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, obviously, enough time's gone by already that we are seeking the best decision to move forward. We are holding up our criminal case for this variance decision. We don't have any problem with waiting a Council-directed period of time to allow Mr. Silman to come in compliance with the UDC. That's not our goal. Our goal is compliance. And if we need to give hirn a set amount of time to do that, that's great. We would be proceeding with our complaint, but that would be a criminal complaint. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions or comments from Council? Any discussion on the item Councilman Borton brought up? Borton: Madam Mayor, the only reason I throw it out -- and it's not a critical element for me by any means, but it -- if there is sizeable expenses to be incurred to fix this, it gives the applicant time to approach others you feel might be responsible and try and get that discussion going, all the better. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I don't disagree with that. I think there was an offer made, not necessarily by Mr. Silman, but by his son-in-law that he fully intended to be in compliance. So, if that's the case, if it needs a modification and it needs a building inspection and make sure that he hasn't created a life safety issue for himself, which is as much our responsibility as it is the potential life safety issue for his neighbors, so, yeah, I-- compliance is a good thing. If it's done willingly, that much better. I can support that if somebody were craft that into a motion. Bird: Yeah. I have no problem with that. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: Lieutenant Overton, if we were to -- if -- just trying to figure out how you structure this. If there is a denial of the variance, but that requires compliance within a Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 36 of 74 set date, does that prevent you from continuing the criminal case if compliance actually isn't due until then? I don't want to cut -- I don't want to mess up your process. Overton: No. His compliance does not stop our going forward with the criminal prosecution. Borton: Okay. Overton: We will continue -- we were, basically, waiting for the decision tonight to go forward with that case. We will go forward, because, as we all know, the criminal process is extremely slow and so it's going to be a few months before that would even get in front of a courtroom. So, I'm not worried about allowing a degree of time. It's not going to slow us down at all. Borton: Okay. Madam Mayor, if there is no further discussion, I would float a motion that -- that we deny Item 14, VAR 08-003, the variance for the Silman setback and as part of that motion require compliance and the remedy to be completed on or before June 30th, 2008. Bird: Is that it? Borton: That's it. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny Item 14. Any discussion? Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 15: Public Hearing: VAR 08-004 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3H- 4B.2.a, which prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway to allow a temporary access to SH 55/Eagle Road for Great Wall Restaurant by Kinsan Chan - 2590 North Eagle Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 15 is a Public Hearing on VAR 08-004. I will open this Public Hearing. This item has been requested to continue to May 20th. Rountree: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 37 of 74 De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we continue Item 15 until May 20th. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue this item. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borton: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: I will be recusing myself from Items 16 and 17. Item 16: Continued Public Hearing from April 22, 2008: AZ 06-063 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C-G zones for Waltman Propertv (aka Browninq Plaza) by Waltman, LLC - 505, 521, 615 and 675 Waltman Lane: Item 17: Continued Public Hearing from April 22, 2008: PP 08-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 commercial / office lots and 1 common lot on 38.21 acres in a proposed C-G zoning district for Browninq Plaza (aka Waltman Propertv) by SLN Planning, Inc. - 505, 521, 615 and 675 W. Waltman Lane: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Items 16 and 17 are continued public hearings on AZ 06-063 and PP 08-001. I will ask to open this with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, although this is a continued Public Hearing, you have not had a presentation, so you get the whole presentation today. This is the Waltman Browning Plaza project and it's located on the south side of Waltman, east of the Landing Subdivision, and directly north of I-84. So, it's west of Meridian Road exit there. The applications before you tonight are annexation and zoning of 38.68 acres to C-G general commercial, and a preliminary plat for 40 bui{ding lots and two common lots. This is the approved -- the conceptual site plan that the Planning and Zoning Commission acted upon and this concept plan depicts one big box retail building, a hotel, offices and a retail center for a variety of commercial opportunities. There are 21 proposed buildings. That includes five office buildings and five office/retail buildings, one big box retail building, one potential hotel building -- I should point some of these out. This is the big box on the southeast side of the property and the hotel would be on the southwest portion of the property. And nine smaller retail buildings. This is a revised concept plan that the applicant has provided Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 38 of 74 tonight -- or earlier today and in this plan the Ruddy Drive, which was shown as a street previously, is turned into a commercial aisle. So, it's a different type of access. The applicant presents this tonight just as an alternative site plan. He understands that in order for this site plan to be approved that if Council so desires you'd have to continue it and, then, staff would have the opportunity to review it further and coordinate it with Ada County Highway District. But they do have an alternative site plan tonight. You can see some of the images of the proposed structures. And, then, here are some conceptual building elevations. This is of the big box. These are some of the smaller buildings. Many elevations with generally the same flavor to the architecture as depicted on these pictures as the beginning. The Commission has recommended approval at their 3/20/08 meeting. March 20th. There we go. In favor -- speaking in favor of the application were Joe Borton, Shawn Nickel from Rose Law Group, applicant's representative, and Robert Wiener, the applicant. In opposition were Kathy Floyd, Cindy Jones, Donna Aldridge, and Mike Swenson. Commenting were Curtis Lee, Christie Haddock, Nona Haddock, Nathan Floyd, Joe Lorcher, Terry Farnham, and Rob Haddock. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the necessity for Corporate Drive to be extended from the north to Waltman Lane for an additional access point to and from the site. Let me point that out to you. Sorry. The extension of Corporate Drive would be over this creek and, then, down this property line that is currently in the county still and, then, down to meet Waltman Lane. The transition in uses between the future commercial uses and the existing residences to the west along here and The Landing and, then, to the north along here on Waltman. The threshold for how much development can occur on the site until Corporate Drive is extended from the north for 5th Street to Waltman and for uses that are non-office on property that abuts residential uses requires Conditional Use Permit approval, limit hours of operation, and/or prohibit certain uses. So, the key changes to staff s initial recommendation were to add a development agreement provision requiring CU approval for all restaurant and retail uses proposed along the western and northern boundaries and adjacent to the residential uses and, furthermore, drinking establishments and drive-thru uses would be prohibited along those borders. To also add a DA provision restricting hours of operation for businesses along the western and northern property boundaries adjacent to residential uses to not exceed 10:00 p.m. Modify the DA provisions to allow up to 150,000 square feet, instead of 75,000 square feet, of gross building area prior to the extension of Corporate Drive from Waltman Lane across Ten Mile to the north. We have received two -- three pieces of written testimony since the staff report. The first was from Art Berry. He endorsed the project and noted that they own two of the adjacent lots to the east and, then, we -- also from a neighbor to the east, Duane Cope provided a letter today that opposes the project. Mr. Cope's property was annexed with a C-G back in 1984 by a developer, High Country, who planned to buy the residential properties on the south side of Waltman and develop them commercially. Mr. Cope states that the residents agreed to the annexation with a sunset clause that if the properties did not develop commercially, that the land would remain rural residential. He states further that the properties were never redeveloped and the city did not honor the sunset clause. We have been in communication with Mr. Cope before with regard to some enforcement issues he pointed out to us and we have researched this issue. We can't find anything in the city records that indicates that this was approved with a Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 39 of 74 sunset clause. I suspect that it was an agreement that the developer made with the neighbors, but never was part of the official city findings. And, thirdly, we received additional testimony, an update letter today from Mr. Nickel requesting additional DA provisions and assume he's going to discuss those in his presentation. The outstanding issues before City Council that we see tonight is -- the first one is this threshold for how much development can occur on the site before Corporate Drive is extended from Waltman Lane north across the Ten Mile and how that restriction is applied to the subject applicant. The second one would be the appropriate transition in uses between the proposed commercial uses and the existing residential uses to the west and north. And you may hear testimony with regard to that tonight. And, finally, the applicant, as I mentioned before, has submitted a revised concept plan changing the connection into the Landing Subdivision from a public street to a commercial driveway. The applicant understands that this will require continuing the item in order to obtain staff comments in coordination with other agencies, if Council chooses to approve the application. But we do support proceeding with the hearing tonight to consider the larger outstanding issues related primarily to the extension Corporate Drive and the -- the relation -- the transition from the uses to the residential uses. With that I will answer any questions that Mayor and Council may have. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff? Bird: Not at this time, Mayor. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: When the Planning and Zoning Commission saw this and made their recommendation, did they only see it with a public road? Have they seen the significant change that's been offered since then? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Zaremba, no, they did not see the -- they only saw Ruddy Drive as a street -- Zaremba: A public street. Canning: A public Street. Zaremba: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further at this time? Rountree: Madam Mayor, this may be a question for Mr. Nickel, but -- De Weerd: Mr. Nickel. Boy, that's a-- Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 40 of 74 Rountree: Yeah. Whatever. Shawn. Is this scale messed up on this rendition, that it should be shifted to the west? Is that -- Canning: It does appear to not be correct, because we have got a gap here. De Weerd: I thought that was a huge transitional buffer that was greened up and all of that and -- Rountree: We will clear that up a little bit later, then. Nickel: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council. For the record, Shawn Nickel. 6223 North Discovery Way, Suite 200, Boise. Here tonight representing the applicant. Yes, the first thing I noticed, too, is that somewhere in the e-mail to your staff that did get shifted over, so -- look there it goes. Right there. Magic. It's still not fitting quite right. Madam Mayor, with your indulgence, I have got a couple of handouts -- or a handout that I'd like to -- De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nickel -- Nickel: Yes, ma'am. De Weerd: -- I guess does staff have this on the computer, so we can put it on up there as -- if you're going to refer to this? Nickel: Staff has -- yes. Yes, they do. They have all those on there. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Nickel: Thanks again. First of all, I want to really thank your staff for putting up with us for quite some time as we have made it to this point in this process. Numerous delays to try to get this application right. One of the -- one of the problems with developing a piece of property that you don't know what the ultimate outcome is going to be is trying to make it as flexible as possible for that -- for that end user. We have been lucky in the last month and a half or so that we are working with a national developer who builds quality shopping centers all around the country and they have been helping us and giving us input, which in that sense we have modified the site plan that you see in front of you. Still working with ACHD with regards to the -- to that Ruddy connection and indications from ACHD are they -- they don't see a real problem with turning this into a private drive, rather than a public street, but, again, we will get their revised report and it will be a condition of approval that we meet ACHD's requirements. The developer and the applicant believe this is a key piece of property in your -- in your city or, hopefully, to be in your city with this annexation approval. Key in the sense that it is on the I-84 corridor. It is an entrance point into the city and it is going to provide very important services to a growing community. Again, as I stated, we have been working with your Planning and Zoning Commission. We have had several meetings with them. We are working with your staff again. It's been great to have them on board. And also we are Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 41 of 74 working with MDC and the highway district and several of those issues we will discuss this evening that have come up in this process. Again, the revised concept plan is in front of you. We are going to the MDC next week to request their assistance in some of our improvements that we have on the property. And your staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission has made recommendations, finro of which are kind of key to tonight's discussion. One of those is the conditions that came out of your staff and that came out the Planning and Zoning Commission with regards to types of uses and the design of those uses along -- this area right here is kind of the key area and we are focusing on and that's that a transitional area that we understand whenever you put a commercial use next to an existing residential use. Actually, to be fair, it's this area right here. You have the freeway and we have vacant property along this portion right here. And one of the key site characteristics is the -- is the creek on the west -- on the eastern boundary. In your packet and I have -- and I do apologize to staff, because we did get this to them very late, this last page, but that's our recommended conditions within the development agreement that we'd like to see on this property now that we do have a developer that we are working with that can kind of envision how this -- how this property is going to move forward. What -- I guess one of the key additions that we would like to propose is to provide a solid masonry wall along the -- this area right here adjacent to the -- to the residents that, obviously, are not going to change -- not going to change uses in the future, they are always going to be residential. In addition to that, incorporating the -- a landscape berm to provide that -- that buffer -- that noise sound barrier for this -- for this development. We think that's -- that is key in trying to make sure that the uses that do go along these boundaries in the future are compatible to those residents and is a responsible way to develop. I don't necessarily want to go into them in detail. We can -- we can discuss them if you would like, but what we are trying to -- what we are trying to get is we are trying to get the flexibility to allow all uses within this -- that are allowed in the C-G zone within this development. Now, obviously, if they are required under the code to have a Conditional Use Permit, they would -- they would go through that process -- that additional process. In dealing with staff and in dealing with your Commission and their concerns, we are willing to limit the use of bars or drinking establishments, prohibit those. Prohibit drive-thrus. And to make restaurants a Conditional Use Permit to provide for further public review of that type of use if they would go along that boundary. All other the retail and office uses we would like to have and as they are currently in the C-G zone. We are hoping that with the -- with the improvement of that barrier setbacks that we have agreed upon in the -- in the conditions of approval and additional review, that we can find that transition and that compatibility. So, if you want to go into those in more detail, we can do that, but I'll kind of leave that for now and, again, to be fair to staff, they got this literally an hour before they closed down, so we can continue to work with them on that and see if they -- you know, and have them review the site plan if that's necessary. And, then, the other key issue, which is actually more important, I think, than the uses is the requirement coming out of staff and coming out of the Planning and Zoning Commission to require an off-site road extension, specifically the Corporate -- future Corporate connection to the north and over the creek. We are very uncomfortable of having an off-site improvement where we don't have necessarily the control over the private property that that road would have to go across. So, as it states right now in the recommended conditions, we Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 42 of 74 are required to -- to bring that road through and to approve it -- or improve it. Now, just so you understand, the property with the connection to Ruddy and the connection to Waltman, we do have finro access points into the development currently, which does provide for emergency -- two access points for emergency and for -- and for access. In addition, this is not a requirement that's coming out of staff or out of Planning and Zoning Commission, but we intend to -- obviously, we are improving Waltman along our -- along our boundary -- or along -- within our boundary. We are proposing to improve Waltman from our eastern boundary to the edge of where ACHD is going to have their new intersection that I know you're all aware of right in this area right here that's going to improve the Main Street - Meridian Road - Waltman intersection. So, you are going to have a-- you are going to see an improved Waltman into the property, we just don't -- we just can't grasp the -- an off-site improvement being placed on this property. So, that's -- that's really the key issue and we can -- we can discuss that in more detail. The developer has flown -- or the potential -- potential buyer of the property has flown in from out of state. He and his -- are here and they are going to talk to you in better detail than I can about the uses on the west and they have got the experience in developing shopping centers, I don't. So, I thought it would be better for them to kind of explain to you how they approach this type of scenario and, then, they will have some comments also on those off-site improvements. Just a few more things and, then, I will be quiet. Actually, I think that's -- that's all I'm going to state for now. I will bring the team up. We also have our engineer present if any technical issues, irrigation, anything like that about the site need to be explained. He's -- Ross is here. I'll stand for any questions right now. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Nickel: Thank you so much. De Weerd: If you will, please, state you name and address for the record. Stange: Roger Stange, Benner Stange & Associates, Portland, Oregon. We are the architects for the potential developer of this project. De Weerd: Thank you. Stange: I just wanted to expand on a few things that Shawn was talking about and I think the first thing I'd like to expand on this is the extension of Ruddy Road, because you saw two diagrams up there. The initial one shows Ruddy Road as basically a-- what we would consider a thoroughfare through the project and, then, you saw a second diagram that has been submitted, that one right there, which shows Ruddy Road as an access with -- access into the project. What we envision here is -- and I think you can see the basic difference between those finro plans, even in this very conceptual diagram -- is that in this diagram Ruddy -- the extension of Ruddy Road does not separate the project into two separate parcels, it actually ties it together. What we see is a project where the extension of Ruddy Road out of the project, people actually traveling out on that road will not know whether it's a public or private, it will Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 43 of 74 basically look the same, it will act the same, everything else. It will have landscaping. It will still be treated as a road. It will not be an access drive aisle or anything like that. So, it will appear the same as a public street, but it will not be a public street. Therefore, it will not separate the parcel into two separate parcels; it keeps it as one parcel. In fact, it opens up opportunities for us to develop more of a center core, which you haven't seen yet, but if you can envision the extension of that Ruddy Road over, you'd see that we could actually extend it and have more of a central core to the project in that area right there, where we could actually have something that would be more like a town center to the project or a court in the center. Every project needs to have a heart to the project. This project so far does not have that. And that would be our intention in the future is developing that. So, as you're traveling along that road, we want that road to service not only for fire access and for access for the residents, but we don't want to encourage people to come in and out through the adjacent neighborhood, through the residential neighborhood. We want to give the neighborhood access -- easy access into our project, easy access for both for pedestrians and automobiles to come in and out, but we don't want to encourage traffic into the neighborhood at the same time. We think that this type of a scheme where it shows it more as a-- a roadway within our project and not as a public street or a public thoroughfare accomplishes that purpose. The other thing that I wanted to talk to you about is, actually, the -- the edge along the project, which is next to the residential right here. That's always a concern on retail projects and, basically, my firm is a retail architectural firm, we have completed over 40 million square feet in nine western states in the United States and it's always a concern, but our history shows that retail projects are actually very, very compatible with residential projects. In fact, we actually promote the kind of pedestrian access befinreen the residential project and the retail project, because we want those to -- to invite those people in to be shoppers in our retail project. In addition, we actually come up with a project that actually allows us to, basically, serve as a buffer to that residential area and what we are proposing by the wall and the landscaped area along the western edge that you see -- excuse me. Right here. And here and here. Would be a combination of a wall and a landscaped buffer that would serve as -- as a visual buffer from the neighbors. It would also kind of keep us apart at the same. In the past we have actually worked with neighborhoods, if they prefer to have access in at certain points, we will give them access into the project and things like that. And at the same time it allows for the neighbors to come in and out through the project and use it as their access point. But what we would like to do is, actually, have a buffer zone along here, along this edge right here, which gives us the flexibility of having uses that are conditional use within a certain dimension of the property line. You know, one of the questions that came up on this is -- is a project that abuts the western property line of this project. What we see as a project that, actually, probably tends to face toward Meridian and probably will end up in the future facing more like that, or maybe in a U shape like that, but it will be a project that will tend to back up to the neighborhood. In every retail project you have, basically, a front door and a back door to a retail project. It's really desirable to have the back door toward the neighborhood, because that serves as a buffer for things such as lighting, automobiles, things like that to the neighborhood. At the same time you want to be able to buffer that from the neighborhood. So, what we would propose is this wall, a landscape buffer along the back, along this edge of the Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 44 of 74 project, that would serve as that buffer zone between us and the adjacent residential neighborhood. This is something we have done very successfully in the past. We have a number of projects with it and we can bring in photos in the future to show you what we actually envision along there happening and how that could be enhanced and how we protect the neighbors from our project and at the same time invite them in~o the project. We -- we control lighting through shields and things like that. We have lighting requirements on the backs of the buildings where we don't cast any light outside of our -- outside of our property line, so that lighting does not become an issue for the neighbors. And other issues like that that we typically address in any retail project that abuts residential projects. In addition, I think one of the things that I heard was that -- was that drive-up uses would not be allowed. Actually, what we are proposing is drive- up uses are a conditional use within a certain area of the site. Drive-up uses can really vary a lot and, actually, I think it's to everyone's advantage to have it as a conditional use, because some of the drive-up uses are very, very desirable, such as drive-up banks and things like that that people want to use, and others are not as desirable. But I think we want to allow them at least as a conditional use, so you get to look at them again as they go through the process and see what type of a drive-up use that we are actually proposing. I think along this edge of the property, which is along Waltman, we have a public street separating us from the residential property. We don't actually view that the same way as we view that edge right there as far as it being a separation. We view the public street as being part of our separation, just like the highway is part of our separation of our project right here. And that potentially we may end up with drive-up uses along this area, such as a drive-up bank or something like that that typically want to go near the entrance to the project that may be desirable to have up in that area, because it's a very quiet use. It's doesn't generate a lot of traffic. It has very limited hours and things Iike that. So, there is a certain amount of flexibility in the type of drive- up uses that we propose. Therefore, allowing them as a conditional use within a certain number of feet to the property; is actually to everyone's benefit, so you get to view them again and we get to propose them again to you. This is, as I-- as Shawn had mentioned, this is a very, very conceptual plan. On a project of this scale, which is 38 acres, we will probably have about 125 site plans when we are done, in that range, and so there will be a lot of changes to the site plan. So, it's important that the rules and that the guidelines that we are following have some flexibility and some regulation that we can follow, but I think as long as our intent is always the same that we provide the same intent that you're looking for as far as design quality, as far as buffering, as far as landscaping, as far as lighting, as far as all of those issues, which we are used to providing, then, I think everyone will be very happy with the results in the end. I'd like to open it up for any questions at this time that you may have of ine. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: None? Zaremba: Not at this time. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 45 of 74 Stange: Okay. I will turn it over to -- Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question. Stange: Yes. Rountree: Two or three, maybe. And -- you talked about the west side. Stange: Yes. Rountree: And you about this -- this concept being different than the one that was proposed to P&Z in terms of a thoroughfare through here and this more of an access into the -- Zaremba: Excuse me, Gouncilman Rountree, I'm having trouble hearing you. Rountree: Okay. And you're talking about this more of an access into the development. Given that this property to the west has one way in and one way out at this point in time, if you open that up it's going to become a mini thoroughfare. I don't care what you do, if you're trying to provide continuity through your development that way, to me -- and I appreciate the access here, because I think if this happens, then, the folks that live in that western area are certainly going to want to shop and do business in this location. But some way or another that movement is going to have to be discouraged to the point that you're going to minimize that cut-through traffic. Stange: Well, we agree totally, yes. Rountree: And I don't know how you do that and I've not seen a proposal that does that and it seems to me that the -- the previous one at least recognized it was going to happen when -- and built the road to accommodate it. This one recognized you want to have continuity between your development, but I see what you have created is you've probably exacerbated that by having a lesser facility, but you're still going to have that movement of folks getting out of town. Stange: In both cases -- that is potentially true I think in both cases. In this case, though, versus the other one, which indicated is a more direct thoroughfare, it was quite obvious in the other drawing that you could see. When you get to Waltman it was very easy to slide right down through in the neighbor. That's exactly what we want to discourage. We don't want our people going -- I have seen the road system in that neighborhood. You can't send anyone through it. It's like a maze inside there. You can't do that. Our access needs to be out through Waltman. That's where our access needs to be in and out is through Waltman, not through the neighborhood. If that means doing some type of a barrier in there, if that means doing something that the fire marshal finds acceptable in there that let's the neighbors in and out, doesn't let us in and out, whatever that is that we come up with for a solution, it will work. We don't Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 46 of 74 intend to go through the adjacent residential neighborhood for our access at all. Our access will be through Waltman. ~ Rountree: I'm not -- I'm not directing my comments to your access, 1'm directing my comments to those folks that live there who want to get out of town instead of going up Linder and going -- Stange: They'll come through our property. Rountree: They will come through your property. Stange: Yes, they will. Yes. Rountree: And to me that's -- Stange: And we want them to come through the project. Rountree: I know you want them to come through the project, but I've not seen anything in terms of numbers that might divert, but I could anticipate -- I could anticipate that that could be a real traffic issue in terms of accidents, conflicts befinreen pedestrians and vehicles, those sorts of things, so -- I just anticipate that, you know, it looks good on paper, but when our enforcement people and police and fire have to respond to a lot of things that go on out there, how -- how do we find a remedy to that potential conflict? Stange: Well, I think that as we see the plan develop and as we work with the fire marshal for the access and the traffic engineers for what their requirements are and our own requirements for our tenants, we will come up with a solution that will be -- achieve all the kind of things that we need to do. For instance, as you're coming out of Ruddy through here, if you look at the other drawing, you can see how this kind of funnels traffic into there. That's a big concern. If you look at the next photograph where it doesn't, I think that has a potential of perhaps in the future this street develops more as a main street type scheme or something more retail oriented along this. So, all of a sudden it becomes much more inviting for the neighbors to go through and much more desirable for them. At the same time we don't want to encourage traffic through the adjacent neighborhood. We will work out whatever is necessary in order to stop that from happening. Rountree: I don't see that's a problem. neighborhood. I think the problem is the traffic from the Stange: From the neighborhood? Rountree: Yeah. Stange: Well -- okay. Now, honestly, we hope there is traffic from the neighborhood. That would be great for us. We will accommodate it and invite it. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 47 of 74 Rountree: Follow-up question and I've not seen it. Has there been a traffic impact study done and has it been submitted to ACHD and has it been responded to? Stange: I will have to defer that. Rountree: I see a shaking of the head from in the affirmative from Shawn. Stange: Yes. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. Stange: Okay. And now, if it's all right, I will turn this over to our developer Dave Moore. Zaremba: Actually, before doing that, Mayor -- Stange: Pardon? Zaremba: I did say I was going to save my comments for later. I do want to hear some of the public comment. But Councilman Rountree has picked up on the subject that -- that I certainly agree with him. Is there anything that we can show on the aerial that's more like -- you probably can't see it from here. There is a drawing -- there is a drawing that shows both -- De Weerd: Anna. Zaremba: -- the interstate and the -- and Linder. That one's better. That's even better. Thank you. Stange: Yeah. Yeah. Zaremba: Thank you. The issue is actually the other way around from what you're framing it. Over the years as these subdivisions have come before us -- the current situation is, essentially, from the intersection of Linder and Franklin, all of this is one cul- de-sac. We have been approving projects in there in the promise that this stub street would make a connection over here. All of these people that live within a half mile of this interchange currently have to drive three-quarters of a mile up to Franklin, a mile across Franklin, and three-quarters of a mile back down and half a mile back into their subdivision to get someplace that's a half a mile away from them. All along the plan has been that this is eventually going to become easy. It has always been the thought that -- is it Ruddy Street, I believe, something like that? -- would be a public road somehow connecting through this property to get the people short circuited to there. I don't see that this is going to attract a lot of non -- people who don't live there are not going to find it attractive to drive through there. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 48 of 74 Stange: I think only once. Zaremba: But all of the people that do live there -- De Weerd: They'll get lost only once. Zaremba: -- need this access and in my feeling that needs to be a public street. And I realize that it changes the issues of how you do it, but we have been talking about that for so long that I can't see that not being a public access. Stange: You know, we do projects with -- I mean in the urbanization of most of our projects we have public -- what are private streets throughout our projects, but the fact is no one knows whether they are public or private when we are finished. They can't tell the difference. And that's what we see this project being is an urbanization of it and that the public street -- whether it's public or private, as long as it's treated with the same type of degree of detail and sidewalks and curb and gutter and streets, things like that, and boulevards, no one really knows the difference whether it's public or private. We just see it more integrated into the project and not serving as a barrier and not inviting traffic into the neighborhood. And that's the difference, I guess, is that I don't think anyone coming from the neighborhood would recognize whether it's a public or a private street. You can't tell the difference when it's finished. It just -- we don't want it to read as much as a thoroughfare in and out. Zaremba: Well, we do try not to connect public streets to public streets with private streets in befinreen or private drive aisles. Stange: Yeah. We know that. Zaremba: And the principle all along has been that public streets make the connections. It's easier to keep it in the public domain for future -- future access. De Weerd: Well -- and I would imagine, since this will be continued, that one of the things that we would want to be brought back is an example of the street movement of the traffic -- Stange: A cross-section and to show how we treat it. De Weerd: -- what the pedestrian crossings would look like and I think you have an excellent opportunity for a roundabout in there. Stange: You know what -- De Weerd: I mean I had to say it. You always know I'm going to talk about roundabouts. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 49 of 74 Stange: I think we agree with that. I think we have an excellent opportunity with something right in there. De Weerd: But there -- there is -- there is a lot to be said. This has always -- in fact, we have tried everything we can think of to try and open that up for that emergency access and it -- it is an important connection for that neighborhood and -- Stange: We agree totally. The neighborhood needs to use that. De Weerd: Thank you. Rountree: Now you can go. Moore: Dave Moore, Trammell Crow Company, Lake Oswego, Oregon. De Weerd: Thank you. Moore: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I appreciate the opportunity to stand before you tonight. I'm here to speak at 30,000 feet. We have a lot of very well trained professionals that have worked in your city for a long time on this team and we are relatively new to the game. Two concepts. Number one, the more restrictions that we place on this project, the less commercially viable it ultimately becomes, as a general rule. Not this particular piece of property, but in general. Second, there is an economic impact to all of these things. And specifically I want to talk about the expansion to the north of Corporate Drive. That is a particular concern to us and one that I would address my comments more in the form of a question. It is confusing to my company how one would expect the recommendations, albeit I understand, I see the big picture, I understand the one bite at the apple philosophy, how there was not right of way, how the plan is not in place to burden this property with the expansion of a-- with Corporate Drive to the north when simply it doesn't exist today. Two issues. Number one, economic. It costs money to do that. That means the rest of the project will have to support that. It's a reality of doing business today. Unforkunately, I wish we were in the market three years ago, not today. But, nonetheless, we are where we are. So, there is an economic impact. But, second, and equally as important, is how are we supposed to accomplish this. The right of way does not exist. It's a private party. There is not a design structure in p{ace today where anybody can point to and say, well, the road's supposed to be there, maybe it's there, maybe it's over there. I'm not sure how or where it's supposed to exist. And to encumber the -- the project with a-- just a unilateral -- this road needs to be connected, without giving us the information and the process and the power to accomplish that, is going to be very challenging. I don't know -- I don't own the property today. I'm not sure if anybody in this room owns the property. My guess is maybe somebody does. Is it worth five dollars? Five million dollars? I'm not sure. I'm sure this hearing doesn't make it go down in value. So, I'm not sure what the economic impact is, let alone how I accomplish that. So, we are interested in doing this project. We think this is a great piece of property. We think that the City of Meridian embraces this property as the gateway to the project -- or to the city and we think we Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 50 of 74 can create something that can be absolutely fabulous here. I think you heard some of Roger's ideas, connectivity, pedestrian access, working with the neighborhoods, improving Waltman from Meridian to the project all the way through. Without saying we are not going to do it, I'm saying we have a giant concern with how we are going to do it and how we are going to pay for the connection of Corporate to the north. That said, we would like to work with you on connectivity to Ruddy. We would like to work with you on buffering uses to the north and to the west. We would also like to make this the gateway to the city. It's going to be very challenging when the main drive is here to orient this project any way, but have the back of the project this way. It will never expand this way. It's only going to expand here. Ultimately some day all this will be commercial, which means the project wants to face this way. So, I don't have any grand answers for tonight. I'm here to introduce myself, I'm here to talk to you about some concerns we have. I want to acknowledge the staff for their cooperation. We have met with them several times and the consultants have worked on this and just simply express our concerns about how we actually pay for and accomplish the staff recommendation that Corporate Drive be connected to the north. If there are any questions I'd be happy to answer them. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Just in case it doesn't sound like it, let me say I'm thrilled to see something happening here and the concepts that are being presented I think can be a plus. The devil, of course, is always in the details, but I'm thrilled to see something moving forward and things being presented. That said, I may be interpreting what I think I'm hearing from staff or the Commission differently than what you are. I didn't see that they are actually requiring you to do Corporate, I interpret it as there may need to be a limit on how much development you can do on your land before somebody else does Corporate. Moore: At 150,000 square feet on 38 acres, it's not a yes or no, it's a when. Zaremba: Okay. Moore: And the when would be very, very soon. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further'? Zaremba: No. Thank you. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 51 of 74 Moore: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I do have -- Rountree: Madam Mayor, I -- De Weerd: Yes. Rountree: -- thought of one question for Roger, if you would indulge me. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: And -- Stange: Roger Stange, Benner Stange. Rountree: -- it relates to the concept, the design, and the utilization of the site. Is it your intent, if this were to be approved, to -- to the extent possible put Ten Mile Drain -- or creek an amenity with Ten Mile Drain, do something with it besides a weed patch ultimately? Stange: I think I'd have to -- Rountree: Or a wildlife habitat or, you know, something that's beneficial -- Stange: Well, we are still investigating that. We don't know what the Ten Mile -- what the creek and what the drains really will consist of in the future. Right now it's an open creek. We are assuming it stays the same, but we -- until we kind of figure out what's going on on the site plan, we -- we don't know how to utilize it yet. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. Stange: Okay. De Weerd: Thank you. Rountree: Thank you, Mayor. Canning: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Yes. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree, it is a designated pathway location, so there would be a multi-use pathway. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 52 of 74 Rountree: Okay. Okay. Very good. De Weerd: I will get to you when your -- in the order of signing up. I don't know if Shawn explained, but that was the longest ten minutes I've ever had for a developer giving the presentation. And I don't know if our timer kind of got a little mixed up, but you will get your three minutes shortly. Okay. Sorry. I'm -- I run the meeting. That's my big important job. I don't get to vote, but I get to run the meeting. So, we will get to you, I promise. Okay. Thank you. Curtis Lee has signed up -- and neutral against, so -- if you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Lee: Curtis Lee. 365 Waltman Lane. De Weerd: Thank you. Lee: We border the property right along the ditch where it's going to be and when we moved there 50 years ago it was route three, we had a small little dairy, and it was a dirt lane, just as Waltman Lane is around the corner. Well, we owned the middle of the road. The lane, rather. It's called Waltman Lane. It's not even a road. And the residents down the lane put asphalt and gravel down. We have no city services, but we are zoned for the city. We have no sewer, no water. Joanie had the dog catcher come down and get the dogs at large and you call the dog catcher, they say, well, one side's county, one side's city. So, we are right in the middle. I saw the road people doing surveillance at the corner for you guys to be doing that and they said they have a 25 foot easement to take all -- because you have got to do Waltman Lane, which we know is going to happen. Well, they said they were going to take 25 foot of our property, which is our well, our shrubbery, everything we have. Our mailbox. And they said they had that right of way and I said, wel{, according to our -- my property line, we own to the middle of the road. You got 25 foot from the road, but you don't have 25 foot from the road onto our land. They said they acquired it when that one company she was talking about tried to get it zoned for a mall and the sunset clause that she's talking about, I'm not sure if we have it not. We should. But I know we have -- are grandfathered. I have five head of cows, 20 chickens, and a pig that borders their property. You know, we irrigate from the ditch. We have our own well. We have city services. And I'm just -- no disrespect to you, Madam Mayor, or the City Council, but after what I saw in the Statesman a couple three weeks ago where we condemn property and put up a parking lot, I just don't want to see that happen to us, because we don't want to sell, but we are going to have to give right of ways and probably are going to have to sell, so you can redevelop all of it. We know that that's going to happen. But it just kind of scares you when they can do that kind of stuff. And it is the law, I know they can, but -- that's it. De Weerd: I appreciate that. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you. Mike Swenson signed up also on the line. Good evening. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 53 of 74 Swenson: Hi. Michael C. Swenson. I'm at 815 Waltman Lane. Kind of the back corner of Waltman there. And when we came to Meridian about 16 years ago and went dutifully to the ACHD, how they were going to renovate the streets in Meridian, there was a connection to Corporate from Waltman Lane. So, this has been going on for a long time. What's happened in the past when they have closed off Linder to do utilities and they brought in all the subdivision down Waltman, it was a disaster. It was like wall to wall traffic that you literally had to force your way in to get on -- out of your driveway. And so it was a nightmare and now there is -- this was probably three or four years ago and now there are a lot more people back there. So, the things that I'm concerned about is getting that connection in, because I think there is going to be more traffic than you can shake a stick at coming up Ruddy Way and l don't think the whole system is going to work. I would also like to see corporate drive go over to the subdivision and provide another access point to give the subdivision people in and out. I think, you know, the developers have been reasonably -- this might make me real unhappy with my neighbors, but I think they have been reasonably responsible. They have put in fire access on their own property, which I thought was very well done. And, of course, I'd like to know from the developers, well, how big of a wall, but -- my wife told me to ask that. But that's all I have. Thanks. De Weerd: Thank you. Kathy Floyd signed up against. Mainly against. Floyd: Mainly against. Yeah. My name is Kathy Floyd. 520 Waltman Lane. Mainly against -- I'm not against the property turning commercial, I'm against how it's set up, the plan, which -- correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that neighborhoods -- neighbors were supposed to be informed of plans, including all the changes, and the last -- this is the last plan that we have ever seen. So, for them to come tonight to change, I think doesn't seem right. A lot of reference has been made to being -- Waltman being the gateway to the city. It's a dead end lane. So, it's not going into the city. I don't know why that's called the gateway. If you look right here, coming off the exit, right now a lot of people actually try to go right into the left-hand, so they can turn down here and avoid lights, which I know with the split corridor is supposed to change that, which I don't really think the split corridor will help. I'll go on record saying that. But with Waltman being the main access point to not this subdivision, but for other subdivisions, that will be the main access and I don't really think Meridian should be known for halfway -- half of this road is storage, so if that's the view you're wanting people to think of Meridian, it's not a very nice view. And so I think that's very poor planning. And I know a lot of stuff has been said as far as the 20 year plan that this is supposed to go to commercial and I understand that. I'm not against it going commercial. But if that was the 20 year plan, then, they should have allowed the storage unit to go in and they shouldn't have allowed this subdivision to go in without proper roads. And you had 20 years to plan that. I have been around for 20 years. I mean more than 20 years, but I have lived on this land for on -- over 30 years and I think that if that was the main plan, then, we could have accommodated for it long before now. One of the things that was mentioned by the developer is that he would do whatever it takes to make sure this is not a thoroughfare and the one thing he could do is make Corporate Drive go through and I understand he doesn't want to pay for that, Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 54 of 74 but that's part of development. The other thing is Linder Road could use an overpass. That could also cut down the people going through and cutting right through to go to the exit. Another thing that I don't think is in line with what the city actually wants -- there is no bike trails, there is no walking trails, which I know if you're wanting all these people from the subdivision to come to this development, how are they getting there? There is no bike trails, except on the other side of the Ten Mile ditch and there is no bridges that they are proposing and they are not proposing that to be extended until the other property on the -- up there is developed. So, I think that the developers are asking for flexibility and I understand for them that would be nice, but now I'm hearing is it is that they are really not wanting responsibility and I think that they should be held accountable, because it's affecting a lot of people in Meridian and it's affecting the residents of this lane. De Weerd: Thank you. I have Robert Wiener signed up for. Wiener: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Robert Wiener. 2730 South Mayflower Way, Boise. 83709. De Weerd: Thank you. Wiener: I am a current partner. I now know how you feel on election day. I feel like I have been campaigning for three years to get to see you. When we first started the project I started meeting with the neighbors. First time ever to eat rhubarb pie. Rountree: Nona's special, uh? De Weerd: I love rhubarb pie. Wiener: Well, best pie I ever had. The first thing that was a concern of the neighbors was that we try to do something with Waltman Lane, so that it's not running directly adjacent to their property as it sits so close to their home right now. What we ended up doing is we decided on our own behalf that we would shift Waltman and give them some of our property and move Waltman Lane down onto our property, which, in turn, made us also have to improve the entire Waltman Lane and not just half, which would have been ACHD's requirement, because now basically everything from north of center line is now going to belong to the families to the north. So, we tried to accommodate them in the way. We have met with them many times and as much as I understand that they would like to not see a development, that they would rather see this as a giant ski lake, we are really trying hard to accommodate them and work with them and so that was our first part. And we have also offered that when we do donate this property to them that if they would like it landscaped with a berm to their side or just a thicker, denser landscape that we will pretty much accommodate whichever way they decide to go. As far as Ruddy Lane goes, there is -- there is no simple answer as far as how anybody's going to empty that traffic out of the subdivision and we understand that. Staff had talked about a circuitous connection. We had talked about a more direct connection. Staff talked about the connection being a drive aisle, connection lane like Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 55 of 74 you see it now, versus public street. I don't think staff really cared either way, as long as we accommodated and made it look nice. So, we have worked towards that, so that it's not fast traffic through our development and hitting Waltman Lane at high speeds, whether they turn right or if anything ever happens to the north, they are not just flying across. We have tried to make it where it's a slowed down access. Sewer and water, as far as any issues there, they are both -- sewer is across our entire property. I don't know if you all know where it is now, but sewer runs basically from this site right here. We gave an easement underneath the creek -- creek as they say. I'm originally from Louisiana. There is sewer all the way across -- comes across here and it even goes down this way now. Water runs down Waltman Lane. I think it's about a ten inch -- eight or a ten inch pipe. So, the services are there, it's just a matter of making this road large enough and nice enough to accommodate the traffic and that is our plan with Waltman Lane is to open it up and put a nice surface down and put a nice bridge down. We have agreed to the walking path, which will cross -- it will come in on this property somewhere. That will be up to, obviously, the city planners, but it's going to cross on our property right here and how exactly that's going to be drawn and how it's going to attach we are not exactly sure, but that's where they are showing it and that's where the city has asked for it to be. De Weerd: Can I ask you to summarize, please? Wiener: I'm done. Rountree: Great. De Weerd: Good timing. Wiener: Thank you very much. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Those are the names that have signed up. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this? Yes, please. Hi. Haddock: Thank you. My name is Rob Haddock. I live at 650 Waltman Lane. It's that square to the north. De Weerd: Do you want to use the pointer, maybe? Haddock: Sure. Right there. De Weerd: Thank you Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 56 of 74 Haddock: I don't know where to start. There is so many improvements that aren't in place, I don't know why we are at this point right now. You know, until the connection goes in, you know, it's not even a viable project. And like's been stated before, you know, it is a dead end street. The developer said they don't expect traffic from -- from the -- from the subdivision. So, basically, we are looking at a one way in, one way out big box retail across from my home that sits on one acre. I'd like to see anything else in the city or in the northwest that compares to that or is similar to that. You know, they keep bringing up what's in the Comprehensive Plan and that's commercial. Well, in the Comprehensive Plan to the north of that is residential and I don't see how it jives, how the two mesh. Also to the north where Corporate is and north of there -- I don't know if you have got the -- you got the map that shows the -- yes. Do you have anything that goes any further north than that? Okay. Thank you. Right there we have Southwest 5th and Pennwood coming together. You know, I could live with that type of commercial property cross from me and that type of access. You know, they keep saying, well, we have to connect. They didn't connect Pennwood or Barrett when they did that development on Southwest 5th. So, I'm just confused. I don't know all the ordinances, but, you know, as a resident on a dead end street with a family of five kids, you might see a dozen cars go by in a day, to emptying that entire subdivision through, all the commuters every morning, every evening, access to the freeway, access to Costco, access to Home Depot, South Meridian, you know, they are all coming through no matter what if you -- if you make that connection. My proposal would be, you know, I realize the developers want to develop the property, I don't -- I don't see anything, you know, that should be prevent that. But is there any way why -- is there any reason why they couldn't connect Ruddy straight east to west all the way to the next development and that's another good argument for waiting until the improvements are made to see what develops to the east and, you know, then, it might make a lot more sense. I know Waltman, when we looked at the conneetor plan from ACHD plans, it has a road coming off right after the intersection that would access the property to the south, you know, why not connect -- why not continue that access to the south all the way to this property, connect it to Ruddy, give them a straight shot through the commercial development, they could back their development up to Waltman Lane and, then, we could have a fence and maintain our dead end street and residential feel. But it looks like I have got the red light. I could go on. I have got a list here. De Weerd: I'm sure your wife would give you her time. Haddock: Okay. I'll tag team. De Weerd: No. You can have her time if she allows you. Okay. There you go. Three more minutes. Haddock: Okay. I guess one of my concerns, too, is Councilman Borton's involvement. I feel like the developers are asking for, you know, as few restrictions as possible. I have been to a lot of planning and zoning meetings, a lot of City Council meetings and I have never heard economic feasibility brought up. I didn't know that was, you know, part of your concern. You know, that's -- if a developer buys a piece of ground and, Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 57 of 74 boy, you know, look what I have got, how am I going to make this happen, they knew what they bought when they bought it, why are we now making concessions for them. Planning and Zoning, the first meeting I went to, the second before last. We had finro previous to this. The first one when Shawn Nickel got up, they pretty much, you know, read him the riot act, you know, what are you doing, you're wasting our time, you got this issue, this issue, this issue, this issue -- came back the next meeting, the same plan, no resolution to any of the problems, but, you know, they met with ACHD, they had a new staff member assigned to the project, we have been working with Caleb Hood, who has kept us in the loop, calling before that meeting, hey, I'm not involved anymore. You know, I just -- I hope that you guys can be impartial on this project is my only concern, because the next Planning and Zoning meeting the only concern that was brought up was not all these previous concerns, but, well, how many square feet are we going to allow them to build. We stood and testified, brought up the same concerns, and none of those were addressed. And so that -- that felt wrong to me and I didn't sleep real well that night and I just, you know, hope you guys are looking at this the same way you'd look at any other project and take into consideration our concerns. Once again, just, you know, giving them the highest zoning possible and an open book, I don't think that's in the best interest of anyone. You know, I don't think you should just give them the development and say, okay, the project goes to the highest bidder, you know, whoever comes in there, that's fine. Conditional Use Permit. That's -- you know, we will work with it. And so I'm -- you know, I'm not comfortable with the -- with the direction this is headed. And there is -- you know, I don't agree with the no retail -- with the retail. You know, have been talking about the west and the northwest buffer, we haven't talked about the north buffer a whole lot. You know, they said the road's the buffer. You know, I-- you know, I like -- I like what's up on Southwest 5th. If we could have that type of zoning I would be perfectly fine with it. The only thing I don't -- you know, my biggest concern is opening Waltman Lane up as a thoroughfare to that subdivision. It's going to empty out. And, you know, the Comprehensive Plan states that that north section is -- is residential and I'd just like to hear some input on how -- how that can be accomplished. You know, we talked about undue hardship and i feel allowing this to go in across the street -- you know, would any of you guys like a Wal- mart in your front yard? You know, it's -- if that's not undue hardship, you know, I'd like to hear what is. So, 1 think I'm done. Thank you for your time. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Did you want to comment? Well, I thought I saw you getting up at one time. N.Haddock: My name is Nona Haddock and I live at 480 Waltman Lane in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. N.Haddock: I would just like to encourage the idea of -- now I'm going to think of the wrong name of the road. A frontage road like we have across the street where you go in by McDonald's and Chevron and it frontages around to Home Depot and circles around and -- that would be perfect for this side of the road also. You're going to widen that intersection at Waltman and Meridian, just bring the traffic -- see if I know how to Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 58 of 74 use this. When this traffic comes through here, just drop it down, bring it across, let it empty Ruddy. And they still would have this huge amount of property right here that can be developed and they can do something right along the freeway and that way you're designing traffic for the traffic flow, a road that will handle the traffic flow. There is definitely a need. We all agree that that subdivision is beyond -- years beyond help for being able to empty out. It's not even a safe situation. If we were to have a toxic spill on the freeway right here and that had to be evacuated, we would be in big trouble, because you know you couldn't get those people out in a very timely manner. But if this were to be planned the way the road over here was planned, which works very well for all of that -- so that would be my input. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Any additional comment? Yes, sir. N.Floyd: My name is Nathan Floyd, I live at 520 Waftman Lane, right in between the two Haddock families, right here in the L-shaped property. And the point I wanted to bring up was -- was notification of these public meetings has not been happening for our little lane. There is supposed to be a big sign that says public meeting, public hearing, at such and such a date and for the last three meetings that hasn't happened and I was just curious, is there some sort of rule or regulation as to when that needs to happen and if it doesn't happen what are the ramifications of that. And, then, the other point I wanted to make was one that was already brought up was the fact of notifications in the change of plans that Waltman, LLC, makes. And i find it very scary that each time we come to a new meeting there is whole new plan that they come with. It scares me, because, really, what it comes down to is it doesn't seem like they know what they want to do and so when it comes to the point when they are ready to develop, what are we going to end up with. We don't know, because apparently they don't know. And the last thing I wanted to end with was Waltman, LLC, they are not the first ones to own this property, it was previously owned, and the previous owner decided that it was a rotten egg, it wasn't a very good property to develop on. And I think they are laughing at Waltman, LLC, right now, because -- because they are in the same situation now. And it's kind of funny the lengths that people will go to to make a rotten egg smell good. And that's what I wanted to say. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. I can see you're getting your speech voice on; right? N.Swenson: Not exactly. De Weerd: Okay. N.Swenson: Not exactly. Nancy Swenson. 815 Waltman Lane. De Weerd: Thank you. N.Swenson: And I have heard a lot of rhetoric tonight. A lot of stuff that sounds really good coming out of people's voices and I'm saying you can make it sound good, but do you know the reality of living right there? Do you know the reality of living on a little tiny Meridian Ciry Council May 6, 2008 Page 59 of 74 lane where almost nobody goes? Do you know the reality of having strangers stop right there and for some reason get mad at me because the road doesn't go through and they want to go someplace over there? I don't know where. And, then, they use my driveway to turn around in, because it's a dead end. Do they know the reality of when this was only partially developed and before that little jaunt was blocked down to a walking path, the number of cars that kept coming through to get up to the freeway? Do they know the reality of what's going to happen once that road opens up? We might not be able to get out, because no matter how they work it, whether people are driving through a parking lot to get out, they are going to be cutting through there. If they would try to go through that little lane and block up our road, they are going to go through from here, whether this is a parking lot, a street, or whatever, they are going to be coming through. That is one of my number one concerns. I have other concerns, like, yeah, how high is that wall -- a solid wall. Could that be two feet? Could it be ten feet? Twenty feet? What on earth are they talking about? What about all these buildings that they are planning to put in, what if they don't get leased? Everywhere I go in our city on main streets there are signs up for lease. They have sat there empty for months and they have excellent access. The only access this property has is one street right now. What happens to our neighborhoods if those things don't get rented, if they don't get leased, what about the vandalism? What about the flavor to our neighborhoods? I hope these people are considering that. So far, as far as I know, there has been no vandalism done to the cows. De Weerd: Yes, ma'am. Aldridge: My name is Donna Aldridge and I live at 355 Waltman Lane. And I said before, I'm the old timer down there. And there is -- De Weerd: Mrs. Aldridge, can you pull that a little bit closer to you. Aldridge: Maybe I don't want you to hear me. Anyway -- De Weerd: We'd like to, though. Aldridge: Duane Cope is right, I live right next to him and that was -- when High County was going to buy us out, that they -- that wouldn't go into the city, that was a promise that they made us if that deal didn't go through, that we wasn't city. All of a sudden we are in the city and we couldn't do nothing about it. And I didn't think that was fair. I really didn't. But, anyway, we were in that predicament and we couldn't get out of it. But it is right, that is a dead end road and like I have said before, when they opened that up before, I couldn't even get out of my driveway. ft was like a bunch of wild horses set free, they had to have the police wagon out there, they was giving tickets, we had to have the police come down there and you think it's going to be any different with this development, unless they put a frontage road in and put a little money out and put a frontage road in to help the people, it's not going to work. De Weerd: Ma'am, could you show me your property? Can you use that pointer'? Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 60 of 74 Aldridge: By the drain ditch. Right after the creek. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any further testimony? Yes, sir. E.Haddock: My name's Edward Haddock, 480 Waltman Lane, and my wife Nona just talked to you a little while ago. De Weerd: Thank you. E.Haddock: We are in the little triangle portion right there. Right by the creek, as you cross Waltman Creek there -- Ten Mile Creek. Excuse me. My main concern is -- as has been expressed by many of the others, is Ruddy. If you punch that through it's -- I think we are going to see something pretty ugly happening, not only in our residential area, but I think it's going to compound a big problem. And as my wife said, if we did have a frontage road, more like the other side over there I think it would make it livable. I think it would be something that would really fit into a Comprehensive Plan. The dead end concept of Waltman Lane just isn't going to make it I don't think. That's my concern. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any further testimony? Okay. The applicant can -- I will ask him for his wrap-up remarks, but, remember, this is going to be continued. That new plat staff hadn't seen either. Typically, this would be continued and the public would have the option of looking at it and evaluating it further, which you do, as well our staff. And so that is our normal operation. So, Council will not consider action tonight, because we haven't had a full staff evaluation of what's in front of us. I think it also gives additional opportunity for the people that are looking at this development to have a chance to -- to talk with both our staff and the neighbors. Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Canning: Members of the Council. Before Mr. Nickel stands up, I think one of the real items that we did not have a feel for how Council would -- what position they would take is that Corporate Drive extension. So, perhaps before Mr. Nickel gets up, if Council could discuss that issue and I suppose the timing doesn't necessarily matter, since it's likely to be a continued issue, but I think that that discussion would benefit both staff and the applicant. De Weerd: Council, what would be your preference? Rountree: I'd just as soon have Shawn wrap up at this point in time and, then, we can talk. Bird: I would, too. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 61 of 74 De Weerd: Okay. If you will restate your name for the record. Nickel: I will. Thank you. Shawn Nickel. And since it does look like we are going to be tabling this, staff's right, we -- De Weerd: Oh, we won't table it, we will continue it. Nickel: We will continue it. I call it table. Tomato. Tomato. We do want to know your -- your thoughts greatly on -- on Corporate. Just to point out a few things. If staff would put back up the aerial that has the new site plan on it. And keep in mind this is -- this is a concept plan, so -- and as Mr. Moore indicated, there probably is another 123 or so more that are going to be coming. Not to you, but that are going to be laid out. So, again, this is not how it's going to look necessarily. One -- one thing to point out -- I'm not giving you a stink eye, by the way, I just want to make sure Mr. Zaremba is listening, because this has to do with his -- his concerns and that's with Ruddy. Keep in mind that is going to be a permanent access easement if it is -- if it remains private. Now, this layout right here doesn't -- I don't think do it justice as to the fact that we understand that traffic is going to be coming out of this residential subdivision through this property. I think that was the intention of the stub street when it was -- when it was put in. As the architect spoke earlier, it can be designed, whether it's a roundabout, whether it's a more fluid approach, you know, that's some -- some comments and some feedback that we'd like to get from you, but I think we can -- I think we can still accomplish what you're looking for with it still being a private, but it doesn't look and feel like a parkway that separates the development or that splits the development in half, but still does the same job, which is to bring traffic out -- mostly to the west. I don't think we are necessarily worried about traffic going to the east from the development, but traffic will be coming from Meridian Road and going back and forth. There is no doubt that's going to happen. So, I think we can still accomplish it with the private road concept. We probably need to give you a better -- a better idea, maybe another concept plan showing how that could -- how that could work for you to review. Also want to point out that when we stood up here saying that we were not in favor of the Corporate connection, we understand that that is an important connection, what we are against is making this development be solely responsible for it. We are all in favor of paying our fair share to the highway district, to a-- you know, to a trust, whatever, for the future construction of that. It's just placing the burden of that off-site improvement is what is -- I think what we are kind of explaining to you it's kind of scaring us. But we don't want to avoid responsibility and we would be, again, willing to pay our fair share, what that would be determined by -- by ACHD. And also point out that our traffic -- our traffic study indicates that we can get -- the ACHD report says that we can have 8,000 vehicle trips per day come from this -- this development. That's a lot higher than the 150,000 square feet that staff and Planning and Zoning Commission had placed as a condition of approval. So, just to point that out, that we are not -- that our traffic study is not saying that are we going to immediately impact Waltman Lane. Also, keep in mind we are planning on improving Waltman Lane the entire length to the new intersection. So, we are not putting all this traffic on a-- on what I-- and I think the neighbors will agree is Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 62 of 74 kind of a goat trail right now. I'm not sure of the one gentleman's comments about the additional -- the additional right of way or proposed right of way, other than the normal right of way that's on the 50 foot or so that's on -- that's currently on -- on Waltman. I don't know about any additional right of way that would -- what he was -- what he was speaking about. And with regards to the neighbors and not bringing these plans back in front of the neighbors, we did attempt to work with the neighbors, specifically to the north, because there actually haven't been any neighbors to the west that have come to any of our meetings and discussed anything. So, early on we did try to work with the neighbors to the north, providing these buffers up here, realigning -- realigning Waltman. When we started to getting -- when we started getting into these revisions with staff and with ACHD, it didn't affect what was happening over here and so we didn't feel it was necessary to hold another neighborhood meeting. We didn't -- we weren't purposely trying to keep them out of it, we understood what their concerns were. We placed those in the original concept, which we have carried over through the three or four that came after that. So, just an explanation of where that -- where that has been. And I don't believe we are asking for an open book. Yes, we are asking for some flexibility. I think there are conditions of approval both proposed and recommended by your staff and your Planning and Zoning Commission and proposed by us this evening that will -- that will protect and make this project a compatible one. We -- some details probably still need to be worked out. The height of the wall is still an unknown. We can -- you know, we can -- after this meeting we can talk to the neighbors and see what their -- what their thoughts are. I mean, obviously, we don't want to have a two foot wall, but we might not necessarily have a ten foot wall. It's going to be a combination of wall and landscaping that will both be attractive, but also will, you know, have its purpose, which is to buffer the use from the residents. And, then, again, we really want your input and your thoughts, so if we do get deferred, postponed, that we know what to come back and show you and what to -- what to discuss amongst ourselves, so we are -- we are on the right path. Again, we are not trying to -- we have got some time, so we are not trying to move this through -- we have been working on it for a couple of years, so an additional delay -- I think it will only benefit everybody involved. So, with that I will stand for any further questions. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, questions? Bird: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Shawn, tell me again what the traffic trips was ACHD said. Nickel: I believe ACHD -- well -- Bird: For your traffic study or whatever. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 63 of 74 Nickel: -- in the ACHD -- in our traffic study I believe it stated there was a threshold of 10,300 vehicle trips per day. ACHD has indicated that they could allow 8,000 vehicle trips per day from the development. Bird: And how do you determine that? I mean it's going to depend on what kind of box store you get there. You get a Walmart or Costco or something like that, you're going to take a lot of trips and your other retail things on 38 acres, you could have a lot of trips. You want some direction from this Councilman, figure out a way to connect Corporate. I've sat here for 11 years and I have battled Corporate every time something's happened there and I'm through battling on it. Nickel: Thanks. Zaremba: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I will offer finro directions. De Weerd: Can you speak into the microphone. Zaremba: Oh, yes. Thank you. As far as which buildings go there and which configuration go, I realize it's a concept and I'm sure that at some point that will be market driven. I appreciate that you are accommodating some of the suggestions that have been made by the Planning and Zoning Commission and by staff, who have looked at it very carefully. I don't think you are going to convince me that we can give up a public road and I will actually -- the second part of my suggestion is another step and, actually, another option that we have. I don't believe with what you are presenting, that we have a valid recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. I don't think this is ready for the Council to be looking at it. I think the change that you're proposing is sufficient that I would recommend that we remand it back to Planning and Zoning. They have not seen what you're talking about. Certainly their recommendation was based on the public road being there and I don't feel that they have given us a recommendation about what you're showing us. So, I would like to make that suggestion. But I would also like to consider -- there were some other good suggestions made and some of them involve getting involved with other property owners, but the frontage road that does something like mirroring what happens on the other side is kind of what I was expecting to see at some point. The connection of Corporate, whether you guys do it or whether you're just limited on how much you can develop until somebody else does it, I think that's important. But I-- my end feeling is that many of these things need to be worked out with staff and with Planning and Zoning Commission and ask them, again, for a new recommendation on what's a totally different project to me. That's my opinion. Nickel: Can I address that, Madam Mayor? And thank you, Commissioner -- Council member. Sorry. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 64 of 74 Zaremba: And that's why I'm sensitive, because I used to be one of the Commissioners. Nickel: I know. I know. And I would be -- Zaremba: I still remember all of that. Nickel: I would have no problem with going back to the Planning and Zoning Commission if you guys were going to consider reducing that to a private drive, but if you're already of the opinion that it needs to remain public, I don't know what a-- I don't know what a recommendation from Planning and Zoning Commission would do, other than bog down their -- their agenda and they are probably not going to be real happy to see me again, because they saw us a lot. Again, I'm not -- we have time, so it's not like we are trying to push this through. I just don't know what benefit that would be. As far as the uses that we proposed, you do have their recommendations on what they wanted us -- wanted to see. The only thing that has changed, obviously, is the wall and the buffer. So, that might be a legitimate recommendation from them. But, again, your feedback -- I kind of know where you're -- where you're headed on the -- on the Ruddy connection, at least to the north. Now, with regard to the frontage road, we did actually look at that, because the Planning and Zoning Commission, as you know, as insightFul as they are, wanted to know is that something that's doable and in discussing ITD's future -- seeing there is several future plans for this -- for this new on ramp and the configuration of these properties and distance between Meridian and Ruddy, I just don't -- we just couldn't find a way to make a frontage road work and to mesh with what ITD wants to do on this property that they own right here. So, we did -- we did attempt to look at that issue and all indications are that it does need to come out this -- this way. That's all I have for now from Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Thank you. And I can understand -- I'm not trying to engineer where they go, but I-- regardless of where the road does go, I'm pretty strong on feeling it needs to be a public connection. Nickel: And, again, I think -- I think if you look across the street that -- the way that that functions, it does exactly what a frontage road does, but it has a lot more area in which to -- in which to make it work. This is just such a compact area, we have -- you know, we have actually done a couple of layouts and it just doesn't -- doesn't work correctly. But I think I know where you're going with the Ruddy connection, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. De Weerd: Any other questions, Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: None? Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 65 of 74 Rountree: Well, I have some comments. I don't have any questions. De Weerd: Okay. Nickel: Thanks. See you again. Rountree: It appears that we are going to continue this, but some of the things that I have noted -- questions that have come up. There has been questions about proper notice. That's something the city needs to look at, as well as the applicant. Timing issues on when the Waltman Lane intersection will be operable. The status of the Waltman Lane improvements in terms of a typical section, what's that going to look like? Is there, in fact, right of way to do that? There has been some question there. There is issues I think that the city ultimately needs to address that there is residents apparently in the city that haven't hooked up with sewer and water where it's available. I don't know if that relates to the previous phantom application that occurred some years ago, but if it's there and they want it, they certainly need to know they have to pay for it. So, if that's an issue with -- apparently it's an issue that was brought for testimony. I don't know if it was an issue that they want to hook up or not. If they do, its -- there is a sizeable fee to do that, if the infrastructure is there. I don't see my job to necessarily give solutions, but I will give some guidance. We are being asked to bring this particular piece of Ada County into Meridian to perform a certain function and I don't disagree that the function being proposed is probably the highest and best use at this point in time. However, once -- once if we are to do that, we lose most of our capability to guide or direct what might occur there. Recently as we have been asked for conceptual approval on these kinds of activities, which we have done, we have had design guidelines prepared or development agreements that specify design criteria, concept, potential footprint sizes -- De Weerd: Material. Rountree: Pardon? De Weerd: Material. Rountree: Materials, those sort of things. Things as straight forward as now you're proposing a masonry wall. It would be kind of nice to know is that going to be six foot or eight foot or what it might be. And I think those are -- those get kind of specific, but to me that's not going to necessarily encourage or discourage whatever potential user there might be. I think those are the kinds of things that the applicant can commit to. As far as Corporate, I think we all have dealt with Corporate for a number of years and would very much like to see it go through, but I totally understand the applicant's problem and that they have -- unless there is a willing seller and a willing location on the part of ACHD in order to do it, they are not empowered to be able to do something like that as an off-site improvement. So, I don't know how we could, as a condition of approval, hold that over their head and expect it to happen. I mean it would be a good Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 66 of 74 way to make the project not happen, I suppose. I think I would want some clarification as to what uses might not be appropriate. Particularly on those areas that do border residential, even if there is a wall there, we learn by our mistakes. A large car wash with a rather large vacuum drying operation probably ought not to be next to neighbors. And those sorts of things that we need to think through when we are going to go ahead, if we go ahead and approve on a conceptual basis the kinds of things that we ought not to throw in the concept. I guess I don't necessarily agree that the changed concept is significantly different than what Planning and Zoning saw to warrant it to go back to them, but certainly it is different and I think it requires an opportunity for staff to look at it and for the applicant to think about what they heard tonight and for those concerned citizens to get proper notice and have an opportunity to look at it and comment on it some more. The one solution I would expect from the applicant is the solution of how are we going to deal with the traffic. I have trouble with that approval on a conceptual basis. I want something that is convincing to me that works. If you were to get approved and if you were to have a client that wanted something different, those things can be changed based on your engineering and proof that your change is not going to modify whether or not your original solution is going to work or not. So, to me I would like to see a solution, not just, well, you know, we know it's an issue. Well, we know it's an issue. If we approve an annexation knowing there is an issue, once that's gone we don't have an opportunity, really, to do much to get the issue taken care of. So, the issue needs to be taken care of now. I guess that's my guidance. If there is no further comments, I'd make a motion that we continue the Public Hearing on this application for an additional two weeks -- more -- less. You won't get one week, because we have a special meeting on the 13th. That would be May 20th. De Weerd: Before you make a motion, Council any further -- Rountree: If there is any further comments, yeah. De Weerd: -- comments on information needed? I guess, too, I think we need specific comment from Ada County Highway District regarding that extension of Corporate and how it could work, what -- what your requirements are and if they were to pay a proportional share of that, what does that mean and what would trigger the necessity of that connecting to the project, because it's not just the trips that this development would generate, it's the through trips from the neighborhood as well. So, I would like to get ACHD's comment on where there is public responsibility to that as well or -- you know, I don't know what you can give us, but would like ACHD's comment on that, Gary. Yes, please. Inselman: Madam Mayor, Council, Gary Inselman representing the Ada County Highway District. 3775 North Adams. I just want to make sure you're aware -- we did already act on this application -- the prior preliminary plat our Commission acted on it, so any change means we need a revised preliminary plat to analyze and to go back to our commission. So, if you need our action before you act, finro weeks isn't going to be nearly enough time, because we haven't seen a revised preliminary plat yet or been asked to comment on one. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 67 of 74 De Weerd: Well, we can set a date if it's -- the timing doesn't work, three weeks -- June 3rd. If the timing doesn't work, we can always continue it. And to the citizens, I would suggest that you call the clerk's office to make sure that it -- what date we continue it to, it's -- it's -- the sign is only required -- the sign is only required to the original Public Hearing date and, then, after that, you know, we do advise you to keep an eye on our -- our website. We post all agendas and pick up the phone. Our clerks office can tell you when that -- if it looks like it will be continued and they are here to give you information. Okay. So -- Rountree: June 3rd work for you guys? It's pushing it, isn't it? Inselman: We would probably be the first week of June, if you could be -- De Weerd: Dean might need you to speak up. Inselman: I'm assuming we would not make a May meeting for our commission, so we may make the first meeting in June. So, you could make it the second Tuesday. Zaremba: Well, Madam Mayor, then, the follow-up question would be that our staff usually wants at least ten days after something like that is presented to them, so -- Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the second Tuesday is a workshop, so we would be looking at June 17th. De Weerd: At this point do we know the extent of what ACHD might need? Can we set it for the third and continue it if need be at that time? Then, it looks like -- does that sound reasonable or -- otherwise we can just do it on the 17th. Canning: Madam Mayor, I don't believe the applicant has too many concerns with June 17th. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: They are waiting for the split corridor to be done, so they have got a time span there. They are not in a crunch. Rountree: They got a ways to -- De Weerd: They have a year and four months. Got all kinds of time. Rountree: So, Madam Mayor, I think we have got that resolved. De Weerd: Okay. The 17th. Zaremba: Thank you. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 68 of 74 Nary: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: So, Gary, you know what we hope -- what we would hope to get at that time? Inselman: Madam Mayor, our current report does address the fact of there is a potential to do an extraordinary impact fee for the extension of Corporate. Each of the properties pay their proportionate share. I'm not sure I can go into more detail in our report on how that would work until that proposal is actually brought forward and we try to form that district. It is presented as an option in our current report. We do stress the limits for all for the properties along Waltman with the maximum traffic should be on that and that if this development did build up to the point that it generated 8,000 trips per day, that would max out Waltman, there would be no -- we would recommend no further permits along any of the parcels until Corporate was extended. So, I think we may have most of the information you're after, we can work with your staff to clarify any points that you think we may need to go into more detail. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Inselman: Thanks. De Weerd: And I guess just one comment to Shawn and the gentlemen from Portland. I think some of the designs and the ideas that you have talked about is -- is more palatable than what the neighbors have heard or seen up to this point. I would love to see that you had some kind of a neighborhood out reach meeting to give them an idea of what your vision is and the kind of product that you build. We are not going to -- we can't require it, but we can certainly suggest it and I think it is your opportunity to tell your story and maybe again. But if you've ever campaigned, it never is a bad idea to go more than once, so -- okay. Anything further, Council? Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't think you made a motion yet. Rountree: No. Nary: I just wanted to be clear to the public when you do what your expectation is for the next hearing. If it's just the comments on the ACHD or if it's comments on this proposal or other proposals, I think some of the testimony was that many of the people in the audience hadn't seen this proposal until this evening. So, that might help in clarifying for the public just what your expectation is that they can testify about at the next hearing. De Weerd: Okay. Do you want me to answer it, Council, or -- Rountree: No. I'll put that in my motion, if we are waiting for a motion. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 69 of 74 De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we continue this Public Hearing until June 17th, 2008, at which time we will take testimony on the proposed option that the applicant is going to be bringing forth and an opportunity to share it with the neighbors. De Weerd: Do I have a second? Zaremba: Second it. Bird: 16 or 17 or just -- De Weerd: The 17th. Rountree: It's just -- Bird: It's both of them; right? Rountree: Both of those. Bird: I second it. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue Items 16 and 17 to June 17th, where we will see a plat and the recommendation on the road infrastructure, those kind of things. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 18: Amendment to Ordinance No. 08-1346A: AZ 05-052 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.87 acres from R1 to C-G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC - 3055 North Eagle Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 18 is amendment to ordinance number 08-1346A. Mayor Clerk, will you, please, read this ordinance -- I'm sorry, Mr. Nary. Nary: Shall I go get Councilmember Borton? De Weerd: Yeah. I'm sure -- Bird: He's probably asleep. Nary: And, Madam Mayor, since I didn't explain this to Councilman Borton, this is a clean-up ordinance. Sadie Creek is probably -- I'm sure most of you have thought this is sort of an old ordinance to have back in front of you. When this was originally done, a portion of Sadie Creek, which the developer thought was already annexed, which we as Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 70 of 74 a city thought was annexed and all the people that testified thought it was annexed, actually was not. So, this is simply to include that. It doesn't change any of the noticing requirements. It doesn't change anything. And since it was testified to as if it were already part of the city, we felt this was the most appropriate method to clean that up. De Weerd: Thank you for that explanation. Madam Clerk, will you, please, read this by title only. Holman: City of Meridian Ordinance No. 08-1346A, an amended ordinance 08-1346, AZ 05-050, Sadie Creek Promenade, for annexation of property located in U.S. Government Lot 1 of Section 5 and U.S. Government Lot 4 of Section 4, Township 3 north, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territory situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said lands from R-1, Ada County, to C-G, General Retail and Service Commercial District, in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing an effective date. De Weerd: Okay. You have heard the reading of this ordinance. Frank, would you like it hear it read in its entirety? No? Okay. Council, do I have a motion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve Ordinance 08-1346A with suspension of rules. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 18. If there is no discussion, Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Proclamation for National Preservation Month: De Weerd: Council, I would like to add something at this point to the agenda. I didn't know that this was going to be asked to be put on tonight. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 71 of 74 Holman: Madam Mayor, I didn't either until about a few minutes before I walked in here, so -- and I apologize. In the beginning it was given to me and I should have given it to you. I thought you knew about it and so you would amend it to the agenda, so -- De Weerd: They might want it and, then, no one said anything. Holman: Okay. So, I apologize for bringing it -- De Weerd: It's just a proclamation regarding National Preservation Month and certainly I wanted to do it while Frank was still here and so that he can take it to HPC at their meeting this week. So, if -- if you -- if Council doesn't object, I would like to read this into record. Bird: Go ahead Rountree: Move on. De Weerd: .And so if the amended agenda tomorrow can note that this was added to it. I will -- I will read this. Whereas historical -- historic preservation is an effective tool for managing growth, revitalizing neighborhoods, fostering local pride and maintaining community character, while enhancing livability; and whereas historic preservation is relevant for communities across the nation, both urban and rural and for Americans of all ages, all walks of life, and all ethnic backgrounds; and whereas it is important to celebrate the role of history in our lives and the contributions made by dedicated individuals in helping to preserve the tangible assets of the heritage that has shaped this as a people; and whereas this place matters as the theme for the National Preservation Month, May 2008, co-sponsored by the City of Meridian Historic Preservation Commission and the National Trust For Historic Preservation; therefore, I, Tammy de Weerd, Mayor of the City of Meridian, do hereby proclaim May 2008 as National Preservation Month and call upon all people of the City of Meridian to join their fellow citizens across the United States in recognizing and participating in this special observance. And, Frank, if you wouldn't mind coming forward, I will present this to you. Rountree: Bring your camera and we will take your picture. Thomason: Not a chance. De Weerd: Thank you. And we apologize for the lateness of that add, but very worthy addition to our agenda. Item 19: Ordinance No. Damaqe Prevention Ordinance: Amendment to the Flood Item 20: Ordinance No. AZ 07-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.84 acres from RUT to an R-4 Medium Low- Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 72 of 74 Density Residential zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. - 5230 North Black Cat Road: Item 21: Ordinance No. Ordinance: Repeal Precious Metals De Weerd: Okay. We also have ordinances on Items 19, 20, and 21. 08-1358, 08- 1359 and 08-1360. I will ask the Madam Clerk to, please, read these three ordinance by title only. Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 08-1358, an ordinance of the City of Meridian amending Title 10, Chapter 6, Flood Damage Prevention of the Meridian City Code, providing for general provisions and providing an effective date. Holman: City of Meridian Ordinance No. 08-1359, an ordinance AZ 07-011, Belhaven Subdivision, for annexation of a parcel of land being a portion of the north one half of the southwest one quarter of Section 27, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territory situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said lands from RUT, Ada County, to R-4, Low Density Residential District, in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the {daho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing an effective date. Holman: City of Meridian Ordinance No. 08-1360, an ordinance repealing Title 3, Chapter 9, of the Meridian City Code regarding precious metal dealers license, providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing an effective date. De Weerd: Okay. You have heard those three ordinances read by title only. Is there anyone who would like it read in its entirety? Hearing none, do I have a motion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve ordinances OS-1358, 08-1359 and 08-1360 -- Rountree: Second. Bird: -- with suspension of rules. Rountree: Second. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 73 of 74 De Weerd: I have a motion several seconds on these three. If there is no discussion, Madam Clerk. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 22: Executive Session per ldaho State Code 67-2345(1)(b) -(to consider the evaluation, dismissal or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, or public school student) &(fl -(to consider and advise its legal representatives in pending litigation): De Weerd: Okay. Item 22 is an Executive Session. Do I have a motion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per ldaho State Code 67-2345(1)(b), (1)(d), and (1)(f). Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to adjourn into Executive Session. Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Borton: I move to come out of Executive Session. Bird: Second. Rountree: All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Move to adjourn. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council May 6, 2008 Page 74 of 74 Rountree: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:58 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) ~ MAYOR Y De WEERD ATTEST: 05 ~ 20 ~ 2(.~ ~' DATE APPROVED HOLMAN, CITY `~~~~„~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,,,,~~~~ `~~~~~~'~ ~ ~'q~~~~''~, ~k ~ ~~ ' 'ko F~K = - SEAL = _: ~ ,~ ~ = ~ ~ ~-. 7n T , fi . ~,•`. ~~~r ..y, ~ ~~. ,+`~ ~''~'~~~~Ilflllf111111111,,,~,,`