HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 07-08Meridian Citv Council Meetinct July 8, 2008
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, July
8, 2008, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Joe Borton, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree
and David Zaremba. .
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Anna Canning, Kyle Radek, Mark Niemeyer,
Tracy Basterrechea, Steve Siddoway, Keith Watts 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: Okay. I will go ahead and call tonight's meeting to order. I'd like to
welcome you all here tonight. For the record, it is Tuesday, July 8th. It is 7:00 o'clock.
We will start tonight's meeting wifh roll call attendance.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: Jarrod 8~ Franklin Watts
De Weerd: Item No. 2 is our Pledge of Allegiance. Tonight we will be led in the pledge
by Jerrod and Franklin Watts. If you will all rise and join us.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
De Weerd: Now, Jerrod and Franklin, I do have two City of Meridian pins. I give you
healthy things, instead of candy.
Rountree: I won't ask them what's more fun.
Bird: Which would you rather have?
Item 3: Comrnunity Invocation by Pastor Russ McCrea with Living Grace
Community Fellowship:
De Weerd: Pins, right? They last longer. Thank you for leading us in the pledge. Item
No. 3 is fhe community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Pastor Russ McCrea. He's
wifih Living Grace Community Fellowship. If you will all join us in the community
invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection. Pastor.
McCrea: Thank you. This evening I'm going to read from the prophet Jeremiah, whose
country was in great turmoil, and this evening I'm going to read from a book that most
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 2 of 40
people don't like to read, Lamentations. But it's not all that lamentable. So, I'm going to
give some of the good part of Lamentations. Chapter 3. Yet this I call to mind and,
therefore, I have hope. Because of the Lord's great love we are not consumed, for his
compassions never fail. They are new every morning. Great is your faithfulness. I say
to myself the Lord is my portion, therefore, I will wait for him. The Lord is good to those
whose hope is in him, to the one who seeks him. It is good to wait quietly for the
salvation of the Lord. For men are not cast off by the Lord forever. Though he brings
grief, he will show compassion, so great is his unfailing love. For it does not willingly
bring affliction or grief to the children of inen. Mighty God, we ask this evening that you
would show your compassion and grace upon our community, upon our leaders, our
Mayor, our Councilmen, each of the leaders of the city's departments, Lord, and I just
pra y for those -- especially those departments that end up having a lot of public contact,
for fhe police, the firemen, the EMTs, Lord, I ask that you might give them a measure of
your grace to show us how compassionate and kind you are. Lord, we ask for your
presence in this meeting and in our city that you would watch over us, in Christ's name,
amen.
De Weerd: Pastor McCrea, if I could also offer you a City of Meridian pin and thank
you.
McCrea: Thank you.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 4 is the adopfion of the agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Item No. 13 has been asked to be continued to July 22nd, 2008. Item 14 is -- the
proposed ordinance number is 08-1372. Item number 15 is -- the proposed ordinance
number is 08-1373. And with that I move we accept the agenda as published.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda has proposed. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Mofion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Consent Agenda:
A. Master Aqreernent for Professional Services with MWH:
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 3 of 40
B. Addendum to Development Agreement: MI 07-008 Request for
a Miscellaneous application to modify the recorded Development
Agreement (Inst. 104107406) to remove the requirement for all
future uses to obtain Conditional Use Permit approval for Gatewav
Marketplace by Landmark Development Group - 3205 East Ustick
Road
C. License Aqreement with Nampa Meridian Irrictation District for
Well No. 27 Ten Mile Drain:
De Weerd: Item 5 is the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approved the Consent Agenda as published and for the Mayor to sign
and the clerk to attest on all papers.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve fhe Consent Agenda. If
there is no discussion, Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: B'ird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6: Department Reports:
A. Mayor's Office
1. Budqet Amendment for Meridian Arts Commission' for
$4,500.00:
De Weerd: Okay. Under Department Reports, under fhe Mayor's office, there is a
budget amendment for the Meridian Arts Commission. I don't see Robert in here. That
would be good. Did you ask for Robert, Will? You do have an amendment in front of
you, though, Council. I# is just kind of a clean-up as to money that has been raised out
in the community by the Arts Commission. I guess I would ask if there are any
questions, Robert is here to entertain those questions.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 4 of 40
Borton: I would move that we approve the budget amendment for the Meridian Arts
Commission in fhe amount of 4,500 dollars.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the budget amendment in front of
you. If there is no discussion, Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
B. Finance Department
1. Commercial Paintinq Chanae Order No. 3 for Additional
Work to the Existinq Paintina Contract for $773.00:
2. Architectural Buildina Supplv Ghanqe Order No. 4 for
Additional Work to the Existing Doors, Floors 8~
Hardware Contract for $5,303.00:
3. Architectural Buildina Supplv Chanae Order No. 2 for
Additional Work to Incorporate Bid Package 11 into
Existing Doors 8~ Hardware Contract for $36,220.00:
4. Task Order No CH1 with Terracon Consultants, Inc. at
641 Main Street for Existing Master Agreement for a Not
to Exceed Amount of $36,750.00:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 6-B is our Finance Department. I'll turn this over to Mr. Watts.
Watts: Thank you; Madam Mayor, Council Members. I have four issues this morning --
or this afternoon. I have three change orders to existing contracts for the City Hall
project and, then, a task order, which will deal with the remediation and the clean up of
the property on Main Street that will be for our parking lot. The change orders are in
your packages with descriptions. I have Tom here as well from Petra, if you have any
questions on these.
De Weerd: Council, anything?
B'ird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you, Keith.
Watts: Okay. On the -- excuse me.
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 5 of 40
De Weerd:: I'm sorry. And you have gone through all of these?
Watts: Yes, I have.
De Weerd: And they all check out?
Watts: On the task order for Terracon for the parking lot, the amount of the proposal
was 36,750 and that was an estimate. I did throw in a 15 percent contingency. There
are some issues outstanding that we are not going to know until we actually start drilling
and testing. I also wanted to let Council know that there could be additional fees and
costs for taking care of the soils if we do find soil contamination. Just to let you be
aware of that, that that is a possibility on that property. But I am asking for fhe task
order in the amount of 36,750 and, then, I also threw in 5,513 dollars, which is a 15
percent contingency, which would be a total of 42,263.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Watts. You threw in contingencies, uh?
Watts: Yeah. I just didn't want to have to come back before I was through with it.
Hopefully.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none. Madam Mayor'?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: If nobody has any questions or comments, I would move that we approve change
order number three wifh Commercial Painting for 773 doJlars. Change order number
four for Architectural Building Supply for 5,303 dollars. And change order number two,
with Architectural Building Supply, for 36,220 dollars. And also a contract with task
order CH1 with Terracon Consultants, Incorporated, for 42,260 -- not to exceed 42,263
dollars. And for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all the contracts and
change orders.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and second. Any discussion?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: B'ird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Ciry Council
July 8, 2008
Page 6 of 40
De Weerd: Madam Clerk, too, if you will note the change in the printed amount in the
updated agenda. Okay. Thank you.
Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda:
De Weerd: There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 8: MFP 08-004 Request to Modify the Landscape Plan approved with the
Final Plat for Woodland Sprinqs by Maverik, Inc. - Northeast Corner of
North Locust Grove Road and East McMillan Road:
De Weerd: Item 8 is FP 08-004. I will turn this over to staff.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Woodland Springs project.
It's located on the northeast corner of Locust Grove Road and McMillan Road. There
you go. And the application --
De Weerd: Anna, can you talk into the microphone? It doesn't pick you up very well.
Canning: Okay. How is that?
De Weerd: That's perfect.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Woodland Springs project.
It's located'on the northeast corner of Locust Grove Road and McMillan Road. And the
application before you tonight is a modification to the final plat's landscape plan. Just to
orient you, that's fhe Idaho Power substation to the south of this. This is the approved
landscape plan and you will notice that the street buffer landscaping approved along
Locust Grove and McMillan creates a wall of trees that would restrict visibility to the
property. For this reason a modification is requested to relocate some of the street
buffer trees to be internal. The minimum required number of street trees will still be
maintained with the proposed revised landscape plan and I will show you that. So, you
can see fhey have still got some in the outside -- or the street buffer, but they have
moved some internal to fhe development as well. The applicant had to mitigate for quite
a few number of trees currently on the site and that's why this one has more trees than
usual. Staff recommendation is for approval with the condition that an additional tree be
added to the landscape buffer along Locust Grove Road. And we have received no
written testimony since fhe staff report. Now, with regard specifically to this application,
there are no outstanding issues. However, the area just to the south of this has become
an issue of concern as of yesterday. So, the question is of -- on this property just to the
south along McMillan, ACHD has purchased a portion of the property and they will be
locating the Settler's Canal in this area and the quesfion remains as to whether we will
have a detached sidewalk or an attached sidewalk. We tend to favor the detached
sidewalks. If we are successful in getting a detached sidewalk, there is a question
about as to whom shall be responsible for maintaining the planter area between the
curb and fhe sidewalk along McMillan and Locust Grove. So, that is an outstanding
Meridian Ciry Council
July 8, 2008
Page 7 of 40
issue. You know, on residential properties the adjoining property owner is required to
maintain that planter strip area and I don't know if Council wants to bring that up tonight,
if you want to address this when we are working with ACHD or how you would like move
to forward. But the actual application is pretty clean. And with that I will answer any
questions.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Anna, back on that detached sidewalk, I'm certainly in favor of that, because just
to the west of that down there at Saguaro, they have done the same thing and have the
ditch running across fhere in front of it, just like this one, I suppose, will be.
Canning: And, Madam Mayor, Members --
Bird: I think, Anna, as far as taking care of it, I firmly believe that you can -- staff can
work something out wifh ACHD, I'd hope, on that. But I'd like to maintain the sidewalk.
Canning: Sir, I didn't quit understand. You'd like the detached walk?
Bird: I want the --
~ Canning: And are you interested in working with the applicant to have them maintain
that or would that be --
Bird: Well, I'd love to see the applicant, but --
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: -- I don't know if it's going to happen. I'd love to see the applicant maintain it,
but --
De Weerd: We will ask the applicant what their thoughts are, because if's certainly --
even though it would not be the applicant's property, it would reflect on the applicant's
project. So, we will see what their thoughts are.
Canning: And that opening slide was of the same facility, it's just to this south and east
of this property.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions at this point from Council? Is the applicant here
this evening?
McDougal: My name is Brad McDougal. I represent Maverick.
De Weerd: If you will, please, also state your address for the record.
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 8 of 40
McDougal: My address is 2588 East 8150 South, South Weber, Utah.
De Weerd: Thank you.
McDougal: We would not be opposed to maintaining that stretch along the road there.
As you mentioned, it reflects on us, so we would have no problem mowing that, keeping
the weeds down, taking care of that portion right there. I don't know if you have any
questions. As most of you are aware, when a developer comes in many times they
don't know exactly what uses are going to come in or what -- how their land is going to
develop. They have a project and have ideas and they present some of these plans at
that point -- the last slide show, fhe landscaping that had pretty much as staff explained,
a wall of trees. Us being a retail business, we'd like to have some visibility into our
station, so that people can see you're there. So, we'd like to cluster trees a little bit
more and create windows for people as they are driving by to see -- see what's there.
So, that's why we have tried to cluster a little bit away from the street. We have left a
couple of trees out there to just make it look nice and there area quite a few trees. The
landscaping should be very nice and should fit wifh fhe intent of your codes. But I'll just
be happy to answer any questions you might have on that.
De Weerd: You know, I guess one of the questions that once we learned that ACHD
had purchased the land to relocate that part of the canal, just your thoughts on how that
would look esthetically and what your ideas are as far as safety issues.
McDougal: You know, we don't -- I don't have a-- they kind of dealt with the developer
on this and we had an idea that it was going to happen, but we didn't know exactly how
that was going to turn out. If you look right here, these trees, we tried to put them, you
know, away from where the canal is going to be. The canal -- I believe the canal is
going to be in this area right here, is my understanding, and so we tried to put our
landscaping away from where the canal would be, so that it would -- you know, they
don't tear it out. We put it in, they tear it out. We tried to keep that open. The code --
you know, we -- typically we would put a-- oh, oh, the batteries are dying -- a walkway
here. We eliminated fhat, because there is an open canal there. We have various
stations that have canals in front of them. We don't typically have a problem with them.
But, like I said, the developer has been dealing with ACHD and I don't know what their
intent is and how they plan on going about fihis.
De Weerd: So, would it look similar to what's across the street at Settler's Bridge?
McDougal: I believe so, but, like I said, I don't -- that would be something -- I would
think that -- and from my standpoint I would like to see that. It makes it more look like a
water feature than a-- than a canal. But, once again, I don't know what ACHD's plans
are there and the canal company, what their intent is with that. They didn't purchase it
from us. The developer dealt with them on that, so --
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 9 of 40
De Weerd: Anna, could fhat be a stated preference that it -- if the developer would work
with the canal company and ACHD to have a similar -- to make it an amenity, rather
than --
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I can pass fihat along to Matt and
Pete and -- I'm sorry. Mr. Ellsworth and Mr. Friedman in their deaiings with ACHD. It's
probably going to be ACHD, since they are fhe ones doing the design. But we can
stress to them fhat we'd like to see something similar to what's up the street. I think it's
safer as well, because the banks are pulled out, they are not as steep, and if someone
does get in, they can get out fairly easily. That's the real benefit.
De Weerd: Okay. I guess my only other question would be for you and when this
development came through, you know, they -- fhey left the impression, at least wifh me,
that it would be something of quality in the elevations, the materials, and that sort of
thing. When you see a Maverick being proposed on a corner -- we have seen a
Maverick done well. It's in another neighborhood center or circle. What is the idea for
this particular project? ~
McDougal: Any of fhe newer stations -- I recognize that there is -- that we have various
stations throughout the Boise area and some of them are 20 years old. Our newer
styles are probably what we are talking about. It's a 4,300 square foot store. Very big,
very nice looking. And I wish I would have thought to bring some elevations. There is a
brand new one we just built over in Boise. There is on up in Payette that you might
have seen. It will look just like those. They will be, in my opinion -- and I, obviously,
have a bias, but they are the nicest looking stores around. You know, they are very
nicely done.
De Weerd: I guess the one I had in mind is -- it was built to be a Maverick and, then,
was bought over by Chevron, I think it was. It's over by Cedar Springs off of Ustick.
McDougal: That's probably -- yeah, it wasn't built to be a Maverick. Yeah. We haven't
sold any of our stations in this area, unless they have been closed down. The one --
and I'm trying to remember the exact location of fhe one we just -- we just opened one
about two months ago. I.t's over on -- I'm drawing a blank now.
Zaremba: Isn't fhe one at Locust Grove and Overland the --
McDougal: Yes. Locust Grove and Overland.
Zaremba: Isn't that a Maverick?
McDougal: Uh-huh. That's brand new. We have only been open about a month.
Zaremba: Yeah.
McDougal: That would give a good indication of what we are building now.
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 10 of 40
De Weerd: Yeah. But that's not abutting neighborhood and I guess I have more
interest in what the eievation would be, because it -- it is near a residential -- isn't that
near Edinburgh or is there something between Edinburgh and this? Or not directly?
Canning: Madam Mayor, it is one lot and there are other lots to the east of this that will
buffer the --
McDougal: We take up about this portion right here. There is other commercial
development office buildings that are going in through here. I believe that's what the
developer is planning on doing. I'm not sure what the whole size of Woodland Springs
is. Maybe you have that answer. I believe it's five plus acres. We only take an acre
here on the corner. So, ours is -- ours is very small.
Bird: Go back to that other one, Anna.
De Weerd: Councilman Bird, we can't really hear you very well.
Bird: Oh. Go back to that last -- the site --
McDougal: Yeah. So, this would show our lot right here. That depicts our lot.
De Weerd: Okay.
McDougal: So, there would still -- I believe we are a commercial zone and I believe the
rest of it is L-O. I'm not sure on that.
Canning: ~ Madam Mayor, I believe he's correct. And it's -- as you get -- there is
definitely office over here. This is the Ron Sargent piece that has the house that the
road comes in by the side and, fihen, kind of does something like that. You may
remember fhat. We had a lot of discussion about that house.
De Weerd: And so it is L-O?
Canning: Yeah. And the two developers have worked together. They have a shared
entrance here and, then -- so, there is office along here and fhere is quite a significant
buffer on the plat in this area to buffer the residences back here.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, any other questions?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 11 of 40
Zaremba: This is not actually a landscaping question, but now that I see the Maverick is
proposed fhere, it brings up the question of the tanks. Are you planning to have stage
one vapor recovery?.
McDougal: You know, I don't think that stage one -- and I'm -- I shouldn't -- I don't know
a whole lot about that. I know a little bit. But I don't know really --
Zaremba: What I'm thinking of is that's -- that's where whatever fumes would leak out of
fhe tank while fhe truck is filling it, fhat --
McDougal: Yes, we do have stage one.
Zaremba: -- it would suck them back into the truck.
McDougal: Yes, we do have stage one.
Zaremba: It's not the one fhat goes to the individual vehicle.
McDougal: We do have stage one, then, from the tank. And I believe that's -- that's
required by Idaho state law. I know we are heavily regulated by the EPA as far as our
tank installations and anything below -- anything before 19 -- I believe '86 is when they
started regulating it pretty heavily. We have tried to stay up above what the codes
require in the areas wherein we have a double wall tank, double wall piping. If I recall
correctly, we have five different sensors in the system that will tell us if there is a leak.
You know, allow us to know exactly where we stand with our system. So, we can
monitor that very closely. Especially with the price of gas today,~ we'd like to monitor
that.
Zaremba: I appreciate that. The reason for my extra concern on this one is you're
across the street from an Idaho Power facility. I have never seen sparks coming off of
that facility, but it is electric transmission and I don't know whether electricity leaks, but I
would hate to have fumes spread out in that area.
McDougal: We are on the agenda on the 17th to present fhe site plan in front of you
guys, so I can bring those answers back to you.
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: So, you wouldn't be in opposition of including that in any kind of agreement?
McDougal: You know, I would have to double-check with that. We have got a group,
an environmental group that works directly for us. We have finro environmental
engineers. I believe we are stage one right now. I'd just have to double-check and get
some more informafion on that.
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page T2 of 40
De Weerd: Well, Idaho is a little bit behind other states as far as those requirements
are, but we would like to come up with what others are doing.
McDougal: We operate in Utah, Arizona, Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana and we do the
same installation on all our stores. So, we -- we are above the codes for those -- and
Colorado. So, we are above the codes for alf those.
De Weerd: Yeah. Stage one is not expensive, unless you have to go back and retrofit
and we don't want to --
McDougal: And I'm almost positive that we are -- we are stage -- I just -- I'm not -- I'm
not positive. I'm pretty sure, though, that we do have stage one in our new installations,
but I'd just have to double-check that.
Zaremba: I would appreciate your checking. Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Borton: Question for Anna. If -- back to the landscape plan issue. If the applicant's in
agreement, as you said, that should there be a detached sidewalk, that you would be
willing to maintain fihat property I guess which would be south of the sidewalk. Is that a
condition that we put into this modifiied approval and, then, is there anything that needs
to be specified with what landscaping or what -- what would be placed upon that
property we say be maintained. Do we need to be specific here? Start from scratch
or --
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Borton, because
fhis is just a final plat landscape plan, we wouldn't normally discuss maintenance
issues. If the applicant has a Conditional Use Permit going before the Planning and
Zoning Commission, so that might be an opportunity you can -- we can send word down
to the Planning and Zoning Commission that you'd like to see that included as part of
the conditions of approval. That may be the easier way to do it.
Borton: Okay.
McDougal: Currently we would be landscaping everything up to ACHD's~ right of way,
so when they come and do that canal, how we have typically done things with them is
they will come in, fhey will put whatever is required to the new landscaping in, tied into
some system. I don't know how they will -- they will water that. That will be -- because
fhere is a canal between the finro, I don't know how that will happen. Maybe they could
tie into our system over here, you know, where it dips to go under the road, it will have
to be covered, so maybe there will be something they can tie into there. But, you know,
fhey usually take care of that landscaping, put it back in as it was before, and, then, we
would just maintain it, you know, mow it and -- like I was saying, we have tried to keep
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page t3 of 40
the trees that were required for our landscaping along -- along the road there on the
property'that won't be disturbed, so that we can keep those trees fihere.
De Weerd: Well, Anna, I guess there is a couple of comments that Council has made
that we would like to have as talking points for the discussion with Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- and I started thinking -- that's
dangerous, huh -- that perhaps -- perhaps it is tied to the final plat landscape plan in the
sense that if the applicant needs to provide -- I suspect perhaps a minimal amount of
watering for the strip in between the edge of his property and the edge of the canal
bank, if there is a strip there, that he'd have to work with ACHD to get those irrigation
facilities extended. The other side of the canal -- I'm not sure how they are going to do
fhe irrigation. I don't think they know. So, fhose are things that could be considered as
part of the final plat. So, now I don't know what to do. We can just put it in both. How
is that? And we could cover it that way, but --
De Weerd: If that's appropriate, unless our city attorney has any --
Nary: I think that's fine.
De Weerd: -- heartache wifih that. But, you know, 1 guess, too, I would like part of that
discussion in the CUP that fhe vapor recovery phase one --
Canning: Oh. Okay.
De Weerd: -- and elevation interest.
McDougal: Yeah. We will have -- like I said, we are on the 17th of July and will bring all
that stuff and the elevations, those type of things.
De Weerd: We won't be fhere.
McDougal: Oh. You won't see me at that meeting, it will be the one after that.
Canning: Madam Mayor, can you provide a little more on fhe elevation issue.
De Weerd: Just to be consistent with when this -- when the complete application came
in, they -- fhey did kind of sell the idea that it would have a-- a higher standard of
material and elevation interest and -- and I don't remember specifically what it is, only
that it was going to be something different. I would like to make sure that this is
consistent with the vision that they had communicated.
McDougal: My understanding in dealing with Sonya is that, typically, on just the front of
our building we would be -- there is certain standards for just the front. We have also
been held to a higher standard along the sides here. We have -- we have got a little
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 14 of 40
exit, a little door right here, and we have had to put an awning -- typically we have an
awning that sits over this portion where people come in. We have had to dress up this
side also, extend the crown molding, the molding on fihe top of the building and, then,
also put a small canopy over a doorway here, some aolumns that are in stucco, extend
our wainscot. We typically have a four foot rock wainscot on fhe front of the building.
We have got to -- have been required to extend that along this side and, then, also I
believe a vinyl fence -- we have a little pad back here where we store boxes and, you
know, just miscellaneous equipment. It's not for product, but buffers and pressure
washers, things like that, where we would -- that would be vinyl instead of a chain link
type material, so -- there has been some upgrades on this since it would be visible from
-- from the road out here, so that as people see this side, it doesn't look like the blank
side of a building, it's been dressed up quite a bit.
Canning: Madam Mayor -- Madam Mayor, McMillan is an entryway corridor in this
location and, then, fhe facade facing Locust Grove, because it's the front of the building,
the design review continues to that elevation as well. So, I know, as the applicant
stated, Sonya has been working with them to make sure it meets the minimum of the
design requirements. But I will also go back and have Sonya check the annexation and
preliminary plat and see if there was elevations provided with that and make sure it's
consistent.
De Weerd: Because if I remember right, it came in more than once and so I--
Canning: It did come in more than once. It got kicked out the first time, because of this
ACHD right of way issue is what happened. Madam Mayor, Member of the Council, I
would have a suggestion on the condition regarding the landscaping for your
consideration. Applicant shall work with ACHD on street buffer landscaping, irrigation, if
necessary, and light maintenance of the installed landscaping or -- and shall be
responsible for light maintenance. That might be better.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further from Council? Good points.
McDougal: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. And I guess just, finally, I do want to make sure that the
vapor one --
Canning: Got it.
De Weerd: -- is part of that. It is -- the direction and instruction that Council's given to
staff to start pursuing that in any new gas or fueling facility. Okay. Council, any other
issues? Hearing none, do I have a motion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Councif
July 8, 2008
Page 15 of 40
Rountree: I move that we approve Item No. 8, MFP 08-004, with the condition of adding
an additional tree and the condition as just stated by the planning administrator with the
applicant working with ACHD on landscaping and irrigating and that maintaining
ACHD's right of way along the relocated canal and the installation of the detached
sidewalk.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a mofion and a second. Any discussion? Do you need
clarification?
Canning: Madam Mayor. Did -- did you just indicate that the applicant is responsible
for constructing the detached sidewalk?
De Weerd: Yes. That's what I thought you said.
Canning: Okay.
De Weerd: Yes. Thank you for the clarification. Okay. Hearing no other comments,
Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll?
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
De Weerd: OKay. Thank you. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from June 24, 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 10: Continued Public Hearing from June 24, 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 GG zoning district for Browning Plaza (aka
Waltman Propertv) by SLN Planning, Inc. - 505, 521, 615 and 675 W.
Waltman Lane:
De Weerd: Okay. Items 9 and 10 are continued public hearings on AZ 06-063 and PP
08-001.
Borton: Madam Mayor, I will recuse myself from --
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 16 of 40
De Weerd: Okay. This item was continued for specific information requested by
Councilman Rountree to staff's updated staff recommendations and it is not for the
testimony, as I understand it, Council.
Bird: That's right.
Rountree: That was correct, Madam Mayor. We wanted a summation of the comments
and/or conditions and issues and concerns and commitments on the part of the
developer done by planning staff and they have submitted fhe July 3rd letter to us and I
think Anna is going to go over that for us.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'd also like to note that you have
received written testimony since our last hearing from Donna Aldridge, so I just wanted
to make sure you were aware of that. bt isn't quite visibie, is it? Okay. I will try and be
brief, but as we got into fhis, Madam Mayor, Members of fhe Council, we did realize that
there was a lot of confusing and confiradicting provisions and just stuff that needed
clarifying, so I'll try and go through it quickly and I will only hit on the ones that I have
comment bullets on. If Council has additional comments, I can go back and get those.
With regard to the exisfing animals, it's kind of silly, we put in another horse, just
because horses are pack animals, but that's really not a big concern to either party I
don't think, so -- the applicant shall improve Waltman Lane adjacent the site and off-site
to the end of the split corridor improvements per the half street sections attached in
Exhibit 1. We did want to note that the fire department noted safety concerns that the
proposed half street section does not have enough capacity to accommodate projected
traffic volumes, including people coming through from the south end of Linder Road.
And I think that the fire department has looked this over again and may have a
modification to their initial statement and it's -- I'm getfing a nod of the head, so I'll pass
this on.
Niemeyer: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, today Deputy Chief Silva went over
and met with Anna and planning and clarified that fhe road width would to be finro 12
foot travel lanes and if that is the case -- and Anna can confirm that, we are okay with
the street width, then, as far as concerns on that.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Canning: Okay. Now, moving down to -- and fhat was the only outstanding concern on
that one from staff's point. I think the applicant has some statements regarding that one
as well. Going to I#em No. 10. We do have -- we have the statement: However,
construction traffic for fhe purpose of infrastructure, sewer, water, and roads
improvement shall be allowed to use Waltman Lane prior to the completion of the
Waltman Lane - Meridian Road - Main Street intersection and we just wanted to note
there that the -- the applicant does need to be able to do those infrastructure
improvements along with the -- at fihe same time that construction is going on for the
split corridor. So, we put that in there. We couldn't prevent them from ever doing any
construction traffic on Waltman, because fihat's where fihe utilities need to come from.
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 17 of 40
So, that was just a clarification, not an outstanding concern. With regard to number 14,
architectural design elements on the structures shall continue all the way around the
struct~ure, similar to the example provided by the applicant at Target included as Exhibit
2. And my question to City Council was does City Council want to include reference to
upcoming design guidelines as well. It wasn't mentioned at the hearings, but I just
wanted to provide that for your consideration. Going down to number 17. Except for
the potential hotel site at fhe southwest corner, offices shall be constructed along the
west and northwest boundaries of the site as a transitional use to the existing residential
uses, unless the adjacent uses are changed into nonresidential uses. And the applicant
has requested this be replaced by the prohibition of certain uses listed in provision
number 19 and we will get to that one shortly. So, the applicant wants to strike this
comment or provision.
De Weerd: Before you move on, is -- would that be your --
Canning: Our recommendation? No.
De Weerd: -- recommendation?
Canning: No, it would not.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Canning: Conditional Use Permit approval is required for all restaurant and retail uses
proposed along the western and northwestern property boundaries adjacent to
residential units and, again, the applicant requests that this portion be stricken out and
that the CUP only be required for structures over 100,000 square feet within a hundred
feet of the residential district. And, again, you know, I guess staff's opinion was, even
though those folks along that western boundary didn't participate much in the hearings,
that putting a 100,000 square foot building up against that residential buffer, even with
listed prohibition of uses, that's just a big building and I think that it should require -- you
know, if it's 99,000 square feet, that's still a really big building. I mean we were talking
during the hearing process of much smaller buildings on the lines of 10,000 and less.
So, I think that that's a big change. So, we are not recommending approval of that one
either. Residential uses approved through the CUP process along the north and
northwest boundaries of the site are not allowed to have outdoor seating areas within a
hundred feet of the residential property, unless the adjacent uses are changed into
nonresidential uses. And this condition seemed to have lost its meaning through the
multiple concept plans, so staff reworded it to try and meet the original intent. We kind
-- we kind of worked with the applicant on this one and thought they were in agreement,
but they would like to see this one modified as well. What we did on a number of these
coming up, you will see that fhey say for concept plan one, so we tried to distinguish
between the two concept plans here. So, for concept plan one, all structures along the
west and northwest property boundaries adjacent to existing residences, shall be limited
in height to two stories and shall have a minimum setback of 25 feet adjacent to the
existing residences, unless fihe adjacent uses are changed into nonresidential, with the
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 18 of 40
exception of the proposed hotel. If the hotel is built at the southwest, as depicted on the
concept plan, the 25 foot setback -- and I'm not going to go through the rest of that, but
it, basically, keeps what was in the concept plan one and, then, for concept plan two,
appropriate setbacks will be determined at the public hearing for the preliminary plats
and condifions will be placed on the p:lats accordingly. No development agreement
modification shall be necessary. And the applicant proposes that this requirement be
replaced with provision number 21 above. So, 21 is the CUP for 100,000 square feet.
So, really, all the -- the kind of protections for the neighborhood wifh regard to concept
plan one, the applicant's asking to go back to just the requirement for the CU for
100,000 square feet or more or within a hundred feet of a residential district. And, then,
number 25, for concept plan one, no rear loading areas, delivering areas, trash areas,
or intrusive lighting shall be permitted adjacent to existing residences. And, again, the
applicant proposes this to be stricken in lieu of the perimeter wall required along the
boundary. And that's number 32. We did go back and look at both concept plans and
we recommended cutting down the minimum number of buildings to ten. Staff is
proposing fhat this change be consistent with both concept plans. If the applicant --
number 35. If the applicant chooses to develop consistent with concept plan one,
constructs a maximum of five access points to Corporate Drive as shown on the
concept plan number one, unless the development agreement is modified by the
developer once actual users are identified. Then, if the applicant chooses to develop
consistent with concept plan number finro, appropriate access points shall be determined
at the public hearing for the preliminary plat. And, again, fhe fire department noted
safety concerns that all intersections should have a 90 degree approach to improve
visibility for all vehicles and that's because concept plan number finro shows some odd
intersections, but we can address those when fhey have a more finalized idea of what
the road layout will be. So, I think that, you know, the fire department was right in
raising that concern, but I think that we get that straightened out through the normal
process. And that's all we have for now. I know that the applicant does have -- has
provided a comment letter that goes through a number of these one by one. I can -- I'll
leave this up, so you can see it as he goes through his rebuttal. Can I answer any
questions --
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Canning: -- of Mayor and Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: I guess, Council, I have a question for you.
Rountree: No questions.
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: I know staff s continued to refer to rebuttal, but I didn't know that this was
only kept open for this particular report, so do you want rebuttal?
Meridian City Council
July S, 2008
Page 19 of 40
Rountree: Madam Mayor, my preference would not -- if we are not going to move
forward with this, we don't need rebuttal. If we are going to move forward with this, I
believe what we have in the report would be the basis for any favorable vote. So, I don't
-- I'm not inclined to change it.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I fhought my recollection was that you
would ask for Mrs. Canning to basically incapsulize all of the points that had been
previously made and fihat this new report, then, was prepared with those amended
changes. I think it's incumbent to allow fhe applicafion the ability to rebut. They have
filed a written letter, so I don't know if you need additional testimony to that, but I think
they do -- are entitled -to at least be able to put their comments on the record that are in
opposition to this new report, because there is some different information that they,
obviously, disagree with. So, if you think they are sufficient with the written, that's fine.
Otherwise, I do think they are entitled to at least put that on the record.
De Weerd: Thanks for clarifying that.
Rountree: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would not disagree with what they have got. If they want to testify, that's fine.
But we kept -- we continued this public hearing strictly for this one deal, but being the
applicant, they should get rebuttal time if they want it.
De Weerd: So, you want additional information to the letter?
Canning: Madam Mayor --
Bird: A copy of fheir letter -- Madam Mayor, if they want to, if they feel the need to
testify, I have no problem with that, but if -- I don't need it.
De Weerd: Okay. Mrs. Canning.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there is -- the applicant has provided
a number of comments that are basically new information. If -- if there is a split in
Council regarding whether or not they want additional testimony, you could just limit it to
-- based on these items, rather than bringing up new suggestions or new standards.
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 20 of 40
De Weerd: Well, if they bring new information, I'll have to open it up to all public
comment. So -- and, Counail, you can't split, so -- there is three of you. So, what would
you like to do? I have heard from one. He would like to hear comments from the
applicant in the form of rebuttal.
Rountree: And one that said no.
De Weerd: One that said no and so it's up to Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I felt that the purpose of our asking for the confinuation was to see in writing
many of the things that we discussed about and to clarify for us and for the applicant
what our answers to some of those questions were. I think the clarification is for the
benefit of the applicant, as well as for us, and I think it would be fair for the applicant to
address those, limiting his testimony to only those subjects, not supplying any new
information.
De Weerd: Okay. So, I would invite the applicant to, please, provide that rebuttal, but if
you do enter -- if you do interject new informafion, I will open up the public hearing for
additional public comment, then.
Nickel: Madam Mayor, thank you. Shawn Nickel, 6223 North Discovery Way, Suite
200, in Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nickel: Represenfing fhe applicant. I# was my recollection that you were going to allow
us the ability to speak. I think Council Member Rountree's comments were to make
sure we were not accepting -- or not accepting conditions that we couldn't live with,
otherwise why -- why approve the annexation if it's something that we are not going to
go forward with that. It was my recollection was that we wanted to have that ability, so I
appreciate that.
De Weerd: And you do not have the ability, but if you entertain -- if you enter in new
information, I will open this up again. .
Nickel: Okay. And I'll just leave that up to you as to whether I'm giving new information.
I'm going to go through specifically the conditions that are proposed by staff based on
our past meetings and what brought us to this point. So, I hope I can do that. Madam
Mayor, Council, there are 37 conditions proposed by staff, of which ten of those we
would like some clarification or modification on. Beginning with condition number three,
the developer -- the developer that this applicant is working with, that has spoke in the
past, may very well come back and construct this as a shopping center and may very
well build the section of Waltman Lane from our eastern boundary to the new
intersection. However, in the event that this center does not go with fhat second
concept plan and is developed lot by lot and building by building, as is indicated in the
first concept plan that we originally approved and because of the anticipated traffic fhat
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 21 of 40
has been analyzed and conditioned by ACHD not to require these up front
improvements on Waltman, we would like to propose a triggering mechanism for that --
those improvements to Waltman to allow up to 150,000 square feet or -- make sure I
phrase fhis right -- to allow 150,000 square feet of office and retail before fhe -- before
that triggers the Waltman improvements on that one stretch or if a big box comes in wifh
fhat first phase or any phases, that would trigger that Waltman improvement. In other
words, ACHD is not requiring -- based on the vehicle trips that we have. been
conditioned through ACHD, those are in place and have been recognized by this body,
without that section of Waltman being constructed.
De Weerd: So, you wouldn't do any improvements on Waltman until 150,000 square
feet?
Nickel: That's what we are proposing or until a big box -- or if the big box is -- of any
size is proposed in that first phase.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, that isn't the way I understood the previous discussion.
De Weerd: That's new information. I haven't heard that comment, so --
Nickel: So, we have testified at the last two or three meetings that we understand that
that -- at some point Waltman is going to have to be built, but it's not a condition of
approval with ACHD. In other words, our traffic analysis and their traffic analysis has a
set point where the second access to Corporate has to be built and that is what is
conditioned and so --
De Weerd: I guess --
Nickel: I guess what we are concerned about is we come in with our first building and
it's 10,000 square feet and it's a dentist office and it's built off of Waltman Lane. In order
to build that one dentist office we have to construct the entire Waltman Lane
improvement. So, that's our concern is that we got to have some triggering point where
it's feasible for fhe developer to build Waltman Lane up front and have the square
footage needed -- necessary to make the project work. So, I don't know if thafs --
Rountree: I don't need to hear anymore, I'm --
De Weerd: I guess I remember a conversation about Corporate, but not about
Waltman. So, I must have zoned that part out.
Nickel: I guess -- I mean -- and to clarify, we are not talking about our on-site
improvements, we are strictly talking about the eastern boundary of our property to the
new intersection, so that the -- that off-site section of Waltman.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I have to say again, I don't remember anything that triggered
in my mind that that was not going to happen before the first building was built. I realize
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 22 of 40
Corporate discussion was triggered at some time later, but the existing Walfiman is
challenged with the traffic of just the few people that live fhere right now.
Nickel: Okay. So, that's -- that's regarding number fihree and I guess I'll continue.
Coridition number seven. The applicant -- condition number seven talks about the no
building permits being issued for buildings with -- no building permits being issued until
the construcfion of the split corridor -- the intersection of Waltman, Meridian Road, and
Main. And what the applicant is proposing is the ability of -- the building permit for the
first phase of development sometime during the construction of the split corridor. No
certificate of occupancy will be issued until completion of the corridor. This will allow a
big box development to begin construction immediately, rather than delaying
development of fhe property an additional year -- or up to an additional year if building
permits were pulled after the corridor is built. Any clarification on that one? No?
Condition number ten, which also talks about the phasing and the construction -- the
construction traffic as the split corridor is being constructed, if you decide to modify
condition number seven, condition number ten would also need to be reflected in that.
On condition number 17 -- and staff brought up this one. it currently states: Except for
the potential hotel site at the southwest corner, offices shall be constructed along the
west and northwest boundaries of the site as a transitional use to the existing residential
uses and we would like that one -- that one stricken in favor of condition 19, which
prohibits the specific uses that we have talked about in the past, including the drinking
establishments, fuel sale facilities, truck stops, and vehicle washing facilities. Condition
number 18. Also we'd like that to be stricken. We feel that that is addressed in
condition number 21, which states all structures proposed on the site over 100,000
square feet that are within 100 feet of the residential district or use shall obtain a
Conditional Use Permit. So, condition 18 as proposed to you requires a Conditional
Use Permit for all restaurants and retail uses proposed along the western and
northwestern boundary. And, again, that was one reason we were proposing the wall
and the extended buffer, landscaping, berm was to provide buffering along those
boundaries. So, we could have uses other than sfirictly office. And, again, uses in the
C-G zone #hat require a Conditional Use Permit we will, obviously, get a Conditional
Use Permit for those uses. Condition number 22 would state -- as it's proposed to you:
Restaurant uses approved through Condifional Use Permit and we would like that
Conditional Use Permit approval removed from the condition. We believe that the
restaurant uses, with the exception of the drive-thrus, are prohibited, should be allowed
along the west and northwest boundaries, again, with fhose -- with those. elements that
we put in place, the wall, the buffering, the hours of operation and all that. Would you
like me to continue? Condition number 23 is just a clarification, understanding that the
normal or standard business hours would not limit stores from having special holiday
one day sales, et cetera. Condition number 25, again, is just a clarification and it talks
about no rear loading areas, delivery areas, trash areas, obtrusive lighting, shall be
permitted adjacent to existing residences on the west end -- thought we said
northwestern boundaries adjacent to -- adjacent to fhe residential uses. We'd like that
clarified that that is northwest on fhat condition proposal of number 25. Two more.
Condifion number 30, since this is a platted subdivision wifh individuals uses on each
lot, the applicant would request the same wording consistent with condition number 32
Mecidian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 23 of 40
regarding landscaping improvements being constructed along the interstate prior to
occupancy of the adjacent building. Staff is requesting that the entire landscaping area
on the south boundary be built prior to occupancy of the fiirst use, since this is a plat and
there is going to be multiple uses and multiple lots, you'd like those lots and those
developments to be responsible for building that portion of the landscaping. Obviously,
we would have a revised or the adopted landscape plan that will follow for consistency.
And, lastly, condition number 32, regarding the proposed masonry wall on the west and
northwest boundary, the applicant would like to substitute a wall -- substitute the wall for
a six foot closed vision fence with a 25 foot landscape buffer if the uses adjacent to the
residential developments are developed as L-O or office uses. So, again, we are
building the wall, the extra buffering, the extra landscaping, berm, for the more
intensified uses that we are proposing -- or were wanting to propose or wanting to have
in fhere, like the restaurants, like the retail. If it just develops as office, we would like the
wall replaced wifh six foot solid fencing. That's it. I will stand for questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor'?
De V1/eerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: On your item 32, wanting a closed -- closed vision fence if it's L-O, so the
first development fhat goes in fihere is L-O and you start with a vinyl fence and, then,
you have finro restaurants, it seems to me that it's a case where you design for the worst
case if you're going to do it, you're not going to have vinyl and masonry block and picket
fence and masonry block and vinyl, so --
Nickel: I'll leave that -- I'll leave that to -- to this body, if you want -- if you would like to
be -- for it to be consistent, that's fine.
De Weerd: Any further questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Now, Council, it seems to be Councilman Zaremba and I's opinion that we
heard a new comment. It opens up for a public comment and so I-- unless I hear
opposition, I will do so.
Bird: That's your cail.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. I would open this up for public comment based
on any comments fieard tonight: Yes, sir. Just new information.
Nary: Sir, if you want to just use the mike -- you can scoot up, you don't have to stand
up there.
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 24 of 40
Cope: I can get up here. Appreciate speaking tonight, although it causes me
considerable pain and suffering to get here, I wanted to speak with you again. My name
is Duane Cope. I believe some of you may know the name. I have written repeatedly
with comments about this Browning Subdivision going on -- this Browning conduct in
fhere.
De Weerd: Mr. Cope, could we also have your address as well, please.
Cope: My address 335 Walfiman Lane.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Cope: It's on this letter and you will also have it in your desk in the letter, so --
De Weerd; Yes, we do.
Cope: But if you want to know, 335. I have been there about 33, 34 years, so -- at any
rate, you folks have had several documents from me. I reiterate those documents here
tonight, which I will give you copies of. I also want to say that as far as his putting
something in on the west -- or, excuse me -- yeah, west end, feel free to annex it. In
fact, I'd like to see it annexed, because of the amount of criminality that has been going
on down there in terms of drugs, in terms of poaching the upland game birds and water
fowl. In fact, there is one nut case down there that's been bragging about poaching
upland game and water fowl. He will be, I assure you, meeting Fish and Game. I
promise that. Okay. Did the police officer get a copy of this? Can you give him a copy
as well, since I have filed a complaint against the Meridian 'police department. Okay.
So, you have copies. Feel free to read it at your leisure. Again, I reiterate go ahead
next it. Go ahead and make it into the city. Take your money. Why not. You have
been taking it from me for 24 years for nothing. I mean nothing. In fact, even my trash
is not city. My trash is the 99 account. So, no, you're not even providing trash to me.
No water. No poiice. Not nothing. It will not happen, ladies and gentlemen, and I
assure you of this, you're not going to take my well out. I put in three wells. Last one
was a year ago. Don't even think about it. Now, with all due respect, I thank you folks
very much for your time and your attention. Please go onward with your buffoonery.
De Weerd: Thank you, Additional comments?
Haddock: My name is Christie Haddock. I live at 650 Waltman Lane.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Haddock: I am just concerned about not improving Waltman. How am I going to get
out of my driveway? I'm right across the street from this. And that's, I guess, my big
concern. Five kids. How am I going to get out of my driveway? And -- and I know
ACHD's number, I have had to call when we couldn't get off the lane because they were
blocking it. So, if we have to call them or, heaven forbid, the Meridian Police
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 25 of 40
Department, but I'm just concerned about how it's all going to function without roads
being in place.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there any further testimony? Yes, ma'am.
Aldridge: My name is Donna Aldridge and I live at 365 Waltman Lane. I have attended
all the meetings and I don't understand the developer --
Nary: Can you pull the mike down a little, ma'am.
De Weerd: Can you pull that a little closer to you?
Aldridge: I don't know why the developers have tried to get something fhrough. They
are opening up a can of worms and I wrote -- you know, you got a letter from me --
when they opened that road up about 20, 25 years ago, you know, it was a disaster.
We had to have the police there. I had to have -- they wouldn't even let me have a--
they have no consideration, people don't. And it was a total mess and now they want to
open up another can of worms, so we can't even get out~of our driveway. It's a peaceful
lane. I don't know why they don't just leave us alone. If they want to put in a frontage
road in the back where there is no people on Johnson's Lane, that would be just perfect,
because fhere is going to be a lot of developers back there, like Sesco, they are going
to want to come forward, too, with something when -- if you guys get a development
fhrough. So, why don't these guys all get together and leave Waltman Lane alone and
the residents of Waltman Lane, and let us live in peace and if they want to get this
development through, they don't want to do what they should do, that they shouldn't be
able to get it through.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I'm sorry, sir. We would need you on the public record,
so -- okay. Would the applicant like their final remarks?
Canning: Madam Mayor, before Shawn gets up there, did you want me to comment on
Shawn's revisions at all? I can if you want me to. That's --
Rountree: Sure.
De Weerd: You probably should before his remarks.
Canning: With regard to the condition number three -- sorry. Staff was not in favor of
the -- not doing Waltman at the beginning. We do believe it's necessary for a lot of fhe
reasons you have heard from the public tonight, that it is a substandard road and the
fire and safety concerns as well. With regard to number seven, we don't feel it's
appropriate for the applicant to be able pull a building permit until the construction traffic
is -- until fhe split corridor intersection improvements are done. We feel that the
consfiruction traffic would just overwhelm that intersection while they are trying to work
on it. It is going to be difficult for the residents to get in and out of there already. Having
that additional complicating those movements would be -- we don't think it would be
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 26 of 40
appropriate. And that would reflect item number ten as well. With regard to number 17,
I think I stated fhis as I went through our conditions the first time. I do think it's
appropriate to leave some of those restricfions in place for those western properties and
northwestern. With regard to -- that was 17 and 18. With regard to number 22, I
understand now that what the applicant means is that restaurant uses approved through
the CUP process -- because they were no longer proposing the CUP process for
restaurants, that's all they wanted stricken firom that, I believe. Not the rest of it. And I
think that regardless -- that would be okay. So, it just says restaurant uses along the
north and northwest boundaries, that's still is the intent of fhe -- the provision, the DA
provision. With regard to number 25, they just wanted to clarify that it was the north and
norfhwest property boundaries and, again, we did try to make that change universally.
We missed that one. We tried to change all the west and northwestern. So, we are in
favor of that one.
De Weerd: Anna, you skipped over 23.
Canning: I'm sorry.
Rountree: Same thing.
Canning: And we put the word standard in there to imply fihat. So, fhaYs fine. That's
what we meant by that, that they didn't want to have their Christmas days -- or their
Thanksgiving day sale -- the day after Thanksgiving. That's what it is. Have to -- not be
able to do that because of the time restriction and I think that most people know that if
they have a retail business that there is a couple times a year when they open early.
So, I wasn't opposed to that. Actually, I think we added that. That was our
understanding. Okay. Now you come down to 30. On street buffers we do typically
require that with the plat approval, if it's anything other than a local street. So, we would
look to see that 50 feet of landscaping done at the time of plat approval. With regard to
item number 32, I think that Council Member Rountree hit fhe nail on the head with that
one. Even though they may only propose an office use, because it's zoned C-G, that
could transition to more intense uses over time, so I think we need to either zone that
property up against the western boundary for L-O and, then, they could do a lesser
fence, or fhey should do the masonry wall with the C-G zoning. And I think that that's
been a very consistent move by Council on a number of annexations or development
proposals that are C-G next to residential. And I believe that was it.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, if there is no questions for Anna, I'll ask the applicant for
wrap-up remarks.
Nickel: Thanks, Madam Mayor. Again, for the record, Shawn Nickel. Okay. So, let's
firy this again. With regards to condition number three -- and fhat seems like the one
that everyone kind of rolled their eyes at me over -- and staff did clarify and I just want
to get this on the record, that from the very beginning it was not a condition of approval
firom staff, from ACHD, from Planning and Zoning Commission. It started -- it started at
Council and the first time we heard it as a recommended condition of approval was two
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 27 of 40
weeks ago when Council Member Rountree said he wanted that -- he wanted us to
corne back with fihat as a condition of approval. Understanding fihe -- I guess new
safety concerns that have been brought to light with the fire department and fiheir need
for those -- those two lanes -- and, by the way, you guys all rolled your eyes at me. I'll
retract that -- that request and we will make that -- and we will accept that as a condition
of approval for the Waltman extension off site. We are doing all the improvements on
site, all the Waltman, the Ruddy's and all that, we have to condition for Corporate at
8,000 vehicle trips per day, so may as well just finish off the rest of the outside street
and extend the Waltman from the eastern boundary to the new intersection. With that,
though, we would -- we would really like to push for the allowance of that building permit
at the time of construction to get that big box, if that's what's going to go in there, going
prior to -- or -- yeah. Prior to completion of that intersection. There is already going to
be construction traffic on Waltman to rebuild it. We would like that allowance for that --
understanding that no certificate of occupancy is going to be issued until the intersection
is complete, we still are not -- we don't want to lose an additional year and potentially a
user if they can't come in and get started on that. They are not, obviously, going to take
the risk of starting knowing fhat they can't get fhe completion unfil the intersection is
completed. But we understand that once ACHD starts that project, they are not going to
-- they are not going to stop midway through. So, I think that's a safe bet on that -- on
that developer's part. We'd like to keep condition seven as I-- as I have proposed. And
with the modifiication of condition number ten to reflect that as well. I believe staff -- I
can't remember if staff had agreed to strike condition number 17 and 18, in lieu of those
other condifions. ~
Canning: No, sir.
Nickel; Neither one?
Canning: Huh-uh.
Nickel: Okay. Again, we would -- we believe that -- I guess moving -- I guess moving
down -- if I can find it. Sorry. Condifion number 32 where I-- where I was trying to
modify the wall. If we are -- if we are agreeing to -- for consistency sake, to build that
wall along the entire boundary -- western boundary, with the understanding that we are
doing that to try to provide transition and noise barrier and buffering to those uses on
the western boundary, fhat condition 17 and 18 should recognize that we should -- we
should have those uses allowed along that boundary as permitted uses of retail and the
restaurants without going through an additional Conditional Use Permit process. And,
then, jumping back up real fast, I believe fhat was -- staff had recognized the hours of
operation and clarified that. And staff had also clarified condition number 25 about that
being the northwest corner. And we are fine with condition number -- we understand
and will accept condifion number 30 to build the buffer along the entire south boundary
along fhe freeway as part of that first permit. I guess the condifion that we are asking
for your help tonight is conditions number seven, ten, 17 and 18. Ten we are agreeable
to the conditions.
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 28 of 40
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Nickel: Thanks.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, if there is no further questions for staff or the applicant, I
would enter a motion to close the public hearing.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a mofion and a second to close the public hearing on these
two items. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRfED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Discussion?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would like to thank the staff for what was a monumental effort in organizing
and clarifying discussion on a lot of subjects. I am agreeing with staff in the necessity to
keep many of these elements in. The few things that Anna mentioned that she agreed
with, I could support agreeing, if the ofher things I would like to see stay as staff
proposed.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments from Council?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I'd second Councilman Zaremba's comments about staff.
They did a great job of pulling this together and compliment the applicant as well and
with few exceptions generally agreeing to what's been discussed. So, with that --
Canning: Madam Mayor, while Council Member Rountree is pausing, I would ask that
on -- if he's pausing to make a motion, that on item number 14 when I asked the
comments does City Council want to include reference to upcoming design guidelines,
there was head nodes, but if someone could articulate that in a motion, if so desired,
that would be helpful.
Meridian Ciry Council
July 8, 2008
Page 29 of 40
De Weerd: You mean nodding heads is not enough?
Rountree: You're lucky you got fihat. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I will propose a motion. I move that we approve the annexation for item
nine, AZ 06-063, with the conditions as outlined in the staff report. With reference to
comment 14, there would be mention of the future design guides that are in draft form at
this point with the City of Meridian. That items 23 and 25 be -- in fhe staff report be
amended to reflect fhe concerns of the applicant and have that be the basis for the
finding in the development agreement to enter into with this annexation.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion?
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Canning: I believe the discussion was with regard to item number 22, taking out the
phrase: Through CUP process. Rather than item number 23.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Even though it appears that there may be some places where we have said
the same thing in different ways, I don't mind leaving those in as stated. Part of the
issue that we have learned to deal with is that we have an applicant that we can stand
here or sit here and make agreement with and -- and we know how we have agreed to
interpret what's in writing. But we have been bit a few fimes by property that has been
subsequently sold to somebody else who didn't have that interpretation. And I would --
even if it's redundant, I would rather leave the wording in, fihen, take it out. Personal
opinion.
Rountree: So, Madam Mayor, I would amend my motion to include that change in item
22 and I suspect the second will agree with that amendment.
Zaremba: Second will agree.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird?
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 30 of 40
Bird: Yeah. That's just -- I thought the motion was made to include all of staff report.
That's what I was going to vote on. I didn't know we deleted anyfhing out of fhe staff
report.
De Weerd: No. You just agreed with the appiicant on a coupie of things.
Bird: That staff report, what she publicly tesfiified.
De Weerd: That's =- you're correct.
Rountree: So, my amendment would be in agreement with the amending item 22 per
discussion with the planning administrator.
Canning: Okay. .So --
Zaremba: And I have would left it alone, but I'm agreeing with the maker of the motion.
Canning: That's what I was confused about. Okay. And so, Madam Mayor, Members
of the Council, I'm sorry, Council Member Rountree, did you want the change 23 to
state something or was --
Rountree: The change to 23 was the ahange that was --
Canning: Already done.
Rountree: -- already done.
Canning: Okay.
Rountree: Okay. Yeah.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, will you, please,
call roll on this item,
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 10 on the preliminary plat.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 31 of 40
Rountree: I move that we approve Item No. 10, preliminary plat PP 08-001, subject to
comments received through the hearing process, staff's comments, and commitments
on the part of fhe developer.
Bird: What option?
Zaremba: I didn't hear Mr. Bird. Did you second that?
Bird: I said what -- no. I said what option.
Zaremba: Oh.
Rountree: The one that the -- the option was before us as option one. Option two is
conditioned in the annexation that it has to be another public hearing.
Bird: That's right.
Zaremba: I will second that.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 10 with fhe
description as noted. Any discussion? Hearing none, Madam Clerk, roll call.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 08-004 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 6
. residential building lots and 1 common lot in an R-8 zone on
approximately 4.7 acres for Maxfield Subdivision by Cottage Investors,
LLC - 3295 E. Falcon Drive:
Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 08-008 Request for Conditional Use Permit
approval consisting of Assisted Living Facilifiies containing 5 buildings with
15 beds in an R-8 zone for fihe proposed Maxfield Subdivision by
Cottage Investors, LLC - 3295 E. Falcon Drive:
De Weerd,: If someone would, please, let Councilman Borton know. Okay. Item 11 is a
public hearing on PP 08-004 and Item 12, public hearing on CUP 08-008. I will open
these two public hearings with staff comments. You may want to take a moment so
Councilman Borton can --
Rountree: Watching a game or something.
Bird: I was going to say, is he getting away.
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 32 of 40
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Maxfield Subdivision
project. IYs -- the site is located at 295 East Falcon Drive on the east side of Eagle
Road just south Victory Road. The applications before you tonight are a preliminary plat
and a Conditional Use Permit. North shifts to the left on the next two site plans.
Highlights of the proposed development include preliminary plat approval of six
residential lots, one common lot, on 4.7 acres. It's currently zoned R-8 and concurrenfly
the applicant is requesting CUP approval to construct and operate an assisted living
facility comprised of five 8,525 square foot individual facilities, each with the potential to
house up to 16 patients. Access to the site is proposed via a private loop street from
East Falcon Drive, not Eagle Road. Forty-nine parking spaces are proposed.
Amenities for the site include two gazebos, a walking path, and approximately 18
percent usable open space. There is an existing single family home on the site that is
proposed to remain, wifh access provided from Falcon Drive and not the proposed
private street and they have subdivided that house onto its own lot. In 2005 the City
Council approved the annexation, preliminary plat, and Conditional Use Permit for the
subject site. Same name. As part of the annexation the developer and city entered into
a deveiopment agreement. Although the property was annexed, the preliminary plat
and the conditional approval has since expired. The project is very similar, with some
changes in the site design, so fhe use is nearly identical. They have done some
changes with the site design and the number of lots in the plat, but iYs really, essentially,
the same project. The gross density is 17 beds per acre and number of proposed
buildings -- there are five new buildings proposed, plus the one single family home to
remain. You do have some elevations. The landscape pJan. Maybe I'll point out the
structures here. This is the existing home. Then, each of these is fhe -- is an individual
assisted living facility. And here is the little loop road. And these are the conceptual
building elevafiions. The Commission recommended approval at their June 5th hearing.
Gerold Maxfield and Van EIg spoke in favor. No one spoke in opposifiion or
commented. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the construction
materials and the phasing plan. And the key Commission changes to staff s
recommendation, they modifiied condition 1.3.3 to require all future buildings on this site
to be constructed of stucco with stone accents. And we have received no written
testimony since the staff report and to our knowledge there are no outstanding issues
for City Council.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mrs. Canning. Any questions for staff at this time?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to comment?
Canning: So, Van, do you want me to put this up or no?
Eig: I have got a PowerPoint presentation, but I don't know if you want to spend the
time on it. If you'd like to, I'll throw it together.
Meridian Ciry Council
July 8, 2008
Page 33 of 40
Rountree: Sure.
Zaremba: Since you prepared it, let's --
EIg: Look at it, uh?
De Weerd: We hate to waste your --
EIg: I'll be quick with it. I won't go through the whole fihing. For the record, my name is
Van EIg. I'm with The Land Group. 462 Shore, number 100, Eagle, Idaho. I'm
representing Gerold Maxfield tonight for the hearing, As Anna represented, the site is
4.7 aeres and was previously rezoned to R-8 back in 2005 and when Gerold came to us
after the applica#ion had expired, we looked at just revisiting the same plat, again, as a
two lot plat, but as we looked at it, we thought, well, sometimes even good ideas mature
a bit and we came up with another design that we think is a lot more palatable. It's not
coming up, uh?
Canning: No. I fhink it's crashing.
Elg: Oh, is it? Okay. The -- Anna, maybe you could go back to our original -- to the
site plan.
Canning: Maybe.
EIg: That's good. That will do it. The original site plan, if you can see in my
presentation, had a building here. The buildings were kind of scattered and the road
system came in, back out and down and it was a little bit disjointed. When we came
wifh this design, one of the things that talked about with Gerold was the idea of platting
each of fhese on individual lots, for more obvious reasons, for flexibility, for marketing,
for occupancy, so fhat he could build these units based on -- on those factors and get
individual financing on each lot as he proceeded with the development. Oh. Go to the
next one. And next one. Well, there you see the street pattern. You can just hit the
space bar, it will go again. And one more time. Again. Again. There we go. So, our
new design -- we have -- again, we are north this direction now. We have got a private
street loop road that you can see provides a lot better open space and visibility for these
units, since this will be an assisted living facility, we wanted to make sure that it was
safe for the residents that are there. So, we have provided this open area here. We
have provided additional -- a network of walking paths that go through the system -- or
through the complex and we will provide the residents with a variety of paths to take for
exercise and for wandering. Also, as you will note from the previous plan, there wasn't
an open space area here -- there wasn't an open space area anywhere in the plans.
This provides an area here with a gazebo, some amenities right here, perhaps some
little garden spaces up in this area here and a liftle gazebo here in this center courtyard
where fhey can sit and watch visitors come and such. Much more pleasant design for
fhe residents we think. The building orientation also provides a lot better open -- open
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 34 of 40
view here, as I menfioned before. The -- we have talked to the fire department and with
Sanitary Services and bot~h are very agreeable. We have got emergency accesses here
to provide for the hose drag lengths. We met wifh Joe and he was comfortable with
that. Interesting note is we met with him and we looked at the old plan and Joe
indicated that there probably would have been some problems with the old plan in
getting a hose dragged to it, which hadn't been noted before. So, this site resolves
some of those -- this new designs resolved some of those problems. We also -- just to
point out, we do exceed the parking requirements of the city. We exceed the open
space requirements, which are in this case zero, because we are less than five acres,
but we are over ten percent. We have got 18 percent open space for the project. So, I
think we have exceeded the standards for the zone all the say around and provided a
much better design. There is some -- a couple issues. One is the irrigation ~facilities.
We mentioned in the staff report in our narrative that we do not have enough irrigation.
I fihink it's a matter of hours that we could irrigate the site. It's just not enough. And so
we will be -- we will need to connect to city services for that. Also there was a mention
in the staff report about phasing. I just want to clarify the phasing issue with this plan.
We don't plan to necessarily phase the lots individually. The phasing that we are talking
about would be construction phasing, phasing of the buildings. And I think that's kind of
mentioned in the report. But it mentions finro phases and I think we just need to make
sure for the record that we understand that these first finro buildings, building A and B,
will probably be built with fihe first phase and I think that's in the requirements that they
are built as a first -- in fihe first phase. And i fhink Gerold's fine with that. Buildings C
and D are built wifh an orientation that faces each ofher. tn the event that there is an
Alzheimer's unit that's developed -- and Gerold is not even proposing that just yet, but in
the event that there is, those units could be easily fenced off and there is a condition in
there to address that. But we have designed that so that that could occur if necessary
and it provides a courtyard for those units. Much more secure and easy to manage.
But this building may be built next. This one might be the third building built. We don't
know which way he will go. It just depends on the market. So, we want to make sure
that it's not a two phase plan, it could be one, finro, three, four, five. We could build
those, just depending on how fhe market dictates. And so in addition, in condition of
approvai 1.37, I guess I just need to make sure that I'm clear on this one. It's fhe
conditional use statement. It indicates that we have got 18 months from the beginning
of the -- from the approval to commence construction for the conditional use. I think
there was a little bit of clarification -- or confusion in our minds, perhaps, that each one
of these had to be built sequentially 18 months afterwards and I don't think that's the
case. I think once we start and build these, that we are okay with the condifional use
and these can be built maybe just a couple years later or something, but we have
complied with the requirements of the conditional use. I fhink fhat was our
understanding. And maybe Anna could clarify that for us. But -- oh, Anna did point out
that fhis existing house is remaining there. One thing fhat was approved at ACHD level
-- or the last time, there is an access drive right here for this house and they have
another one right here. During the last application ACHD didn't say anything about that,
they apparently weren't concerned. During this one for some reason -- I guess maybe
because of the other developments occurring, they would like this access closed and
we are okay with that. I# was just -- it was a convenience thing for them to get back to
Mecidian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 35 of 40
the back of their acreage here and haul things, I guess, but if it's important to eliminate
it, we will eliminate it. So, with that I will open myself up for any questions you might
have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: No.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of fhe Council, with regard to phasing on conditional
uses, we typically have not required successive phases of conditional uses. We do that
with plats. But, usually, if you get one building in on the CU, you are, indeed, okay.
De Weerd: Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application?
Okay. Any further comments from the applicant? Council, any further information
needed?
Bird: I have none.
_ De Weerd: If not, I would entertain a motion to close these two public hearings.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close the public hearing PP 08-004 and CUP 08-008.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 11 and
12. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any discussion? If there is no discussion, do I have a
motion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I would move that we approve Item 11, PP 08-004.
Meridian Ciry Council
July 8, 2008
Page 36 of 40
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 11. If there is no
discussion, Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRfED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Item 12.
Borton: Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move we approve Item 12, CUP 08-008, to include staff and applicant
comments.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 12. Is there
discussion? Seeing none, roJl call vote.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 08-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.92
of an acre from R1 to an R-2 zone for Alter Propertv by Denise Alter -
2741 E. Leslie Drive:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 13 has been requested for a continuance.
Bird: Do you want to open the public hearing first?
De Weerd: Oh, yes, I will. Thank you, Mr. Bird. I will open this public hearing for AZ
08-006 and --
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move that we continue Item 13 to July 22nd, 2008.
Bird: Second.
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 37 of 40
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 13, public hearing on AZ 08-
006, to July 22nd. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARR'IED: ALL AYES.
Item 14: Ordinance No. ZOA 08-002 Request for a
Zoning Ordinance / Unified Development Code (UDC) Text Amendment to
modify, clean up and add specific sections to the UDC (see application for
details of all sections proposed for amendments) for Unified
Development Code Text Amendment #4 by the City of Meridian
Planning Department:
Item 15: Ordinance No.
Amendment:
2008 National Electric Code
De Weerd: Items 14 and 15 are ordinances number 08-1372 and 08-1373. I will ask
the City Clerk to, please, read these two ordinances by title only.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 08-1372, an
ordinance amending Title 11 of the Meridian City Code regarding zoning and
subdivision regulations, codified at Tifle 11, entitled the Unified Development Code of
the Meridian City Code and providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing an
effective date.
Holman: City of Meridian Ordinance No. 08-1373, an ordinance amending Title 10,
Chapter 3, Meridian City Code, regarding adoption of the 2008 National Electric Code
as amended, establishing a city electrical inspector, requiring a state electrical
contractor's license, requiring permits, regarding non-liability of city, providing for
severability and a savings clause and providing a penalty and providing an effective
date.
De Weerd: Okay. You have heard these finro ordinances read by title only. Is fihere
anyone who would like to hear either of these read in its entirety? Seeing none,
Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve ordinance 08-1372, with suspension of rules and 08-1373,
wifih suspension of rules.
Rountree: Second.
Mecidian Ciry Council
July 8, 2008
Fage 38 of 40
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve fhese finro ordinances of 14
and 15. If there is no discussion, I will ask the Clerk to, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
De Weerd: Thank you. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 16: Executive Session per ldaho State Code 67-2345(1)(b) -(to consider
fhe evaluafion, 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); &(j) To engage in
communications with a representative of the public agency's risk manager
or insurance provider to discuss the adjustment of a pending claim or
prevention of a claim imminently likely to be filed. The mere presence of a
representative of the public agency's risk manager or insurance provider
at an executive session does not satisfy fihis requirement:
De Weerd: Item 16 is an Executive Session.
Bird: Madam Mayor'?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird:
Bird: I move we go into Executive Sessions as per ldaho State Code 67-2345(1)(b),
(1)(f), and (1)(j).
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to adjourn into Executive Session.
Madam Clerk, roll call vote, please.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Rountree: I move we come out of Executive Session.
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 39 of 40
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Out of the Executive Session we had a-- a settlement agreement with
Pinebridge -- ~
De Weerd: No.
Bird: Isn't that what it --
De Weerd: Oh, yeah. Pinebridge.
Bird: Pinebridge development and I would move that we approve that development as
negotiated and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second regarding the agreement with
Pinebridge. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, will you call role.
. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Councilman Borton.
Borton: I move to adjourn now.
Rountree: Second.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRPED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:26 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
Meridian City Council
July 8, 2008
Page 40 of 40
~~~ E~E~~~~~
MAYOR TAMMY e WEERD
O~ ~22~Q$'
DATE APPROVED
ATTEST: CJ - ~~- -
, JAYCE . HOLMAN, CIT\Y~~~ ""~~~~,,~~~~~._
,~°~~~~y ~~''-
~ r~. :
~ o '
;
; ~
= BEAL =
i ~ ,~~ `~
'~'~p~ `~r~s'~• ~~~
, ~, ~~
~ ~ .
,'''/,'~~'''~~,ni~i n,~~"`~````````