Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009 09-22Meridian City Council Meetinu September 22, 2009 A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, September 22, 2009, by President Charlie Rountree. Members Present: President Charlie Rountree, Keith Bird, Brad Hoaglun, and David Zaremba. Members Absent: Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Anna Canning, Pete Friedman, Caleb Hood, Sonya Wafters, Wanen Stewart, Bob Stowe, Mark Niemeyer, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X David Zaremba X Brad Hoaglun X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd Rountree: Good evening and welcome, everybody, this evening. Thank you for being here. I will open tonight's meeting. It's Tuesday, September 22nd at 7:00 p.m. This is a regular City Council meeting. Roll call attendance, City Clerk. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: Rountree: If you'd all rise and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Rountree: I understand that we had a cancellation for the invocation this evening. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: Rountree: So, we will move on to the adoption of the agenda. Zaremba: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we adopt the agenda as published. Hoaglun: Second. Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 2 of 62 Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All in favor? Opposed same sign? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Consent Agenda: A. June 29, 2009 City Council Special Joint Meeting Minutes B. September 1, 2009 City Council Minutes C. September 8, 2009 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes D. Addendum to the Agreement for Legal Services with. Boise City (exhibit A to the original agreement) along with the the Cost for Services (Exhibit B to the original agreement). E. Addendum B to Professional Services Agreement with Refinerii, LLC -Meridian City Hall Public Art Project F. Contract amendment with Pipeline Inspection Services, Inc. G. Request for change order No.2 for the Meridian/Main split corridor phase 1 project H. Revised agreement with ACHD for Ten Mile Rd., Franklin Rd. to Cherry Ln. I. Engagement Agreement with Mercer J. Approve Beer/Wine Owner Transfer from Quick Stuff #7775 to Jacksons #140; location 3010 Goldstone Drive. Rountree: Next item is the Consent Agenda. Zaremba: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Zaremba. Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 3 of 62 Zaremba: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda as published and authorize the Mayor to sign or the Council President in the absence of the Mayor to sign, and the Clerk to attest. Hoaglun: Second. Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor? Opposed same sign? The motion -- well, excuse me. That should be roll call. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Department Reports: A. Planning Department 1. Design Review Status Report Rountree: Next item on the agenda is Item 6, Department Reports. Reports from the Planning Department. Pete, design review status report. And Will. Friedman: Thank you, Council President Rountree, Council Members. When the Council adopted the design guidelines back in February, you requested staff to come to you after six months to give you a status report on the implementation of the guidelines and that's what we are here to do tonight. We have provided in your packet a pretty detailed memo regarding what we found after our review of the past six months. So, Will and I are, basically, just going to kind of hit the high points of that. I will give you some overall background and, then, Will will give you a rundown on some of the lessons teamed. I'm happy to report that overall design review citywide is going well. There was a steep teaming curve both for our staff, as well as for our customers, but with Will's assistance and the staff eagemess to team and the eagemess to team on the part of many of our design clients, we have been able to get our arms around it pretty well. There is still a lot of things we often go back to and debate and discuss, but that's the nature of the document, because it is guidelines, rather than strict regulations or standards. And I think one thing that we are especially proud of is the amount of engagement that we have had with some of our applicants, both in the project phase, but just -- we have had a number of them come in and say, geez, can we sit down and kind of talk to you about this or we have got two or three things we have in the pipeline and how -- how can I ask these -- how do these guidelines affect what we might be working for. So, staff -- Will, in particular, has spent a fair amount of time having those sorts of meetings with some of our customers. It hasn't all been roses. We have had some difficulties and experienced some difficulties with some of our customers, particularly in instances where someone has presented a project prior to ever consulting the city. So, they have come in and said, well, this is what we are thinking about Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 4 of 62 proposing and then -- then we have had to spend quite a bit of time working with them and generally have been at least able to find a good middle ground using our guidelines. Another challenge has been adopting -- or adapting certain building forms. We knew this was going to be an issue, particularly with industrial buildings and sure enough we were right. However, I'm happy to report that in the couple instances where there have been some different viewpoints on it, again, we have been able to work with those applicants and come up with a design solution that at least meets the spirit and intent of the guidelines and still allows them to proceed with the program that they have planned, generally within their budget expectations. So, to date we have had 25 applications, 24 are -- have been processed and one is still in process. They range in size from park maintenance buildings, to elementary schools, to banks, to industrial spec buildings -- a wide range of applications, which is good. We have had some multi- family. We haven't had a lot of attached residential yet, but we are hoping that when the market picks up we will have an opportunity to start looking at those as well. And so far, as you know, we have built into the process the ability to convene a design professionals committee that the planning director can rely on when working up a recommendation for the disposition of a design review application and so far we have only had to convene that committee once and, actually, that was a good experience for us. The applicant was satisfied with their recommendations and it allowed us at least to take a look at that process and what we can do to make that process a little bit smoother and kind of meet some of the requirements that jive with our code. So, we have spent a lot of hours working on this and we spent a lot of time, as I said, engaged with many of our customers, some of whom never make application, many of them whom do, and I think it's been very valuable, I think it's been good for the city, it's moving us again at that level of quality design I think that is expected by the Council and by the public and is starting to receive a warm reception from most -- most of our customers and most of our applicants. So, at this point I think I'll tum it over to Will and he can just focus on the lessons teamed. There is -going to be one area we are seeking Council direction on tonight, but only one. So, I'm happy to answer any questions you have now or we will wait until Will has concluded his remarks. Rountree: Questions for Pete? Thank you. Will. Thornton: Council President, Members of the Council, first of all, you can expect that we will be making adjustments and refinements to this process and to the documents themselves. One being the standards that we have put into the UDC and also the design manual itself is part of the Comprehensive Plan. So, they will both -- both of those amendments will be coming before you in due time. For those amendments we have issues that we will be addressing -- staff will be preparing and addressing the need for an exemption for certain types of buildings or in certain instances where a design review may not be appropriately applicable to the situation. Also we have been -- we have had a meeting with the design community -- or design professional community about the standard we have for parking. In the old code the standard was 70 percent allowed parking in front of a building along public streets. During the design process we changed that -- or design manual development we changed that to 50 percent and we ran into a couple instances where a small lot is unable to comply with that, so we will be Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 5 of 62 including that in our refinement and amendments to the documents. The other major one was addressing four sided architecture. Currently, the standard in the UDC is listed -- it lists the need for architectural interest and detail and esthetics along public roads or public spaces. In your memo we mention that that might be extended to include along -- appropriately along residential areas and possibly some other locations as appropriate, depending on the type of project, the scale of the project, and the nature of the use of that project. So, those -- those are the things that we will mainly be focusing on in the refinements and adjustments to the process and the documents. Some minor things in the design manuals, some corrections with some images and some of the text will also be included in that. As Pete mentioned, one of the major things we wanted your direction on this evening was with regards to materials and what types and applicability to design and to what projects would that include. We have had several correspondence with design professionals about the use of vinyl as a material to cover large areas of building walls. Friedman: I think Council President, Members of the Council, what we are getting at is when we commenced this process there was quite a bit of discussion about the use of vinyl and other materials, particularly vinyl, and untreated cement like lift up panels and things like that and the direction we had then was to minimize the use of vinyl, particularly in large expanses. Well, there has been some push back on that and we have had some correspondence -- some interesting correspondence from the industry. You have also a few months back considered a review by one of our developers about the use of vinyl as a major body material and so currently the guidelines allow it as an accent and so the question we wanted to pose to you tonight, is that still the direction we want to go or if we would want to consider it on the main body of buildings, should there be some qualifications in that or should it just say it's an acceptable material for the bodies of the buildings or -- we have seen through the industry that it comes in many forms. You can -- you can have simulations of shingles and scallops and lap siding and different --different design features or should those be accommodated within those larger bodies. So, we need a little direction on that I think is what we were asking tonight. Just some general direction. We can always come back to you with more detail, but that was one of the issues that has kind of reared its head over the last six months. Anything else on that? Thornton: The last -- no, that's all for the materials. And, then, before we take your comments and questions on the materials, just one last thing we'd like to update you on is that in this six month process we have developed some -- some tools for staff and applicants to make use of the manual a little easier. We have incorporated that into what we are calling an interactive document. What it is is it's a pdf that they can access through our website and, then, they can work themselves through using the development matrix, if you remember from the design manual, to determine an appropriate context. That context gives them the guidelines. They can take the guidelines and apply them to their project. Along with that staff has reviewed the process we have developed for reviewing applications where we created a checklist to check off design guidelines that were met. We want to take that back and refine it a little bit, make it a little simpler for applicants and staff to review. So, those were two Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 6 of 62 additional changes in the process that we are implementing and reviewing for ease and access -- or better applicant-customer relationships and understanding what the process is. So, back to the materials and vinyl, if -- if you have any comments or direction for us that would be appreciated. Zaremba: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: My first comment would be that I am one of those who has always been unappreciative of vinyl siding. However, the presentation that was made to us a few months ago helped me learn that there have been a lot of advances in that industry since my last opinion was formed, so I would be much more willing to listen to something that did include use of vinyl, but I would still think that a huge expanse of only vinyl would not be very attractive. So, I would want to include some visual texture or something to break it up, the same as we would if it were a huge slab cement wall. I mean just -- that kind of break up. But I'm willing to listen to a good suggestion on that subject. Hoaglun: Mr. President. Yeah. My thoughts are along the line as Councilman Zaremba. Something that adds architectural interest, whether it's a long concrete wall, whether it's all vinyl and it's all one -- it's the same, that's not what we are going for here. I recall one deal we dealt with here awhile back where we worked with the applicant and it was one big long concrete wall and we ended up having paint that was -- was the medium used to help break that up, you know, just to - so, the residents who saw the back of the building, it was something that was -- wasn't just one big blank wall, even though it was colored. That goes for vinyl as well. You can have vinyl all the way across and it doesn't look good, it's just one big blank vinyl wall, but you can have elements of vinyl that would work. So, I'm not opposed to vinyl per se, but it's how you use any medium to make it work and add architectural interest. I know that's a pretty broad guideline, but, you know, when it comes to things like that, you got to have some flexibility to -- to make it -- to try some different things and make it look good, although some people -- what looks good to one might not look good to another, but that's -- that's my thoughts on vinyl is, yeah, if we are doing it all just like concrete, one big slab out there, not so much. Rountree: Other comments? Two comments. One on process. We have recently had a bit of an issue with reconsiderations and that process. I assume that you will be taking a look at the guidelines and establish a process that's similar to the other reconsideration processes we have for other items as it relates to design review. Is that part of -- will that be part of an amendment that we see? Friedman: Council President, Members of the Council, really, that process, the one you're speaking of, pretty much follows most of our other processes. So, it came to you, we -- a decision had been made, it came to you on a review, you had made a decision and, then, that decision -- there was a request for reconsideration of it. So, that really Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 7 of 62 isn't much different than any of our others. However, what we are looking at is we mentioned were the exemptions. When we implemented design review we wanted to cast a pretty broad net, so that, you know, we made sure that there weren't any unintended consequences of somebody slipping through someplace that should normally have gone through design review. Well, that net was probably cast a bit too far and we are finding that there are going to be instances -- there may be minor construction -- types of construction, there may be little appurtenances and so forth that, technically, yes, require a building permit or a certificate of zoning compliance, which kicks it into design review, which is unnecessary. So, that -- those are more of the process things we were looking at. Rountree: Anna. Canning: President Rountree, the issue regarding the reconsideration actually came out of lack of clarity in the language regarding how to notice a director decision versus the Commission decision and, yes, we will be looking at a code amendment to clarify that situation. Rountree: Very good. And my comment or guidance with respect to vinyl is that I would -- I would view that just as any other material and we have seen some really creative potential uses for that and I think that we need to maintain that flexibility and not eliminate it from consideration. It certainly is an economical solution in some instances and something that we -- we need to be open to. I believe the philosophy and the intent and the direction of the guidelines is such that massive displays of anything are discouraged and will be eliminated anyway and I think that that's -- we are seeing that all the time now anyway, with the exception of some types of buildings that we are talking about maybe going exemptions for anyway. So, I think it's a -- it's a material we need to look at. As long as we have petroleum supplies to build it, I guess we ought to be looking at it. Friedman: I think that we can -- with a couple of minor tweaks to that section of the guidelines, I think we can accommodate what we have just heard from the Council. Rountree: Any other comments, questions, any additional information you all want to provide us? I just want to say thanks to staff. I know -- I have heard personally some very positive comments about staff and their work with individuals. As per normal I have heard some negative things from the get go on somebody having to go through the process, but I have since talked to them after they have gone through it and they have been very pleased that it was -- you know, it wasn't onerous, it was something that there was some give and take and I think they feel that -- at least in most cases I have talked to people, they have come out with a better product. So, I appreciate your time. Appreciate the update. We will continue to look at this and we need to continue to remember, it is strictly a guideline, it is not a standard or a -- necessarily a rule. But thank you. Good job. Friedman: Thank you. Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 8 of 62 2. Review and Discuss Lists of Transportation and Community Program Priority Projects -the most needed roadway, intersection and sidewalk/pathwayimprovemenu in Meridian - as recommended by the Transportation Task Force Rountree: Next item is the Planning Department's review and discussion of list of transportation community projects -- priority projects, most needed roadways, intersections, et cetera. Caleb. Canning: Council, before Will Thornton leaves the room, I would like to point out he -- this is his last week in the Planning Department and he's going back to school full time at BSU to get an engineering degree -- Master's -- Master's? Bachelor's? Bachelor's in engineering to go for his bachelor's in architecture, so he will be very much missed in the office come October. Rountree: Will, congratulations on that career decision you made. I know when we brought you on board to work on the design review you had I think another direction that you were contemplating and it's kind of a big swing, but I think you will find your career choice an interesting one and I think a combination that will make you even more valuable than you already are to any community or anybody who decides to put you to work and I suspect given your initiative you'll probably create your own company. But thanks for all the -- the long hours, all those meetings we had with consultants and professionals to develop the design review guidelines. You did a great job. We will miss you. Now you can go. Hood: Mr. President, Members of the Council, I'm back before you again this evening. As you may recall, August 25th we had a discussion, you gave me some direction to take back to the Transportation Task Force after they had drafted their draft list of priorities to submit to ACHD, ITD and COMPASS. The Transportation Task Force has met -- we met on September 3rd and along with the parks commissioners and Joint School District No. 2, the list for ACHD roadways and intersections and ITD projects, as well as the community program projects at ACHD -- those three lists have been revised and we are seeking your consideration and endorsement this evening. As I mentioned, there are three lists and before I go into those three lists I want to maybe just refresh what happened on the 25th and the presentation -- the biggest changes that the Council asked the task force to consider had to do with intersections around the Ten Mile interchange primarily. There is some other changes to the list. The task force did take those into consideration as we revised these lists and, again, I will go through those details in a minute and we will go through the projects item by item and I'll let you know what's changed and what's recommended as a change from the task force. In addition to the three priority lists, there are also three cover letters to those lists that you all should have received in your packet that is new information, but they were based on input from the transportation task force as well. So, again, requesting any comments you may have on those as I seek the Mayor's signature on those cover letters to the attached lists. These lists have been requested by COMPASS and ITD to be finalized Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 9 of 62 by October 1, so we are running right up on the deadline here. We have got ten days or so to finalize that, but I would like to take your comments, get the modifications that you may have and get them ready for the Mayor's signature later this week, hopefully. So, getting started on the lists -- and I think what I will do with the first one, I'm going to start with the ACHD roadways and intersections and maybe I'll run through the draft cover letter first. I won't read it necessarily. I'm going to assume that you all have seen that and have read it or at least gone through it. It tries to incorporate, again, some of the take home message that you all gave to me last time I was here about thanking ACHD for making sure that Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry, will be constructed in 2010, noting that there are additional roadway improvements near the Ten Mile interchange that are needed and we would sure appreciate them doing that before the interchange opens, rather than later. Also, that we recommend that ACRD focus on constructing new intersections before reconstructing existing intersections, primarily, you know, new intersections that are four way stop controlled, even if it means putting in some interim signals of the examples given of at Ustick and Meridian Road is -- if it's less expensive and we can do more of them, that interim condition is certainly a lot better than a four way stop control. So, that's in a letter. Touch on the broader corridor needs and specifically regarding corridors, Ustick Road and maybe working west to east on Ustick versus continuing what's been started in Boise and back towards Meridian. So, that's the letter in a nutshell. Again, we thank them for their time and ask them to consider our request and if anything -- any major changes happen, that we would be more than happy to sit down and discuss it with them at a joint meeting. Again, that's the letter briefly and if there are questions, comments, changes you would recommend -- I did see a couple of just proof reading type things. There is a period missing here and there and things like that. I'll clean that up. But any other changes, either substantial or proof reading or otherwise? Hoaglun: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I only had one question and it happened to be the Ten Mile -Ustick. There was that bullet point -- needs to be functional with high school and I was often wondering is that Rocky Mountain, which is over another mile away or how -- how was that tied into the high school at that particular intersection? That's -- I was just kind of curious about that bullet point. Hood: That is a good question. That's, actually, a carry over bullet point from last year. I'm wondering if that wasn't from the Pine-Linder intersection, because that's previously where Pine-Linder was up that high on the list and I'm wondering if the comments -- let me read the other comments. No, the comments don't seem to match -- oh, yeah. Zaremba: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Zaremba. Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 10 of 62 Zaremba: I believe the school district has told us they have interest in putting a high school in the Ustick -Ten Mile to Black Cat area. This maybe acknowledgment of -- of a future high school. Hoaglun: Mr. President, if -- Caleb, if you would just check on that. I mean it's a minor detail and if it -- if that's as Councilman Zaremba says, then, we -- with a future high school planning or something like that we can add that in there, but that was -- just kind of curious. Hood: Okay. I will definitely look into that. Thank you. Rountree: Any other comments for Caleb? Okay. Zaremba: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Not necessarily on that subject, but I would like to add a couple of times this time and previous times Caleb has mentioned that there have been some parks commissioners attending the Transportation Task Force. It wouldn't be immediately apparent why that's valuable. It happens to be that these particular parks commissioners have background and expertise in transportation and engineering and development, so their input is very valuable. Just a comment. Hood: Absolutely. And we do appreciate their -- their volunteering to help us out with this task at the task force. So, jumping into the list -- and I'm not going to necessarily touch on each project. If you want to pause certainly feel free to interrupt. Like I said, I'm just going to go through the changes. So, top three no changes there. Number four, which is actually number one. I'd like you to focus, if you would, on the -- the project number in parenthesis, because that's the project number, if you recall, your number one priority with roadway widening gets ten points, your number one intersection -- new intersection gets ten points. Number one rebuild intersection gets ten points. So, really, the important number is the one in parenthesis, because that's that categorical number and its rank from the city. Ten Mile -Ustick is a new project, a new intersection that was on this list. It was requested that we take that out of the project, the Ten Mile Road -- Ten Mile Road widening project from Cheny to Ustick and actually pull the intersection out first, so it can be constructed ahead of the interchange hopefully. At least the intersection there. So, that one jumped all the way to the head of the class. The second one, 5-2, Ten Mile -Chinden, also is a new addition from the task force. You will see a theme here. Ten Mile basically getting the whole corridor from 20-26, from the interchange complete at least the intersections. Very high priority for the city, at least as recommended by the task force. So, again, Ten Mile -Chinden is a new project. Ten Mile -Victory was on the list previously. It moved up a spot. It was number four new intersection priority before it moved up to number three and Linder - Pine moved down three. So, there is the -- I think that's the one -- I think it needs to be functional for the high school, the comment earlier. It's -- what I will do is I will flip flop Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 11 of 62 those columns and we will move comments back. Oh, just got copied. That's what it is. Yeah. So, I apologize for that. But, yeah, those comments for the number four intersection do apply to that one and I'll remove all the comments from the Ten Mile - Ustick. We haven't drafted anything, because that was a new add. So, moving on back into roadways now -- so, those are red. Roadways are red and intersections are the yellow. Number four roadway, no change in number four or five. Number six is East 3rd, no change there. There is no change until we get down to McMillan -Locust Grove intersection. That was previously number two priority and now it's number five, so it went down three points or three spots. And, then, some roadways. So, number -- numbers 12, 13 and 14 or 12, 11, 10 in your -- in the parenthesis -- have been inverted or we went from -- from east to west, now from west to east. So, Locust Grove to Meridian, Meridian to Eagle, Eagle to Cloverdale. So, that's -- that's a minor change. They were in that same grouping before, just the inverse. Locust Grove -Ustick, no change on that one. Locust Grove -Victory, again, just because of adding the other intersections near Ten Mile, that one slipped three spots as well. So, Locust Grove - Victory is down three spots. No change until you jump to Franklin Road, Black Cat to Ten Mile, which is number 16 in parenthesis there. That one moved up four spots. It was based on similar discussion from the Council, Franklin Road being a pretty major corridor in from Canyon county. The Transportation Task Force had a tough time moving it any higher than that. You got some pretty significant projects ahead of that, so, you know, it does seem to be a pretty good landing spot. Again, it's a recommendation, but I think it's a pretty solid recommendation of, you know, moving it up at least four spots there to be number 16. I do actually want to comment and apologize at the same time, that some of the numbering is off, because we added some and, then, I want to thank Matt before I apologize, I guess. Matt Ellsworth covered for me a little bit -- I have been out of the office for a couple weeks and he, actually, revised these lists and finalized the -- the letters for me while I was gone. Some of the numbering, though, is not accurate and Iwill -- I will correct that. I'll just count one to -- one to 54. I think there is a number of projects, but the ones in parentheses are correct. Some of the other ones are -- are incorrect as currently in the packet. Only off a couple, but just wanted to call that out that I am aware of that and I will correct it. So -- so, last one on that page was at Locust Grove -Ustick to McMillan -- sorry, one more. Top of the page. That one fell one spot again, due to moving the Franklin Road Project up one, that one fell a spot. Same with the next three. Fairview -- Fairview, Meridian to Locust; Fairview, Locust to Eagle, and Linder, Franklin to Cherry, all fell a spot, because the Franklin one moved up. The next two roadway -- Meridian Road, Ustick to McMillan, no change there. And Meridian, Fairview to Cherry, no change there. No change on the rebuild intersections, so Chinden -- Meridian, Chinden -Locust Grove, no change there. And, actually, no changes until we get down to Franklin, McDermott to Black Cat. That is a --anew project that has been added to the list. Again, with that same -- or that same thought in mind that Canyon county -- the traffic can be coming from Canyon county or going to Canyon county using Ten Mile interchange, but, again, the task force did not want to move it to high up on the list, but it is on the list at least for further consideration in future years and no changes to number 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and I do want to pause there, because the end of the list also is -- there were some intersections that were inadvertently left off from the discussion that the task force had, Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 12 of 62 so kind of that last part of the last page. Currently it lists what you see in the top -- in the top area there with Fairview, Eagle, Cloverdale, and Franklin, Ten Mile, Black Cat, Overland, Linder. The discussion at the task force actually did include some additional intersections near the Ten Mile interchange that just didn't make them on the list. There are three intersections near the Black Cat -- on Black Cat, I should say. On the Black Cat comdor. Can you scroll down a little bit on there or get that whole thing on one list -- on one view? Okay. So, that -- that's what my proposal would be and I apologize, I had a big pdf to code in, so it's sort of blurry, so I'll read it to you. Again, the top two, Fairview, Eagle to Cloverdale, they didn't change. Getting into the yellow, though, the intersections -- go down just a little bit. The second part. Yeah. So, the number seven -- the new number seven, new intersections, Black Cat, Franklin. So, that's number seven on our -- on our intersection priorities. Number eight is a new intersection and that's the Black Cat -Cherry intersection. Number nine would be Black Cat - Ustick. And, then, number ten is Ten Mile -Amity and that one before was previously on the list, it just gets pushed to the bottom on the list, basically. So, I apologize, that was discussed by the task force, it just didn't make it into the revised list. So, I would ask that if you endorse this list, that those intersections are included. I know there was some substantial discussion about Black Cat. You, as the Council, if you feel you need to move those up in the priority, so be it, again, the task force didn't think Black Cat would -- is -- should supercede some of these other projects I had. So, with that, that covers the changes that were made after of the discussion last time we talked about this. Are there any questions, comments, additional changes you'd like me to make on the priority list for roadways and intersections that we submit to ACHD? Rountree: Comments -- Bird: I have none. Rountree: --for Caleb? Caleb, I think you did a good job listening to us when we talked about it last and, you know, it boils down it's really hard choices on some of these which comes first. Beyond probably the fifth project that it's wishful thinking anyway getting the funding, but it looks good for now. I think it's legitimate to submit these to ACHD and -- and we will move forward and coordinate what we can with this -- with the development of the next TIP and -- and we will be able to comment on that soon, because I think COMPASS approved the release of the draft document yesterday. Hood: Avery good segue, actually. So, the second part and the three part -- Zaremba: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Before you move to the next one can I just make one comment? Capturing the idea that the president just said that -- beyond the first they don't get much points anyhow. On the -- on the Ten Mile -Amity one where you say not a high priority project for the city, I would add, comma, yet. And that's in deference to those who would like to Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 13 of 62 see it become a high priority some day. We are not saying it will never be a high priority, it just doesn't beat the higher priorities that we already have. But some day it will move up and I would like to give people that hope. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. Caleb. Hood: And -- yeah. I will -- I will make that change and moving on, then, to the cover letter that we are proposing to send to COMPASS board, COMPASS staff, essentially, and ITD regarding two topics. They are interrelated. The first part of the topic is our priority lists from ITD. I didn't put that on the screen tonight. You may recall there is only six projects. The task force did recommend flip flopping Eagle Road and State Highway 16, which was the request of two of the Council members, not necessarily to flip flop them -- you said to move Eagle Road up and the only one said move State Highway 16 down. So, that's kind of where it ended up. On the state request or our priority list what you have is Meridian Road interchange, rebuild number one. Linder Road overpass number two. The widening of Chinden from Eagle to McDermott as three. Eagle Road corridor improvements as number four. And number five is State Highway 16 extension. So, those are the five projects we have now. Again, that was just one -- one tweak that was made to the state list. I do want to spend quite a bit of the time on -- so, that would be an attachment to this cover letter that we send over to, again, ITD and COMPASS. Yes. And, again, I would like to take some time and there are some substantial changes to this. Matt used last year's letter as a template and the items that are called out in here need to be modified pretty substantially. I just got back yesterday and realized this, so what I'm going to do is I'm going run through them real quick with you, but what I propose to do is, then, a-mail you a copy of the revised letter for your review and any comments you may have back. So, try not to focus too much on what's there now. There isn't a lot to the letter. Again, we thank them for allowing us the opportunity to comment on and provide our list of priorities. I do want to go through, though, as part of that letter, we also use that as our opportunity to comment on the draft TIP. ITD has also released the STIP for comment and that comment period I think ends October 22, but it's along the same public comment period as -- as the TIP, which I think is October 20. So, there are a lot of projects in the TIP, but not a lot of -- in fact, there are 13 projects in Meridian directly. Now, there are a lot of VRT or COMPASS projects and surveys, which do incorporate some part of Meridian or our community and some of their, again, surveys or planning documents, what have you. That entire document, if you want to look at it, is on COMPASS's website, if you go to what's new on that link you can actually download the whole thing and look at it. It's a couple hundred pages. I just want to highlight for you, though, really, the roadway projects section of that. We certainly can support VRT and Commuter Ride and Safe Routes To School and some of those other things and if you'd like me to come back and we can go through that thing page by page if you'd like. But, again, I was going to focus our time on -- and our comments primarily on roadways. So, with that I'm just going to jump in here and I'll list those real quickly. These are regionally significant, so you got to keep that in mind. This doesn't include all ACRD roadways, but there are some in here, because there are some ACHD roadways that are regionally significant. The first one being Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh, and that is in the TIP for 2011. So, again, the draft Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 14 of 62 letter we will remove that comment saying please put it back in, because it's already there. The second one is Fairview, Linder to Cloverdale, and that's in PD. The third one is Franklin, Black Cat to Ten Mile. That's also in PD. Franklin, Ten Mile to Linder, is in 2010 and 2012 for construction. Franklin, Touchmark to Five Mile, in 2011 and 2012. So, Franklin is in because it's an ITS detour route for the interstate. Fairview, obviously, a regionally significant corridor. Eagle, the same story there. Number six project is I-84 Meridian Road interchange and I do want to take a moment here to pause and talk about that. The project is not the rebuild of the interchange, it's 1.3 million for the bridge rehab in 2013. So, I guess my question to the Council would be do we want to make some type of a comment back to ITD and COMPASS saying why don't you take that 1.3 million for the existing bridge rehab and put it towards a rebuilt Meridian interchange, rather than throwing money into something we know is -- needs to be redone. We know that 1.3 million isn't going to cover the cost of a new interchange, but it certainly could help get the ball rolling. So, just a thought. I don't know if -- if the Council wants to do that or not, but I think, you know, it's -- it would be pretty consistent with what we have been asking ITD to do when it comes to GARVEE savings to invest in Meridian Road interchange rebuild, stimulus dollars that are out there to apply to the feds to get it rebuilt. Certainly it creates a bottleneck and congestion problems, so I'll pause real quickly to see if anybody wants to take that up and I can work that into a letter. If not, I'll drop it and we will -- probably won't comment on it at all, but, again, I'll pause. Rountree: Comments? Zaremba: Mr. President, yes, I would support the idea of asking that they not spend money on it now that could be saved and -- and help the rebuild -- the entire rebuild. If they are determining that it is currently some kind of a safety hazard, that, actually, helps the argument to do the rebuild, to do some kind of refurbishment. So, if it's not a safety hazard, then, we could just as easily put that million something off for the rebuild. So, I would support making that request. Rountree: Shakings of the head. The only comment I would make, Caleb, is is if the rehab project does include accommodation for pedestrians, I'd say let's speak favorably to it. Hood: And maybe a couple of comments on both of those interrelated. One, it's -- it's in 2013. So, it wouldn't be like we would be getting those pedestrian improvements this next year anyways. It would still be a couple years out. I agree, I think if they can take that money and do it and we can get something out there for pedestrians now, we are still looking at waiting three years to get that done. So, I can certainly do that, but I just wanted to clarify, it isn't -- it's not a rehab right aways, it's a rehab for -- in 2013. So -- and that's our comment last year was we'd like you to move this up, because we need to see the pedestrian improvements put in and narrow the lanes and put a shoulder in there for peds, but I'll put in some language and you guys can comment back, then, I think I will go that direction and see if there are any further changes, so -- on number seven in the draft TIP for Meridian projects, Ten Mile interchange landscaping at Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 15 of 62 880,000 dollars. Number eight, split corridor phase two. There are two years that that's showing to have money allocated for'11 and '13. total project costs at 11 million dollars. Project number nine is Overland, Ten Mile to Linder. That's the developer cooperative project, so it's a very small amount, about 300,000 dollars this next year for the Overland, Ten Mile to Linder. Number ten is Eagle, Fairview to State Highway 44. So, that's Fairview going north to 44 and that's a road surface in '10 and '11 at a cost of 8.8 million dollars. Now, number 11 is Eagle Road going from I-84 to Fairview. So, the south portion of, basically, the same thing, a road rehab or resurfacing project on Eagle Road in 2010. The cost of that project is 3.4 million dollars. I have a similar comment or question, I guess, for the Council regarding that project. There is a -- in the currently adopted STIP there is a project that shows developer funded 15 million dollar project of widening Eagle Road from Franklin to Fairview. That project is no longer in the draft TIP. That -- that developer has been unable to convince the air quality committees, the powers that be, basically, that that's going to be a project and it slipped a couple of times already. My question would be, though, I guess I'm not willing to say that that isn't a project. We are still working to make sure -- or to facilitate anything we can to make sure that that -- that becomes a project. The comment would be similar to the Meridian Road interchange is that if you put 3.4 million dollars towards something that may be a 15 to 20 million dollar project, it gives you a pretty substantial jump on that project, even though the current STIP doesn't have public funds being spent on it, at least not directly. You may recall that developer was talking about doing STAR with that and they are still contemplating that, but they haven't proposed that. they are still -- I don't want to go into all those details, because it's -- nothing's settled. But I will just let you know, again, there is a project in 2010 to rehab Eagle and worst case I think is that we go in or we -- ITD goes in and rehabs the pavement lanes and, then, the next year there is a project and you rip out everything that was just rehab'd and it's, basically, 3.4 million dollars of throw away money, because it's a new roadway. So, again, I'll pause, if you have any -- any thoughts on what you would like that -- that message to be to ITD and COMPASS for this project, I would certainly listen or we -- we can stay silent on it, too, if that's the -- the choice of the Council. So, again, I'll pause for any comments Rountree: Questions? Zaremba: Mr. President? I can understand why ITD would want to resurface it. I have understood the explanation that ACRD makes for their chip sealing program and that is that you can save millions of dollars by not allowing the surface to deteriorate in the first place. So, I understand why ITD would want to resurface it, although if the project -- or the developer would -- you make a great deal of sense in saying that it would be money wasted if the next year the road got widened. I wonder if our suggestion would be to ask them to step it back a year or so -- I hesitate to have them take it off the plan entirely, because I understand why they want to do it. In the long run it saves a lot of money. But step it back for another year, so that we can find out if the economy turns around, the developer takes off, the STAR program works, the legislature doesn't make any change to the STAR program -- yeah, it's a lot of ifs, but I'm saying rather than ask ITD to kill it, just ask them to step it back a year, with a possibility that that money could be spent better or saved or something. Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 16 of 62 Rountree: Other comments? Caleb, my only comment on that is -- in addition to what David said was it's a major inconvenience to the road users to have potential projects back to back. So, I think the point to be made with ITD is that they need to seriously consider the timing of their action. I think one of the issues with the STARs project is that they can't come to terms with the development and vice-versa. So, maybe that would hung them along to come to terms with what's going to happen out there and they could coordinate the two together. Any other comments on the ITD list? Hood: I just have two quick more that are in the draft -- Rountree: Okay. Hood: They will just take one second. So, you have 20-26 corridor preservation is also in there. Not a lot of money, but 822,000 dollars this next year for right of way preservation on 20-26. And, then, the final one is Ustick, Meridian to Locust Grove, 5.5 million dollars in PD. So, again, another regionally significant corridor, but it's an in out year in PD. So, I will make the changes to the letter based on some of the comments received tonight and a-mail that out to you later this week and we will go from there. And if you think of anything else before then that you want to even have me incorporate beforehand, I can do that as well. So, that's it for ITD, COMPASS, and the TIP comments and our priority list. Any other final comments on that before I jump into the community programs? Rountree: I see none. Just give us a response date on that a-mail. Hood: Absolutely. Okay. And, then, the final one -- song this is taking so long tonight, but there is a lot of information here. I don't want to rush through it, but I don't want spend too much time on it either, but the last one tonight is community programs at ACHD, which is primarily safe routes to schools, sidewalks, gaps in sidewalks, those types of things, pedestrian facilities. It can be other things, but that's what they -- they tend to be. The cover letter is really an endorsement letter. They asked that the Council endorse any project within the jurisdiction. So, the attached list of projects is really your endorsement of those projects and as Councilman Zaremba mentioned, this year that the task force work closely with Joint School No. 2 and three of the commissioners from the parks commission to compile this list and it was -- it was great to have them, they bring a different perspective and thank them for their time. I will thank them again on the record for all their time that they spent. I did want to note that we didn't coordinate last year with the school district, but I thought it was quite interesting that when the school district brought their list of their priorities that we had all of them already on our draft list. So, I felt pretty good about that, even without coordinating we still had some of the same projects on our lists. So, that was good. I did also notice, sorry, on the letter that there is some clean up things in there. The Mayor's name didn't quite make it on the list and I will add that and I will also be cc'ing the ACRD president, as well as the commission members on that letter. So, those changes will be made. And also a change from this year at ACHD is they are not only Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 17 of 62 requesting a list of projects -- and maybe I'll pull that up real quick. They have not only asked for this list of projects, our priority projects, but they want us to submit an application for all the projects. There is only about ten -- I think about ten questions on the application. Some of them are pretty simple; some of them are a little more detailed. A lot of what you see in the comments column will actually go into the application itself, but there is a little staff time involved with that and Matt and I will be working on that this week, as there is an October 1 deadline for those as well. So, I will go through these projects, but I didn't print off maps for you, so you're going to have to kind of use your memory on kind of where some of these projects are. The first project -- and just to kind of summarize the list, there is a lot of projects in downtown. There is substandard sidewalks in downtown or no sidewalks at all in downtown. So, roughly half of the projects are in downtown connecting, you know, the post office to Meridian Elementary to the middle school and the neighborhoods kind of in the vicinity of those draws, plus City Hall. So, number one is Washington, 5th to 1st. That one is also -- already, excuse me, a project that is on ACHD's radar and I believe they came to you, actually, a few months ago informing you that they are working on this project and it's going forward. So, that's our number one this year. Last year was Linder to Ustick. So, that moves up as number two. This year number is last year's priority rank. So, again, the number one last year was Linder to Ustick, which they completed. The second project, Ustick, Ten Mile to Linder, just a carry over from last year's number three last year, as you can see. I would propose that we remove the last two sentences in the comment section. That was a carry over from last year and I think even if we can get the interim condition out there, that's going to be a vast improvement to what's there now. There isn't much of a shoulder and even if we can just get asphalt that's -- that's near the travel lanes, I think that will help pedestrians and bicyclists quite a bit. So, I would be -- I propose right now to just remove those last two sentences in there. The third project is East 2 1/2, Fairview to Carlton. Number four is Carlton, West 8th to 4th. Eagle, Zaldia to Victory. There is some pretty good neighborhood concerns with that project. What we are going to also do is we will submit an application for that one. We are going to also work on the project manager for the Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh project, to see if they can't, while they are out there doing that project, add a couple of hundred extra feet of even asphalt sidewalk to make that connection. It's currently outside the scope, but I'm thinking their maintenance crews or somebody can just go out there and do something like that to get that completed. At least we will ask them to do that and we will see where that goes. And the sixth is 8th Street, Pine to Carlton. Seven is 4th, Broadway to Maple. Number eight is West 1st, Pine to Broadway. Nine, Broadway, West 7th to Meridian. Locust Grove, McMillan to Chinden is number ten. Number 11, McMillan -- there is a couple of outparcels that continue -- or that prevent an entire mile from being continuous sidewalk. So, we are going to -- we are going to submit an application -- this is another one where they is just asmall -- and ACHD probably doesn't have the right of way to put the sidewalk in its ultimate location, but if they could scab in some asphalt, you know, within the 25 foot of right of way, it would at least provide afacility -- and interim situation for pedestrians there along McMillan. Same with number 14, 4010 Meridian Road, that's an outparcel. It's only a hundred feet, but it is on the walking path to a couple of schools and a park and there are quite a few children that attend both of those locations. So, pretty high priority, but we are Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 18 of 62 hoping that ACHD maintenance forces can just take care of that one and it doesn't actually have to go through the community programs scoring and ranking. Twelve and thirteen. Locust Grove and Victory. Then, down to 15, Meridian, Ventana to Heritage Middle School. That one's a little weird in that there is an approved development where the sidewalk should have gone in, but with the market and not doing that phase yet, it's not there, so -- and we don't know when it will be there. So, we are asking that the sidewalk be put in by a public agency, because we are not sure that the developers will put that in, but it is near the bottom of the list. Sixteen, McMillan, Goddard to Palentine and, then, 18 is Locust Grove, Paradise to Settlers Bridge. Number 18 -- and, then, it says 16 there, but that's supposed to be a 19 for Red Horse, McMillan. It's actually -- it says 2016 NA. Actually, it should be 2019 NA, but both the Locust -- or the Red Horse - McMillan and Locust Grove -Paradise, just to -- Settlers Bridge are already in 2010 at ACHD for construction. So, those projects actually won't be submitting applications, because we have been told by ACHD that those will be done October after they get done kind of with all their summer type chip sealing and all that other stuff they could do during the warm winter -- or warmer months, go out and do a couple of those projects, so -- and, then, finally, the projects that aren't numbered on here are directly from the parks commission and their list of priorities. They didn't seem it was appropriate to submit applications to ACHD this year. However, they did want to have a master list, if you will, of all priority roadway -- or, excuse me, pedestrian sidewalk pathway improvements and so they are on the list. So, I wouldn't be surprised if one or two of those doesn't jump and we actually apply for one of those next year in community programs, but for right now they just want to have them all in the same place. So, I am done and I will listen to any comments, questions, changes you would like me to make, as these are the lists that you're going to be endorsing to ACHD. Rountree: Comments? Changes? Corrections? Zaremba: Mr. President, of course I have a comment. Of course, the purpose of the list is to identify to ACHD the projects that we think need to be done. One of the things that I think we don't do enough is acknowledge the projects that have been completed and the Linder - Ustick one in particular, which has fallen off the list, as you mentioned, because it got completed, ACHD did some extra, I believe, last minute replanning to include the pathway that we needed -- that the parks department needed for part of their multi-use pathway and the ACHD made improvements to the sidewalk to accommodate that. So, somewhere in the cover letter, if we could, I would like to add an expression of appreciation that that project has been done, it's well received by the public, everybody's loving it, and they did some extra work to get the pathway part included in it as well. And, then, go on to the things we want. Rountree: Other comments? Thank you, Caleb. Lots of stuff. Hood: Thank you. See you next year. Hoaglun: Mr. President, I did have one quick question for Caleb, I'm sorry, I forgot to ask. You have been gone for a couple weeks. Was there a good reason for that? Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 19 of 62 Hood: I'm a new father, so -- Hoaglun: Congratulations. Hood: Yeah. Thank you. B. Clerks Office 1. Approve New Beer/Wine License for Maverik Stores Inc. #410, location 1630 E. McMillan Rd. Rountree: Any other comments? Okay. Next item is 6-B, Clerk's Office, approval of beer wine permit for Maverick. Jaycee. Holman: President Rountree, Members of the Council, normally our new beer and wine license applications, those are approved on the Consent Agenda. This particular one is for the Maverick on McMillan Road and we moved it to the regular agenda, because we are not meeting again until two weeks from now and they are hoping to be open before then. What I'm asking for is a conditional approval of this, as you will -- and you will state that in your motion, to conditionally approve it upon them getting a certificate of occupancy from our building department and that allows us the authority to hold the license until we get that certificate of occupancy. Rountree: Bill, do you have any other comments? Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, we have done these on occasions on these rare occasions usually like this where there is a gap in your meetings, so that they won't delay them opening, but we are going to have to hold the license until it is all completed. Rountree: Any questions? I need a motion. Bird: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve the new beer wine license for Maverick store 410 at 1630 East McMillan Road, and to release this license to and upon proof of certificate of occupancy from the building department. Zaremba: Second. Rountree: Okay. Moved and seconded to approve this item. Roll call vote. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 20 of 62 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 2. Update of Outdoor Sales and Temporary Uses Ordinance and Update of Fireworks Ordinance Rountree: Next item is 6-B-2, update on the outdoor sales and temporary use ordinance. Jaycee, Anna, and, Joe, are you going to have something to say now? Oh, okay. Thank you. Holman: Okay. President Rountree, there is documents in your packets and it includes a two page memo from Emily Kane from our legal department and a draft ordinance of some of the changes, excuse me, that they would like to make and I'm going to let Mr. Nary and Mrs. Canning probably take the lead on this, because I think they are a little bit more well informed, probably, than I am. Canning: President Rountree, I'll go ahead and take a stab at this.. What we are looking for tonight is a general nod that this is an appropriate direction to -- for staff to go and develop an ordinance for this. This is not a UDC ordinance, so it will not be going through the planning commission, it will just come straight up to the Mayor and Council for approval. The out -- the memo outlines the -- the genesis of this ordinance amendment and it was a discrepancy noticed by one of our applicants between the fireworks ordinance and the temporary use ordinance. One, basically, allows the firework stands to operate on dirt surfaces, the temporary use did not. So, what this does is kind of makes both codes equal and it does open it up for dirt surfaces. In the summer we ask that they put a soil amendment down, it's an environmentally friendly material that binds the soil to prevent dust from kicking up when people drive on it and in the winter we ask for sediment traps to keep the cars from dragging mud out onto the street. So, that was the primary genesis of this. There is also a couple other things. There is one regarding indoor uses. There is some issues regarding mobile sales unit licenses and site plans and, again, those are mostly just on the clean-up side of things is recognizing tweaks that need to be made. The indoor events was a whole new one that we realized wasn't covered under the temporary use, it was just outdoor uses. So, with that I can answer any questions you will have. You will have an opportunity to review this again in detail as it comes to you for a decision. Rountree: Thank you. Bill, do you have anything to add to that? Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, I think Mrs. Canning's covered it. I mean I think the primary beginning of this was getting some consistency between the temporary sales unit and the firework stands. There are -- there may be other issues that we will be addressing later on some of these, but these are ones that really need to get done now, primarily because of the Christmas tree sales that will be going on in a few months, that's where the -- I think the real discussion began on this. And so we would like to bring these forward for your review, so -- Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 21 of 62 Rountree: Thank you. Holman: And, President Rountree and Members of the Council, there was one other item in here that we are also talking about and addressing at this time, which is noted in Mrs. Kane's memo regarding the mobile sales unit licenses, the major change is we used to have an umbrella license, meaning you could have one person come in from a business and have several people working underneath them under that same license and this allows for us to -- we are changing it so every person has to have a license, which allows them annually to have abackground -- a full background check, because, obviously, door to door sales we want to make sure that they've had full background checks at least annually before we reissue the license, so -- Rountree: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Mr. President. On the door to door sales, are they issued anything that they should be carrying with them if -- if a person in a house should ask for city identification or proof that they have obtained a permit? Holman: President Rountree, Members of the Council, Councilman Zaremba, yes, they are issued -- it looks a lot like our -- our beer and wine licenses that we have. We don't at this time have a photo identification card, but that's where we are hoping that we could head in the future. But currently they would have the paper license that's signed by us in the clerk's office that is numbered and they could also -- a resident could ask for their ID and this license, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. President, question for Anna or Bill. I was just kind of curious -- if you could give me an example for a temporary indoor event. So, you have a big building that might not be in use, might be vacant or something like that, a retail spot and it's going to be used for another activity and they would have to get a permit for that if it's -- if it's a commercial building I guess here is my question -- if it's a commercial building, it's vacant, and someone puts in a temporary commercial activity, that's still under that permitted activity; is that -- am I correct in that? Canning: Yes and no. If -- President Rountree, Council Members, Council Member Hoaglun, if it's the same use then that would be fine. For example, the old Saltzer Medical building up the street, if that were to be temporarily used for a vaccine clinic or something like that, then, that would be fine, because that was the old use, that's the new use. If that were to happen in City Hall, City Hall wasn't approved as a medical office building before, so that would be a new use. Or we had an instance where an entertainment facility wanted to have an auction. It's all indoors, there was no problem, but it wasn't the approved use on the site, so the third instance we had an empty shell where somebody wanted to go in for the weekend and do a temporary event, but there was really no approved use in there just yet or it was retail and this wasn't a retail activity. So, we have had a few things come up and it would be better to have the fire Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 22 of 62 department and the police department have an opportunity to review the proposed use to make sure it's okay. So, that's the intent. If it's already approved for that use, then, it would just go forward. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. Nary: Mr. President? Mr. President, Members of the Council, the other thing it's really -- it's trying to put the indoor events that are temporary on the same setting or footing as the outdoor events that are temporary, because as Mrs. Canning said, it wasn't very clear in the code that if you had a -- a vacant building and you were going to open a Halloween store on whether that was covered versus if you were going to have a Halloween activity event outside, it would be covered. So, it's really trying to make sure that we are consistent, because we still have the same issues as Mrs. Canning stated for police and fire and -- as such, just making sure there is adequate facilities, adequate restrooms, adequate parking, those kinds of things. Zaremba: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Even in a situation where you were talking about a building that was already approved for that use, if it had been vacant and abandoned for some time, I could see reason to have police and fire inspect it to make sure that even during the temporary use, even if that use would already be approved, that the sprinkler system still works. Canning: We could tie it to abandoned. It's not abandoned until a year later -- a year after use. So, that gives you a year of just being vacant, which would probably be fine. Zaremba: Thank you. Rountree: Any other comments? Mr. Coriell, I know you're here this evening and you are the individual who pointed out the inconsistency with respect to fireworks and -- and other uses. Did you have a comment you wanted to make about that tonight? Coriell: No. Mr. President. It seems to me that staff has done an excellent job of starting the review process and that's all I was requesting. Rountree: Very good. Thank you for being here this evening and you will have an opportunity to review that in a final ordinance form as it comes before this body for consideration probably in the next month or so. Zaremba: Yes, sir. C. Legal Department 1. Cell Phone Policy Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 23 of 62 Rountree: Thank you. Next item on the agenda, Legal Department. Mr. Nary. Nary: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. The first one I have for discussion -- and part of the reason it's coming before you, we had planned on bringing it at the workshop that was canceled and the Finance Department would like to consider moving towards this policy of beginning with the new fiscal year, which begins next week. There are two policies, actually, in your packet. One is, essentially, a clean up of an existing policy on use of city equipment and what we did was simply remove -- cleaned up some of the language to make it a little clearer as to what we mean, but, secondarily, to remove phones -- cell phones, desk phones, both city issued and personal cell phones, out of the policy, out of that one, and, basically, put it in its own place. The purpose of this policy is to be in compliance with the IRS regulations that require that we have an accountable plan when we issue cell phones to folks and how we also account for reimbursement of cell phones. When we started this process we really were trying to look at having one or the other. We have had both city issued cell phones, as well as personal cell phones that we have reimbursed employees for use for at least the last five years. We thought in the process of going through this that we would find there was one system better than the other and, then, we could have a system for everyone and what we found is that really isn't the case. Depending on the department and depending on the use of the cell phones, it isn't very practical from the director's standpoint to have only one system in place and so I will just go over it with you very briefly. Basically, the policy is addressing both personal or city issued cell phones. It also addresses desk phones. The desk phones are very simple. We've really cleaned up a lot of language. Most people don't use the desk phone to call long distance anymore, most people don't use desk phone for much of anything, other than just local calling during the day. So, we really tried to just clean up that language and just made it, again, clearer to folks that all of the phones that are city phones are certainly not theirs, that they don't have any privacy right to the information that -- of who they called or any of those types of things on those phones. On the cell phones we really found we have actually three different types of uses of cell phones. One is phones that are issued to a particular location or a vehicle or a position. We have employees that are on call and part of their on-call duties or responsibilities are to carry an on-call phone for contact. The phone isn't theirs. It's only used for business. It isn't something they carry around as a normal part of their work day or their work equipment or we have phones that are at a location, like at the splash pad or we have phones that are assigned to a vehicle, like to a fire truck. So, they are not assigned to anyone in particular, they are really just assigned to a specific location. Those types of phones the IRS is fine with the way this is designed, the IRS regulations are fine with -- basically, they are for business purposes. We did consider and we didn't find in those circumstances with those types of phones that we had any abuse of personal use. For example, if a firefighter is at the scene of a fire and during a break from a fire were to use that to call home to say I'm not coming home, because I'm at this fire, that's a business purpose. That's fine from the IRS standpoint. That's about the only use these things get. Same thing with an on-call person, when they are using that and they have to call back home on a weekend, because they are out on another call to advise their Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 24 of 62 family they are not going to be home, because of whatever they are doing, again, that's a business purpose, the IRS is fine with that. We don't find those to be abused. They are really easy to track. Those phones are separated out by the department and they are pretty easy to monitor those types of things. We issue certain phones to individual employees, again, for business purposes, because the need for access to them is very limited and it generally -- it generally is for during the work day. Generally not for off hours off shift. So, those types of phones that we issue to employees, the IRS would allow you to use a personal cell phone during that period of time, you just have to pay taxes for that. So, there is -- what our policy was designed to was to allow that to be used for the employees, so that we don't have employees carrying two cell phones and having to monitor all day whether or not they are on their phone or a city phone, if they are using it during work, but it does require that it be assessed a taxable benefit and that's based on the percentage of use. There you can, basically, monitor for a short period of time, gather that information and, basically, the employee does have to pay for that minimal use. Again, as most of you know that use cellular phones, most of the calling period is during the day that you're paying for. The off period times you don't pay anything for. Most of the plans that we have have pooled minutes, so there is not really an issue of going over the minutes or anything like that. Most plans anymore allow long distance as the same as local calling, so there is no additional cost for those type of things. The last is personal cell phones. We did find that for some folks that it was more practical to use their cell phone and reimburse them and what was Finance's desire and what the IRS prefers is that, again, those are taxable benefits to the employees. If they want that, it is just another form of income to the employee, so the employee does have to declare that as income, it does go on their paycheck as just another form of income. They do have to pay taxes on that. Finance's only request on that that is compliance with IRS regulations is that those amounts be set. What they don't want is they vary from month to month, one month it's ten dollars, another month it's 20 dollars. You can't exceed the cell phone amount. That's another thing the IRS, obviously, is very cautious of. You can't reimburse someone 30 dollars for a cell phone plan that only requires them to pay 20. Again, it's a taxable benefit to the employee. The few that we have in the departments -- usually those are senior management folks, some department directors receive reimbursement, it isn't usually the rank and file employees. The last one is right now sort of a gap in the IRS regulations is the Blackberry or smart phone device. They don't consider that at the moment to be a phone. They consider that to be a data device. That doesn't require that that be counted -- considered as income. What the directors felt was that most of the people that carry those, which is, again, a very limited amount of folks, it is only generally directors and the senior management personnel that carry a smart phone or a Blackberry device. They generally only carry it for the city's business. They don't have any other value to most employees to carry those for personal use, they can use them -- they can use their other devices for that. So, those are ones that we can reimburse and are not taxable, because, again, they are a business purpose, no different than your desk phone or your desk computer. We don't tax for that use as well. So, we tried to -- we tried to make sure we were compliant with the IRS regulation, which, of course, was Finance's primary concern. Secondarily, we tried to come up with a policy that was more workable for all the departments and we did try in meeting with the departments Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 25 of 62 on this committee besides myself and Rita, the comptroller, was the police chief, the fire chief, and the parks director and the public works directors. Those have, obviously, the most amount of phones that are out there and so we wanted to make sure we were trying to cover all the uses, as well as what the IRS requires that we have employees have to pay for, so -- do you have any questions? Rountree: I see none. Action tonight, are you going to bring that -- Nary: We will bring this with a resolution for approval. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. Nary: Thank you. 2. MDC Encroachment Easement Rountree: It's interesting and I hope it's interesting to you folks as well. You're not the only ones that get hassled by the IRS. Bill, next item. Nary: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. This is a very simple one. This is an encroachment easement that's on your packet. This is, essentially, a compromise that was worked out with MDC when Meridian Road -- or, excuse me, when Main Street was realigned and redone, unusually what does not normally happen in this -- in our city or in the ACHD area, is we make the road smaller. Normally we make the road larger. Well, when we made the road smaller the sewer line runs -- ran adjacent -- or to the edge of the roadway adjacent to the speedway along Main Street. When we made the road smaller and moved the sidewalk out and the pathway out and put the -- both the planting area, as well as the -- as well as the decorative street lighting along that, we built it on top of the sewer line. So, there was a -- there was a discussion or a dispute between whether comments were sufficient or whether that was known beforehand and whether that was or not, once it was built there wasn't another location in which to move them. The problem was is that the lighting was done and designed specifically for that pedestrian pathway that goes through there, it was built taller if you recall, it was built in a manner to be able to light up that whole area much better and there isn't another spot to move those lights and so this was a compromise with the Public Works Department and MDC. Basically, this is an easement that needs your approval to allow that encroachment. They did work out on how that would be done in the future if there was a necessity for -- excuse me -- if there is a necessity for repair of the sewer line, they are going to have to move those. MDC would help pay for that cost of removal and, then, we could be able to fix the sewer line and, then, put the lights back. So, we were looking for -- for approval of that. Rountree: Comments? Questions? If not, I need a motion on Resolution 09-070. Bird: Mr. President? Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 26 of 62 Rountree: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve Resolution 09-070 and for the President to sign and the Clerk to attest. Hoaglun: Second. Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve the resolution for the encroachment. Roll call vote. Holman: President Rountree, Members of the Council, Mr. Nary, that is -- I guess I'm a little bit confused. I want to make sure we are making the right motion here, because that is actually MDC's resolution that they have already approved. Are we approving their resolution or are we approving the agreement that's attached to the resolution? Nary: We are approving the agreement. I'm sorry. Holman: Okay. Nary: You're correct. We are approving the agreement. Bird: And the motion changes to the agreement -- Nary: Yes. Bird: -- to their Resolution 09-070. Hoaglun: Second agrees. Rountree: Roll call. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 3. Recommendations from Solid Waste Advisory Committee Rountree: Next item, recommendation from Solid Waste Advisory. Nary: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. This last item -- we are coming to the tail end of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee and some of the funds that are available for community projects. This may be the last one that might be from the Solid Waste Committee, as a matter of fact. These are for reusable bags for educational products for the Meridian Fire Department. They do educational outreach programs into the schools and such and what they have found was, of course, in the Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 27 of 62 past they used plastic bags, they found it would be much environmentally appropriate to use reusable bags and what they ask is that if the -- the solid waste committee be willing to recommend funding a portion of that cost and, basically, if I understand -- I haven't seen a photo, but the bags will, essentially, have a Meridian logo on one side and on the other side will be a recycling message on and the committee felt that was appropriate. It's $571.25 was the recommendation to move that forward for your approval. Rountree: Questions? Comments? Need a motion. Bird: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve the SWAC committee's recommendation of -- to the Meridian Fire Department for the sum of $571.25. Hoaglun: Second. Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Solid Waste Advisory Committee's recommendation. Roll call vote. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. D. Sanitary Services 1. Trash Rates for Fiscal Year 2010 Rountree: Next item, Sanitary Services, trash rates for fiscal 2010. Mr. Sedlacek. Sedlacek: Mr. President, Members of the Council, I'm here tonight seeking your direction on what to do with trash rates. We were here in June to discuss this issue. We also talked about moving forward with our automated collection. We decided to do that. The issue before us -- it was in a June 18th memorandum. I have a copy of that if you -- if you want me to hand it out again, but I'm sure you all remember it. The issue is the CPI is negative, which means we have to reduce our rates somewhat. We were hoping to use that to be -- to offset landfill rate increases that we thought were coming. I went to the county commissioners meeting about that issue and there -- there was no decision at all on that. Very chaotic. The day after the meeting the landfill director retired -- or handed in his retirement papers anyway. I don't think there is going to be a rate increase this year. So, the question before us, then, is should we take the small rate decrease, it's ten cents per house per month, or not. I understand the issue that occurred with the water and sewer rate decrease and, then, it was increased and explaining that to the public and that sort of thing. Our contract states that we adjust in Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 28 of 62 October. Last year we didn't adjust in October, it was November 15th, because we wanted to coincide with a landfill rate increase last year. That caused us to defer a rate increase by a month and a half that we weren't able to take. I don't know, these things are all sort of mish-mashing around a bit. I'm just seeking direction tonight of how you'd like to proceed, if you want to decrease rates slightly, then, increase them -- we could hold off on the slight rate decrease, wait for the county to raise rates perhaps next year and perhaps they won't and we will be bifurcating the rates in May when we do automated collection, we will have a split rate structure. Hoaglun: That was my question, Mr. President, when we go to the new system next spring what -- and there is going to be different charges, we are no longer unlimited, it depends on the size of the can, different things like that. Everything gets changed -- Sedlacek: Correct. Hoaglun: -- in many ways. So, I was kind of curious as to that impact and changes in rates right now, there will be changes in rates, but that's going to be next spring. Sedlacek: Members of the Council, Councilman Hoaglun, I think that the sense was that we wanted to -- the Council has always been very sensitive to adjusting rates the least amount of times. The constant, you know, changing of rates is a problem, even if it's small amounts. The rates will change in May. That's set in stone. We will be changing. That's a rate change that will occur, there is no doubt about that. Hoaglun: And to follow up, Mr. President, Steve, are we absolutely certain there will be no increase -- landfill increases, tipping fee increases out there? I mean -- Sedlacek: Members of the Council and Councilman Hoaglun, there is no way to know that. What was once a difficult guess is now impossible. They are in a very difficult financial situation. They don't -- whether they realize it or not, I don't know. It may simply be -- what -- one thing to remember is that 2010 is an election year and I'm pretty sure .there won't be any rate increases in an election year. Anyway, Mr. Nary's on this agenda item, too. I don't know if he has anything to add to this. Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, the Solid Waste Advisory Committee did discuss this proposal. Basically, under our contract agreement with SSC, it required annual lease review of the rates and consider any adjustments. They are entitled to a rate increase and the public is entitled to review it for a rate decrease. Because the rate increase was so small and we anticipate that if -- if nothing else, that we will have to reevaluate the rates and implement new rates with the automated collection, which you have put into place for the spring, the recommendation from the committee was to not adjust the rates now, to, then, readjust them in the spring. It is confusing to the public and the decrease amount was so minimal, that we felt the recommendation should be to hold steady at the current rate now, consider any increase in the future, but also with the decrease that was considered for this point, because the consumer price index for the northwest was slightly decreased this year. So, that was the recommendation from Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 29 of 62 the Solid Waste Committee. I would agree with Mr. Sedlacek, it's very difFcult to -- to know whether the county fees will change, so we could wait three months or six months or nine months or 12 months and it may or may not. But we know our rates will change come spring, because the automated collection program will change. So, that was the recommendation of the committee, was to wait until those went into place and, then, hopefully, we'd have one rate increase at a time. Rountree: Other questions? Zaremba: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Just commenting on whether we could reduce the rate or something. I -- I'm sympathetic to the idea that it would be a wonderful thing to do for the citizens, even if it's two cents or ten cents or whatever. I do think, though, that to be responsible we have to understand that the county has been talking about raising their landfill rates for quite awhile and they may just one day discover it's an emergency and the rates are up and as much as I would like to give ten cents off to every citizen, I think we need to preserve that, because I suspect we are going to get a surprise at sometime. I can't see how they can ignore what's been going on with them. One man's opinion. Rountree: Other comments? So, the general consensus is just the status quo? Bird: Come back in May. Rountree: Come back in May? Zaremba: Uh-huh. Rountree: We will see what the county does and, then, we will have a rate structure as it relates to the automated collection. And just for clarification, there will no rate changes as it relates to the automation phase that will go in the first part of October with respect to recycling. Bird: Exactly. Sedlacek: Yeah. Members of the Council, President Rountree, that is correct, there is no rate change related to the October changes for the recycling collection. I'd be happy to come back in May with the revised rates related to the second phase of automation. Also sooner if the landfill -- or the county were to change landfill rates. Zaremba: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Zaremba. Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 30 of 62 Zaremba: While I would also say if the intent is to implement it in May, we probably should be talking about it in February or -- Sedlacek: Oh. Certainly. Yes. Rountree: Do you have the direction you need? Sedlacek: I have the direction. Thank you. Rountree: MUBS? Thanks, Steve. Item 7: Items Moved From Consent Agenda: Rountree: No items were removed from the Consent Agenda. Item 8: Action Items: A. Public Hearing for Treasure Valley Veterinary Hospital by Rick Shackleford CPA 09-004 Description: Public Hearing: CPA 09-004 Request for Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation on 2.52 acres of land from Low Density Residential to Office for Treasure Valley Veterinary Hospital by Rick Shackleford - 2600 S. Meridian Road: B. Public Hearing for Treasure Valley Veterinary Hospital by Rick Shackleford AZ 09-002 Description: Public Hearing: AZ 09-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.52 acres from RUT in Ada County to L-O (Limited Office) for Treasure Valley Veterinary Hospital by Rich Shackleford - 2600 S. Meridian Road: C. Public Hearing for Treasure Valley Veterinary Hospital by Rick Shackleford VAR 09-003 Description: Public Hearing: VAR 09-003 Request for Variance to UDC 11-3H-46.1.c and 11-3H-4B.2 to allow the 2 existing full access driveways to the site from State Highway 69 to remain on a temporary basis until such time as the remainder of the property develops. At such time, access to SH 69 will be closed and access to the property will be provided via Edmonds Court for Treasure Valley Veterinary Hospital by Rick Shackleford - 2600 S. Meridian Road: Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 31 of 62 D. Public Hearing for Treasure Valley Veterinary Hospital by Rick Shackleford CUP 09-007 Description: Public Hearing: CUP 09-007 Request for Conditional Use Permit fora 1,504 square foot addition to the existing 2,112 square foot veterinary hospital in a proposed L-O district for Treasure Valley Veterinary Hospital by Rick Shackleford - 2600 S. Meridian Road: Rountree: We are now in Item No. 8. 8-A, public hearing on Treasure Valley Veterinary Hospital and I will open the public hearings for Item 8-A, B, C and D and the -- and if the applicant is here, you will follow staffs presentation. So, staff. Anna or -- Wafters: Thank you, Council President Rountree, Councilmen. The applications before you are an annexation and zoning request for 2.52 acres of land from RUT in Ada County, to L-O, limited office. A Conditional Use Permit for ahundred -- or, excuse me, 1,504 square foot addition to the existing 2,112 square foot veterinary hospital. A Comprehensive Plan map amendment to change the future land use map designation on the subject property from low density residential to office and a variance to UDC 11- 3H-4B-1C and 11-3H-4B-2, to allow the two existing full access driveways to the site from State Highway 69 to remain on a temporary basis until the remainder of the site develops. The subject property is located at 2600 South Meridian Road on the east side of South Meridian Road, approximately a third of a mile north of Victory Road. Here is a vicinity map and zoning of the property and surrounding area. And an aerial view of the property. The veterinary hospital received CUP approval in Ada County in 1985. Because an expansion of the site is proposed, hook up to urban services is required. For this reason the applicant is requesting annexation into the city, a CUP for expansion of the site, and a land use map amendment from low density residential to office and a variance for access. A site plan was submitted that shows the location of the existing facility. The proposed addition. Existing access points. And associated parking, landscape, refuse areas. The Council recommendation was approval at their August 20th, 2009, public hearing. Summary of Commission public hearing, in favor of the application was Ross Erickson. No one spoke in opposition or commented on the application. Written testimony was received from the applicant in response to the staff report. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the timing and location of the cross-access easement to the property to the north and clarifications and modifications to the development agreement requested by the applicant. Key .Commission changes to the staff recommendation was to clarify in the development agreement provision E, M, J, the landscape buffers along the east, south, and undeveloped portion of the west boundary, including the ten foot wide multi-use pathway will not be required with expansion of the veterinary clinic, but will be required in the future when the remainder of the site develops. The applicant has submitted building elevations of the proposed changes and addition to the existing facility. Outstanding issues for City Council, the timing of the requirement for across-access easement agreement with the property to the north, DA provision G. The applicant is unsure of where their cross-access will ultimately be located until the remainder of the site develops and does not wish to grant Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 32 of 62 a blanket easement at this time. City attomey Mr. Baird suggested the following language: Relocation reservation. This easement is being granted prior to the development of the grantor's property. The grantor has no obligation to make improvements upon the grantor's property for the easement. Grantor hereby reserves the right to relocate the easement upon the grantor's property either before or after the development of the grantor's property upon 30 days prior written notice to the grantee. The parties, then, agree to execute, deliver, and record an amendment to this document to evidence the relocation. However, the applicant is not in agreement with the language as proposed by the city attomey and will address this issue. A response to the staff report was submitted by the applicant. Staff will stand for any questions the Council may have at this time. Rountree: Any questions at this time? Bird: I have none at this time. Rountree: Applicant? Good evening. State your name and address for the record. Erickson: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Ross Erickson, 9543 West Emerald in Boise. I'm representing the Treasure Valley vet hospital on the applications that staff had referenced. I'd like to thank Sonya for working with us on this. There is quite a few applications for quite a small project here that we have got in front of you tonight. Some of you may remember from back in -- I think it was late 2005 or early 2006 we were in talking to the city. At that time the vet hospital was proposing to do a new hospital on the site further to the east of the existing hospital and we were in talking about constructing that in the county, but getting city water service and ultimately that had -- that project had fell through and since that time the hospital has -- is desirous to do an expansion interest of keeping the cost down for the project and doing a remodel on the existing facility to help meet their immediate needs at the location. Like I said, we have got several applications that are in. They are all -- they are all tied together. The conditional use is required, because the veterinary hospital is not a permitted use in an L-O zone. And the L-O zone was not -- I didn't -- it's quite different from the land use maps and maybe the Comprehensive Plan map amendment to request that. So, that's kind of the nature of our request. And as staff indicated; the Treasure Valley vet hospital has been functioning as a permitted use in Ada County at this location for -- for quite some time. Staff has findings presented in the staff report that supports the land use change designation to office and we think that the office designation is kind of a natural fit for this location. The property is bordered to the -- well, immediately to the west by Highway 69 and, then, further to the west by a C-G zoning designation. To the north is L-O. To the east it's R-8. And to the south is rural transition in Ada County. So, it's likely that that parcel to the south will probably be an office use or commercial use of some sort in the future. We did have a neighborhood meeting to give the neighbors an opportunity to comment on our applications and nobody showed up to provide any comment, nor have we received any -- any written comments. I think -- actually, Itake that back, someone did show up, but it was to buy worm pills for their cat I believe. It looks like we have the site plan up here. Just real quickly, as Sonya Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 33 of 62 touched on, there was quite a bit of discussion on the cross-access easement at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing and just -- I wanted to touch on that real quick. Sonya read the language that we had proposed in our staff report response letter that we had sent over, actually, just this moming to the city, so, granted, the city attomey probably hasn't had a lot of time to take a look at that, but they might have been tracking some a-mails back and forth between Gary Allen, who is also representing the Treasure Valley vet hospital and the city attomey and I think the last go around we had proposed some modification to the language and we are waiting to -- you know, maybe we could ask Bill tonight if he had some input as far as what the most recent, I guess, update is on the change to that condition. So, maybe when I get done with -- with my presentation we can just have you speak towards that, Bill. Nary: Sure. Erickson: Looking at the site plan, you can see that -- where the existing building is located it's about -- about just over 2,100 square feet and we are proposing to do a 1,504 square foot addition, for a total of 3,600 square feet. The way the project is sited it just mainly to the extreme northwest comer, just because that's where the existing building is and that makes sense for the addition. It's our intent to maintain the existing access configuration for a couple different reasons. Number one, it's already there and it's functioning and the customers are all familiar with how it works and, number two, it provides for an emergency vehicle circulation through the site without having to build a -- I guess a fire department approved cul-de-sac on the site, which gets pretty big and I guess at this point we don't know where that should ultimately go, since we are not proposing a master plan development for this site. And, then, number three, because it's -- it's cost prohibitive to build the access road from the southerly -- I guess line of our site improvements down to Edmonds Court and further I guess we don't know specifically where that is going to go, since we are not proposing to develop the entire site at this time. In the staff report response letter that I had sent to the city this moming, I kind of went through some of the items on the variance request, you know, there are several different -- or I guess three different categories that Council needs to make findings on in order to grant a variance and I have provided some language for those. Just real quickly I want to touch on some of the coordination that we have done with the site layout and we did discuss the access layout and the site layout with Pam Gould at ITD. She's the access coordinator for District Three and Pam did provide some comments that, you know, I can just read into the record here that we understand that the applicant's request for a variance is based on the fact that the current proposed changes would be to the existing veterinary office. We have no objection to the continued use of the existing access points for the expansion of the veterinary offices. However, once further development on the site occurs, alt access would be directed -- or should be directed, rather, to Edmonds Court and that's, basically, what we are requesting in our variance request. It's not apermanent -- probably I guess approval of our access locations to Highway 69, but rather a temporary approval for this existing facility to continue to utilize those access points, with the understanding that, you know, once the site develops at some future date that you take a hard look at abandoning those and taking access to Edmonds Court, since that seems to be the flavor of both Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 34 of 62 ACRD and ITD and I'm sure the city shares that position. I guess just real quickly on the -- back to the three different I guess categories of findings that need to be determined by Council in order to grant the variance. The first one is that the variance shall not grant a right ar special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district. We think that by granting this variance that that is -- that is not occurring, you're not granting a new special right, simple because our request is for continued use of existing approaches. We are not asking you to grant us new approaches at these locations. They are currently functioning and I just want to stress that the variance isn't for request of permanent site access, that we understand that it will be temporary if it's granted. And I think it's also important to kind of put this in -- the whole project into perspective. I explained briefly going into this that our intent was to do an addition remodel project, as opposed to a new facility. The idea is, obviously, to save some cost and utilize some of the existing facilities. This square footage of development on this site is -- accounts for about 3,600 square feet of what the entire site could support. This entire site could support about 19,000 square foot of office. So, I guess if you break them down to percentage, we are proposing to improve about 19 percent of the overall amount of the site that could be developed. So, we are not -- I guess the reason why I point that out is we are not trying to -- we have no intent to develop this whole site, we just just want to do a small portion and that's kind of the nature of our request. You know, it could be argued that -- that by approving this variance that we are actually -- that we are actually -- you know, we are not granting an additional right, but we are actually putting an additional restriction on the existing right, being that it will now be classified as temporary. Right now they are just full points access to the site. So, by granting the variance it's now going to classify these as temporary. So, it's actually putting a further restriction on the access points, rather than granting a new privilege or right. I just wanted to kind of share that with you. The second category to grant the variance is that the variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site. Staff actually made this finding. It, basically, is a financial hardship. As I explained earlier, the two accesses already exist. There is a lot less cost associated with paving those and approving them for temporary use, as opposed to constructing a new road from I guess the southerly line of our site improvements down to Edmonds Court and, then, also building a cul-de-sac to provide fire department an emergency vehicle turnaround I should say. Since our original application we made, the applicant has been working with Anderson Construction, who is a local contractor, on a design build for this project and we asked Anderson to take a stab at the cost associated with just constructing that road, the cul-de-sac and, then, appurtenant I guess drainage and site improvements that would be required to -- to make that I guess adjustment to the site plan. And the numbers came back at almost a hundred thousand dollars to put those together. So, it's -- the cost of these improvements is really disproportionate to what the scope and the scale of what we envision this project to be. The intent is for it to be, again, a remodel, an addition project, not an overall, you know, site development project where we are going to come and try to start selling lots and things, because that's not going to occur. And the last component in order to grant the variance, again, was that the variance shall be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staffs findings was it could be detrimental. We argue that it's not. We had requested crash data from ITD and in review of that data we didn't note -- or there were no I guess records of crashes Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 35 of 62 associated with tuming movements at or near close proximity to these existing points of access. So, historically, this location hasn't been I guess a hot spot, if you will, for accesses or problems with actions related to tuming movements. And they also want to point out that it's important to note that the safety of an access point, there is, you know, more to it than just being on a state highway, it's -- you need to look at the angle of approach, site distance, and I guess additional approach and a couple other things that need to be considered and for this specific scenario those are actually all positives. The approach -- or the approach that both locations are at 90 degree angles to the state highway. So, that is a positive. The site distance is -- is in excess of what would be required if you look at the pictures that I provided in our response to staff report, you can kind of get a visual representation as to what it looks like out there when you're staged to make a right or left tum. And, then, also the -- the access facing on the west side of Highway 69. I have included a diagram that kind of shows where the nearest access points were along the west side and the closest access on the west side is at 1,760 feet north and that's at West Calderwood Street and the closest one to the south is at West Maestra Street, which is about 550 feet south. So, there is quite a bit of spacing and that's probably why you're not seeing, you know, crash reports on the accident data, since the -- the condition actually is, I guess, safer than it -- you know, some other situations along the state highway. So, I guess with that I'll stand for any questions. I don't have much more, I guess other than to answer any questions you may have. Rountree: Any questions for Mr. Erickson at this point? Zaremba: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Is this veterinary hospital a small animal facility or are people -- might people be likely to arrive pulling a horse trailer? Shackleford: If I may answer that question, sir. Rountree: If you would come up here and state your name and address for the record. Shackleford: My name is Rick Shackleford. My home address is 2147 West Southfork in Eagle. To answer your question, it is -- we do not see large animals at that facility, so there are no horse trailers coming in. Zaremba: Thank you. Rountree: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. And we will take some public testimony and have you back to wrap up. This is a public hearing and I have one individual who signed up to testify and they have indicated they are for. Gary Allen. And -- no testimony, you're just in favor of the actions. Anybody else wish to provide Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 36 of 62 testimony this evening? Seeing none, I need either some discussion or an action on the hearing. Hoaglun: Mr. President, I had a question for legal counsel, if I may ask that right now. Rountree: Okay. Hoaglun: And that's -- we have dueling lawyers language here on -- as it pertains to the cross-access easements and it appears to me that both of -- there is agreement that they are willing to have the cross-access agreement, it's a matter of -- and it looks like both are saying at a future point we can do that when the -- when the future development is being planned, then, they would locate that cross-access. What's -- so what is different about the language that I read in the two documents? Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Council Member Hoaglun, the difference really is when do you record the easement. What is being proposed by the applicant is similar language that was allowed on the southern piece, which allows them to record the easement at the point in time they are actually going to construct the cross-access. So, what the applicant's asking is to have that same opportunity. The problem that we found, since we have allowed -- since we had allowed that we have allowed it on other ones, is, again, that tracking those types of agreements in the future. So, our -- our desire is to record it now. They can relocate it in the future, because that, really, is what we are -- that's really what the concern is. If you record it in one location today is it going to be problematic to move it. If we record it today with the notice that we are to move it, then, in our opinion that satisfies that condition, but that is what the applicant - that's the main difference in what's being requested. The planning staff -- and, again, we have allowed it both ways. We have mandated it be recorded now, depending on the project and the circumstances we have allowed them on occasions -- we have found that keeping track of them, the ones that are going to record it at some point in the future, really requires a lot more staff tracking of it than if it's recorded now. Then, it's clear it exists, it's clear that it may be moved to another location, they can negotiate that difference between the parties as to where they'd like to locate it on the southern piece when it develops, but the desire was by staff is to have it done now. Hoaglun: Thank you. Rountree: Mr. Nary? Nary: Yes, sir. Rountree: Couldn't that issue be addressed in the development agreement that's also recorded with the approval or action taken? Nary: Yes. I think we could probably do it. If that was the Council's direction, we could put in a development agreement. Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 37 of 62 Rountree: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Zaremba: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I -- kind of lumping the accesses and the cross-access to the property to the north and the eventual access to Edmonds Court all in the same subject, I'm assuming -- and maybe planning will need to answer that, but the -- I'm assuming that the future vision is that the property to the north of this will also need to take access to Edmonds Court through this property and that's the need both to identify the current accesses as temporary and to get the cross-access to the north and I fully support that. Whatever solves that, if we can do it as a development agreement, plus the temporary variance, that would work forme. Rountree: Further comments? Mr. Erickson, if you -- any further comments from the applicant? They are debating. All right. Allen: Thank you. Rountree: Name and address for the record. Allen: My name is Gary Allen. My address is 601 West Bannock in Boise. I'm the project lawyer for Treasure Valley and I just wanted to address the issue, Councilman Rountree, of the -- of the cross-access and this issue of recording the easement. We would have no objection to changing the language that we proposed to allow the cross-access easement to be recorded now. What we -- our concem is that it shouldn't be effective until we have a reciprocal easement with the other property owner. But that's just a matter of tweaking the language. So, we think we can work that out. Actually, we had proposed that language late this afternoon, so I think we are all on the same page as far as that goes. Happy to work with your staff and Council to work out the details of that, but I think everybody's thinking about the same things there, so we -- we would like -- we would prefer our base language that we had proposed, because it -- it tailored a little bit more to this project, but I think it amounts to the same thing and I think that with that one change we can address Mr. Nary's concem. Nary: Okay. Rountree: Thank you. Any questions? Bird: Mr. President. Mr. Nary, do you have a -- have any problem with that? Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, I'm reading the language here that Mr. Allen had sent at the end of the day and Ithink -- I think we can -- we can go forward with this and we will be fine. We will work it out. Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 38 of 62 Bird: Do we -- do we add this to the development agreement? Nary: I don't have a problem with that in the development agreement, unless they do. Zaremba: Can we reference it in the development agreement? Bird: You bet you can. Rountree: Mr. Allen is going to address those questions. Allen: Thank you. Gary Allen. 601 West Bannock again. I think the way this will work is that if you accept the language that we are talking about for condition G, that becomes a condition in the development agreement and that's a condition that requires us to execute an actual easement of the next step, so that it's in both the development agreement and there is an actual agreement that's recorded -easement that's recorded. Excuse me. Rountree: Bill, do you endorse that approach? Nary: Yes. That will work. That will be fine. Rountree: Any further questions, comments? Any further testimony? Seeing none, I need a motion on -- Bird: Mr. President? Rountree: -- the hearing. Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the public hearings on Items A, B, C and D. Zaremba: Second. Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on Item 8-A, B, C and D. All those in favor? Opposed same sign? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: All right. I need -- the first -- first item we will have to do as an individual, because anything that follows can't be done until the amendment to the map is approved or denied. So, I need a motion. Zaremba: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Zaremba. Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 39 of 62 Zaremba: I move we approve Item A, which is CPA 09-004, request for amendment to Comprehensive Plan future land use map. Hoaglun: Second. Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 8-A. Roll call vote. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: And we have Items B and D that could be acted on together if you wish. And Item C should be dealt with separately, I believe. Hoaglun: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move that we approve AZ 09-002 and CUP 09-007. Rountree: It's been moved and seconded -- I need a second. Need a second. Bird: I second. Rountree: Moved and seconded to approve Items 8-B and D. Zaremba: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Would the makers of the motion include -- to include staff and applicant comments? Hoaglun: And I would include the staff comments for that -- Rountree: Second agree? Bird: Second agrees. Rountree: Okay. Roll call vote. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: And I need a motion for Item 8-C. Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 40 of 62 Bird: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve VAR 09-003 and to include all staff, applicant, and public testimony regarding the access to the sites and that the temporary accesses will go away once the south part of this is developed and we get to Edmonds Court. Zaremba: Second. Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 8-C. Roll call vote. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. E. Public Hearing for Bainbridge by Brighton Corporation RZ 09-003 Description: Public Hearing: RZ 09-003 Request for Rezone of 5.02 acres from R-8 (medium density residential) to L-O (limited office) zone for Bainbridge by Brighton Corporation -south of Chinden Boulevard on the west side of N. Ten Mile Road: F. Request for Final Plat for Bainbridge Church Subdivision by Brighton Corporation FP 09-006 Description: FP 09-006 Request for Final Plat approval for 1 building lot and 2 common area lots on 5.02 acres in an R-8 (proposed L-O) zoning district for Bainbridge Church Subdivision by Brighton Corporation -west side of N. Ten Mile Road, approximately 1/3 mile south of W. Chinden Boulevard: Rountree: Thank you. Next item is 8-E and F and I will open the hearings for both Items 8-E and F and staff. Wafters: Thank you, Council President Rountree, Councilmen. The next item before you is a rezone request of 5.02 acres in Bainbridge Subdivision from R-8, medium density residential, to L-O, limited office. The property is located on the west side of North Ten Mile Road approximately a third of a mile south of West Chinden Boulevard. The zoning map here that shows the location of the property. An aerial view. The applicant is requesting approval of a rezone of the property for a church use, which is a principal permitted use in the proposed L-O district. A concept plan was submitted that shows how the site is proposed to develop with a church. Two access points to the site are shown on the plan, one via East Broadbent Drive and one via North Ten Mile Road. Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 41 of 62 The Commission recommended approval at their August 20th, 2009, public hearing. Summary of the Commission public hearing: In favor of the applicant was David Turnbull. No one commented or commenting in opposition of the application. Written testimony was received by David Turnbull in response to the staff report. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the safety of the proposed access to Ten Mile Road and the need for an additional access point to the site via Ten Mile Road. Key Commission changes to the staff recommendation. The Commission commented on development agreement provision 1.2B, which prohibits direct access to Ten Mile Road. They felt the condition should be removed. However, the Commission is not a recommending body in this instance. The City Council is the only body that has the authority to waive the standard listed in UDC 11-3A-3, access to streets. Outstanding issues for the City Council. Development agreement provision B prohibits access to Ten Mile Road. The applicant requests approval of an access point, two from the site via Ten Mile Road as depicted on the concept plan. Just a note that UDC 11-3A-3 requires access points to collector and arterial streets to be combined or limited to improve safety and access to be taken from a local street when available. However, Council has the authority to waive this requirement. Additionally, a preliminary plat condition of approval for Bainbridge prohibits direct lot access to Ten Mile Road other than public street accesses approved by ACHD and ITD with the preliminary plat. Approval of an access to Ten Mile Road by Council would also require approval by ACHD. Second outstanding issue for Council. A 63 foot wide by 450 feet long strip of R-8 zoned land exists between the subject property and the out parcel owned by the Johnsons to the south that was part of the preliminary plat, but is not part of the subject rezone area or the proposed final plat for this property. This piece of land is covered by an easement benefiting the Johnsons to use and occupy the land until such time as they no longer live there. Staff believes this area should either be included as a nonbuildable lot in the final plat for the church property or the development agreement should be modified to specify this area be included as a nonbuildable lot in a subsequent final plat, unless combined with an adjoining buildable property. Council should make a determination on this matter. If Council approves the waiver for an access point to Ten Mile Road, development agreement provision B, which prohibits direct access to Ten Mile Road should be stricken. A response to the staff report was submitted by the applicant. Staff will stand for any questions the Council may have at this time. Canning: President Rountree, can I make one clarification? Rountree: You certainly may. Canning: On the item -- the second outstanding item when we note that the DA should be modified, that would be original Banbridge DA, not the one that's before you tonight. Sa, we are suggesting that if they want to include that strip of land, then, perhaps Sonya will show that on the map, so that you can see that. If they don't want to include that strip of land on the final plat, then, we should go back to the parent DA and just make sure that we don't -- we recognize that that's not a buildable parcel unless it's combined with another piece of property. Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 42 of 62 Rountree: Any questions for Sonya at this point? Bird: I have none. Rountree: And, for clarification, I misspoke. Item 8-F is not a public hearing, it's a request for final plat approval. Does the applicant wish to make a presentation? Mr. Wardle? Wardle: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Mike Wardle with Brighton Corporation, 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I'm going to hand out to you the information that we submitted to staff today that they noted that we had provided. Nary: I think they have it. Rountree: We actually have copies of -- of these two documents. Wardle: In beautiful color, then? Rountree: Yes. Wardle: All right. Great. Rountree: Technicolor. Good job. Wardle: Thank you. Well, we assume that it's more helpful if we can distinguish that way, so we appreciate staff providing that to you. Rountree: We need all the help we can get. Thank you. Wardle: We'd just like to note that when the original approval of Bainbridge was granted in 2003, the use of the property along Ten Mile Road was anticipated to be residential and all the access was proposed to be internal. With this change you would note from the concept plan that is ofFcially not before the Council for approval, that the access points to Broadbent, which is a collector street on the north, is pushed as far to the west as we possibly could away from the intersection. The access proposed on Ten Mile Road is -- which is the arterial, is the farthest point to the south of that particular site. Both of those issues were reviewed with ACHD staff on the 18th of June of this year and while we acknowledge that that is still to be determined, then, must be approved by the ACHD commission when a development application is actually proposed, it was felt that that access on Ten Mile is preferable to having a second access on Broadbent, which, frankly, from a fire department perspective might not -- might have been a difficult thing to do, but the only other point that we could have put an access onto the other -- onto the collector road, frankly, was right at the intersection and that was a conflict with the closeness of that intersection potentially with the access to Ten Mile Road. So, that's an issue that ACHD in its recommendation for the rezone noted that Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 43 of 62 that would be dealt with at the time of the development application, that they would consider those at that point. Now, in -- in the first item that we presented, which was comment on the rezone application, we just excerpted three points that staff had made that have been covered, actually, by Sonya. Just to note that the Planning and Zoning Commission, after due consideration and discussion, did recommend that the drive access to Ten Mile Road not be prohibited as staff had recommended, but that, in fact, it would be considered certainly an amendment to the development agreement would be an appropriate way -- an appropriate item must be addressed as we go through this process and we would work with staff on that and with that in mind the comments made by both Sonya and Anna this evening, we'd kind of like to leave the option open to work out with staff as an item that would have to be addressed by the time we get the final plat in for signature to include it either as a nonbuild lot with the church or to consider amendment of the development agreement to address that as has been recommended. So, we'd kind of like to leave that option open. We are certainly willing to consider either means of addressing that issue. So, with regard to the rezone application, we simply are asking the Council to accept the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation to approve the access onto Ten Mile Road. With regard to the second application, which is -- and I assume that the final plat, Mr. President, is also up for discussion at this point in the hearing or -- because we have some recommended changes in conditions. Rountree: Why don't we deal with that separately. Wardle: Okay. Rountree: And we will get through the public hearing and, then, we will talk about that. Wardle: All right. That would conclude my comments with regard to the rezone, except I would note just one point. And it's on the second page of that rezone response. At the top of that page where it said the staff is recommending a provision of the rezone for the direct access to Ten Mile will be prohibited and the sole access be to Broadbent, they mention at the conclusion of their comment that the Comp Plan and UDC require access to be taken from a local street when available. Just to reinforce the fact that there is no local street involved here, it's either the collector Broadbent or the arterial and the Comp Plan uses the term restrict, which is synonymous with limit, but not prohibit. So, it means that certainly consideration -- and in this particular case safety is -- the Planning Commission had sited down the line when the site development plan is submitted to the city and goes through the design review process, certainly the fire department would probably speak to wanting to be sure that there was good access from both areas and not -- that it would not be a long dead end site for any potential difficulty in their provision of service. So, again, Mr. Chairman, I would conclude with that. Mr. Turnbull is here. I was not in town during the P&Z hearing, so he may have some additional comments to make and, then, we would certainly stand for questions. Rountree: Thank you. Any questions -- Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 44 of 62 Bird: I have none. Rountree: -- for Mr. Wardle at this point? Mr. Tumbull. Tumbull: Good evening, Mr. President, Members of the Council. David Tumbull, 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I think Mike covered the points very well. I'd just make a couple of practical observations. I used to go to a church building similar to this layout here which had two accesses onto a collector road. You probably know it, it's off Chinden in the Bristol Heights Subdivision and the access that was closest to Chinden was always problematic, you know, probably not the ideal as far as safety, because there were conflicts on the turning movements at that time. So, we feel like this is the safest route, as Mike mentioned, this area was originally anticipated residential, but I think everybody's -- in our neighbors are in agreement this is a good use for this property. The only question is allowing that additional access on Ten Mile Road, which I would note is very similar or almost identical to the layout that was just approved at Producer and Meridian Road in our own Paramount project last year. So, we think this is a very similar situation and should be approved the same way. Appreciate your indulgence and I will stand for any questions. Rountree: Any questions for Mr. Tumbull at this point? I don't see -- Zaremba: Mr. President? Rountree: Oh, Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I guess I do have one and that would be as Ten Mile becomes more and more of a major arterial, is there any concern about cut-through traffic, people that are on Broadbent wanting to turn right onto Ten Mile that may feel they are being delayed cutting through this property to -- not to do that? Turnbull: Well, I would just note that when we came in with the original plan ACHD, ITD, and the City of Meridian were very concerned about accesses onto Chinden Boulevard and there was the concept that was -- that was brought up at that time of having sort of these backage roads or collectors that would connect to the mid mile point, the half mile point, to the other arterial to help alleviate traffic on Chinden and those cut through problems and so we designed this project with that arterial -- or, excuse me, that collector that goes all the way through. That's specifically what that roadway was designed for. It's not an inexpensive roadway for us to build and, you know, I guess the only argument I had with staff was that the provisions of the UDC and the code say that you're to limit, which Mike mentioned means not to prohibit, but to limit, to consolidate where possible those accesses to both arterials and collectors and to say one acts as a local street when, in fact, it's a collector shown on your maps as a collector, on ACHD maps as a collector, I think that we have gone to great lengths to accommodate and make sure that the -- the regionwide accesses are appropriate. I don't see any advantage of anybody cutting through this church property, absolutely not. That would be counterintuitive. Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 45 of 62 Zaremba: Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. President, just to follow. I think you answered my question that popped up. So, Broadbent doesn't match up with West Lost Rapids Drive and that's being the nearest half mile, that would eventually presumably have a light at some point in time and would allow access fairly rapidly once -- once it turns green for people to go. I envision in that other access point for the church being pretty much a right turn only as people exit and go into the flow of traffic down the road, but if they want to turn left much prefer to use the left turn light -- Tumbull: Oh, absolutely. Hoaglun: -- since that is where the light will be located. Tumbull: More than likely I believe that's true. And I would note that this is one thing that was brought up in the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that the peak hour traffic on church sites is far different that peak hour traffic on normal uses, so -- Rountree: Any further questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: Thank you. Tumbull: Thank you. Rountree: This is a public hearing. I do not have anybody signed up, but if there is anybody in the audience that wishes to speak. Don't see any takers. Any further questions? And, Mr. Wardle, if you want to wrap up on this one. Okay. Bird: Mr. Rountree -- Mr. President, I move we close the public hearing on RZ 09-003. Hoaglun: Second. Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Item 8-E. All those in favor? Opposed same sign? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Any discussion on the request of the applicant? I would just throw this out. It seem these are the kinds of predicaments that we get ourselves, but we have a -- we have a letter recently from ACHD that's not approving the access onto Ten Mile, so it's probably a mute point whatever we do with respect to Ten Mile and we get ourselves playing against one another here, so keep that in mind in whatever motion you make. Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 46 of 62 Bird: Yeah. Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve RZ 09-003 with staff and applicant recommendations, that we do, with the approval of ACHD, allow an access to Ten Mile Road, and that we incorporate all the applicants and staff comments. Hoaglun: Second. Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 8-E with the motion. Any discussion? Zaremba: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Didn't bring this up earlier, but if the motion includes approving the access to Ten Mile, would we care to discuss whether that should be a right-in, right-out only? It seems to me that although the applicant makes the point that -- that their traffic periods are off peak with other traffic periods, there might be some conflict there. That's just a question. Bird: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Bird. Bird: I -- because of the use of the lot and agreeing that -- that the time of use -- heavy use is -- is not like a normal business or anything like that, I believe we had a very large church out on Highway 69 that I don't think we put aright-in, right-out only on theirs and I don't think we have had any problems with it with accidents or stuff. So, I would have no -- I just would allow it like the Planning and Zoning staff agreed to and I don't see why we would have to be right-in and right-out only. Rountree: My comment to that, Mr. Zaremba, would be if this motion passes, the Council has endorsed access at this point at the discretion of ACHD and I think the specificity of access that might be allowed ought to come from them, since they are the traffic engineers. Zaremba: Good point. Rountree: Further discussion? I have a motion. Roll call. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 47 of 62 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Next item is Item 8-F and that is for final plat. Staff, you did have some comments that you have already provided us. If you want to refresh those quickly and, then, we will hear from the applicant. Wafters: Thank you, Council President Rountree and Councilmen. The final plat consists of one building lot and two common area lots on 5.02 acres of land. The response to the staff report was submitted by the applicant. With the Council's approval of the access to Ten Mile Road, with the previous rezone application, conditions of approval number 4-A and 6-B prohibiting access to Ten Mile Road should be stricken from the report. The applicant also requests condition of approval 6-A and number seven be modified to only require a 35 foot wide buffer as required by the UDC and eliminate the requirement fora 40 foot wide buffer if the sidewalk is placed outside of the right of way within the buffer. The old Meridian City Code required an additional five feet be added to the width of the buffer if the sidewalk is placed within the buffer. Staff has no objection to this request. However, Council should make a decision on this matter as it is -- as it was a condition of approval of the preliminary plat. If Council decides the narrow strip of land south of this property should be included in the subject plat, a condition should be added. That's all staff has. Rountree: Thank you. Any comments for Sonya? Bird: I have none. Rountree: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Mr. Chairman -- Mr. President, Council Members, one more time. Mike Wardle. Brighton Corporation. 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. With staffs comments at this point it appears that we have addressed most of the items that we have requested changes in, because they indicated that 4-A, as we have proposed, would be deleted, as would 6-B and, then, 6-A, which relates to the landscape street buffer along Ten Mile Road, both in 6-A and, then, in 6-D would also -- no, it was seven. Excuse me. Number seven would be handled with the changes that have occurred since the adoption of the UDC and we would ask that the Commission specifically note that. The only item of outstanding comment to make, then, would apply to Item 6-D where staff had proposed a pedestrian pathway at the west and south boundaries for future interconnectivity with the residential neighborhood. It sounds innocuous, but the church indicated to me several days ago that their concern is that they are going to have a fully fenced site and that the introduction of another access point that wouldn't have the same visibility that the street sidewalks would, both from Broadbent on the north and Ten Mile on the east, could potentially take away some of the control that they would have of the site, it would provide an area where there likely would be a structure both for the trash collection and pick up, as well as a facility for their maintenance equipment that would be right in that particular vicinity. So, they have requested that we ask that condition 6-D for that interconnectivity pathway be deleted. Would also note Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 48 of 62 that with regard to staffs comment about the parcel to the south, Mr. Turnbull's indicated that he would like to work with that issue through the amendment of the development agreement, rather than include it in the -- the plat at this point, because there is some potential issues on which way that parcel could go in the future. Hopefully, Mr. President and Council Members, my comments are clear. If you have questions, however, I would be happy to respond. Rountree: Any questions? Zaremba: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: As opposed to dropping the pathway connection entirely, I agree with your logic that running it through the property may not be the best way to do it. But my question would be could we trade and would you build the sidewalk that fronts both -- I think it's Broadbent and Ten Mile as a ten foot wide sidewalk. Making it usable as a multi-use pathway. Wardle: Mr. President, Council Member Zaremba, I don't see any benefit in doing that, frankly, because it would not connect to any other ten foot wide facility that would be proposed on either of those two corridors. There is a ten foot regional pathway along Chinden to the north that will be proposed and I'm not aware that -- that there is one proposed for Ten Mile Road. So, I think that that would be probably a lot of sidewalk for no benefit of connection to any other system that would not be served by the five foot sidewalks that are already required. Zaremba: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I ask the question, because I assume the request to put a pathway through the property was to make it connect to something and if it's not connecting to anything, then, my question is not useful. Wardle: Well, Mr. -- Mr. President, Mr. Zaremba, our understanding was that it was simply a pathway out of the residential neighborhood for pedestrian access to the church site. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Wardle: And so in that regard we have a sidewalk on the north from the residential area and we have got a sidewalk on Ten Mile Road that when in the future Ten Mile improves for any -- anybody that walks north and south, they would have access as well. So, it was purely an internal connection for pedestrian activity. Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 49 of 62 Zaremba: It sounds like I took it for the wrong reason. So, thank you. Wafters: If I could just add to that, Council President Rountree, Councilman Zaremba, there is no regional pathway planned in this area on the pathways plan. The intent of staff was, as Mr. Wardle commented, was just to provide interconnectivity -- pedestrian interconnectivity to the church site from the residential neighborhood and to incorporate it as part of that neighborhood and open it up, so that there is more of a neighborhood feel to that. Zaremba: Thank you. Rountree: Any further questions? More comments? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have a question with respect to the south parcel and deferring that until we talk about an amended DA. Anna or Sonya have a comment on that? Canning: Yes. Because this -- this development agreement will just cover the church property, basically. So, we'd have to go back to the original DA and note it there, because they are not -- the strip of land will still be in the original DA. So, in the -- that will work. My only concern is that we don't ten years down the road end up with -- unintentionally end up with a strip of land that somebody purchases and decides to build a 15 foot by 400 foot house on and -- these little strips of land turn into strange things over time. So, that's just my only concern is that we have it documented somewhere that it's not a buildable parcel, unless it's joined with some other piece of property. Rountree: Or yet another lane. Canning: Yeah. Wardle: Mr. President, Council Members, we are certainly willing to work with staff on that original DA amendment, so that we can accommodate that concern. Rountree: Very good. Thank you. Any further questions or comments? Zaremba: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Just in commenting on that subject, in the view that's being showed now, the original approved preliminary plat access to the sort of triangular property that apparently is not part of the subdivision at the moment, is -- was going to be by some internal roads, which now will be covered by a church and I'm just wondering what -- I'm assuming that when that triangular outparcel either develops or is included, that the Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 50 of 62 desire will be that they give up access to Ten Mile, will they still have access to Bainbridge if there is a church on top of the road. Wardle: Mr. President, Council Member Zaremba, I would ask staff, do you have the other site plan modification that you could put up for us. Do we need to go to the low tech version here? That issue has been -- we have actually looked at that and there are potential access from the south, so that they would not have to take access from Ten Mile. Zaremba: I'm happy to take your word for it that it has been thought of and addressed and that's all I was asking. Wardle: Okay. Rountree: Any other comments or questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: Seeing none -- Wardle: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President, Council Members. Rountree: Any further discussion on this item? If not, a motion? Zaremba: It's not a public hearing, so we don't need to close that; correct? Rountree: No. I just need an action on the final plat. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. President, I move we approve FP 09-006 with all staff and applicant comments. Bird: Second. Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 8-F. Roll call vote. Canning: President Rountree, prior to the vote being taken can you clarify with regard to the issues that were raised, the different -- the -- particularly the one about the accesses, the one that we need you to comment on. I think the other two are -- or the pedestrian pathway. Zaremba: I took the easy way out. Rountree: You want to clarify that. Zaremba: Yes. I would say we have agreed to eliminate the pedestrian access and leave it to the original development agreement to deal with that little sliver. Is that Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 51 of 62 correct? Yeah. And agree that 6-A and seven be modified to only require the 35 foot buffer. Did I catch them? Bird: And delete issue 4-A. Rountree: That's it? Does second agree? Bird: Second agrees. Rountree: All right. So, we have a motion and a second with a clarification. Roll call vote. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. G. Public Hearing for Macha Retail Plaza by Armstrong Consulting CPA 09-005 Description: Public Hearing: CPA 09-005 Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use designation from Office to Commercial for approximately 6 acres for Macha Retail Plaza by Armstrong Consulting -south side of E. Franklin Road, approximately 600 feet west of Eagle Road: H. Public Hearing for Macha Retail Plaza by Armstrong Consulting AZ 09-003 Description: Public Hearing: AZ 09-003 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.95 acres from Ada County RUT to C-C (Community Business District) for Macha Retail Plaza by Armstrong Consulting - south side of E. Franklin Road, approximately 600 feet west of Eagle Road: Rountree: Next item, Item 8-G and H. Sonya or Anna. Canning: President Rountree, Members of the Council, this is the Macha -- I hope that's how they say it -- Retail Plaza and it includes a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a rezone. The subject property for the Comprehensive Plan amendment request is located at 2805 and 2975 East Franklin Road in the north -- northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, which is just west of Eagle and Franklin. The subject property for the rezone request is located just at 2805 West Franklin Road. So, you can see the three separate parcels, so the Comprehensive Plant amendment covers all three and, then, the rezone is just the two western ones. The Comp Plan amendment is for 5.96 acres of land from -- currently shown as office on the Comp Plan Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 52 of 62 to commercial and, then, the annexation is the 3.98 acres of land from RUT to the C-C zone. The applicant is proposing to amend the current Comp Plan from office to commercial and they chose commercial, because it matches up with the commercial on the north side of Franklin in that area. The application also includes the request for annexation and zoning of the Macha parcels. The C-C zoning district, the Holloway property is not part of the annexation request, as I mentioned before. We do have a conceptual development plan. There you can see the future -- the proposed future land use map. This is the concept plan and it depicts future commercial development totaling approximately 64,000 square feet of office retail and service uses. The concept plan depicts ten buildings, ranging in various sizes and includes a mix of amenities, such as walking paths and a hardscape plaza area with water features. You can see the little water features throughout. At this time one full access is proposed to Franklin Road for the Macha property. A DA provision requires cross-access along the western and eastern properties. You can see the cross-access there. I think there is one required there as well. The Commission recommended approval at their August 20th, 2009, public hearing. No one spoke in opposition. Jerry Armstrong commented on it. I'm guessing he actually spoke in favor of it. I think our little cheat sheet is wrong today. But there was no written testimony and Bill Parsons presented the application and there was no other staff commenting. There was no discussion -- substantive discussion by the Commission and there was no key changes to staffs recommendation. So, to our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council. I did want to mention that there is a DA proposed as part of this with the C-C zoning. The key provisions of that were no direct lot access to Franklin Road, other than the one shown and there was a number of excluded uses from the development. They included drinking establishments, fuel sales facilities, minor vehicle repair, vehicle washing facility, wireless communication facility and vehicle sales and rentals. The DA provisions also include an eight foot decorative CMU wall along the south boundary of the Macha property and buildings on the south boundary were limited to two stories. So, again, that's -- the DA just covers the rezone, so it would just be the Macha property. And with that I'll answer any questions Council may have. Bird: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, on the two stories, do we have the height of 35 foot, too, max? Canning: We did not include that. We could. I can double-check, but I don't think it's on there. Bird: Let's ask the applicant if that's any problem. If you're going to limit two stories, mean 90 percent of the buildings aren't -- two aren't going to be 35 feet, but it could be. Rountree: Okay. Further questions of Anna? Mr. Zaremba. Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 53 of 62 Zaremba: I'm curious about the Holloway property not being included in the annexation. I'm trying to -- trying to imagine what could go wrong. Is there a reason why it's not included? Canning: I am not sure why it's not included at this time. Zaremba: Are we -- should we be worried about that? Canning: What they have shown is -- typically what I'm concerned about is can the adjoining parcel develop in a logical manner consistent with the ones that are around it and I think by providing this concept plan of the full Comprehensive Plan amendment area, they have shown that, yes, it can. I think that would address my concerns related to the Comp Plan amendment and we could deal with the annexation when it comes in later. So, I think it's probably okay. Zaremba: Thank you. Canning: My gut is that the parcel is underparked and so they may need some more of the Holloway property to actually park this thing, so we will see. Zaremba: Thank you. Rountree: Further questions? If the applicant would like to make some comments. Good evening, Mr. Armstrong. Armstrong: Good evening, Members of the Council. My name is Jeny Armstrong. My address is 4813 Lake Front Place, Garden City, Idaho. I represent both Macha and the Holloway property in this particular application. If we can get up the presentation real quick. Canning: Real quick I can't promise to you. I will get it there for you. Just a moment. Armstrong: A couple of comments that I do want to make, until we get this loaded up, is we did have a neighborhood meeting and the neighborhood meeting the -- the people that showed up at that particular meeting, their biggest issue was providing the eight foot high decorative fence along our southern border, as well as along the west side to protect the residents on the west side. It would include the Yoder property. So, it was at the northeast corner of the Yoder property and that is called out in condition number ten of the -- of the staff report. The other comment that I would like to make is staff has really come forward and helped us out with this application and I think you will see that we have a pretty good application before you. So, if you can move that to the next slide. Canning: You can actually control it up there, but I'm happy to control it for you if you would like. Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 54 of 62 Armstrong: Okay. Which one do you use, the little arrow here? Canning: Why don't you just nod at me when you're ready to go to the next one. Armstrong: Makes perfectly good sense. Rountree: We will train you later. Armstrong: Well, let's talk about the Comprehensive Plan amendment first. We do meet all the criteria for the amendment. The current designation, as Anna said, is for office use only. This change really allows for a broader mix of retail, office, and service uses that will be more compatible with the residential neighborhood in that area. The other thing it's very compatible with the main intersection of Franklin and Eagle is currently being developed. The land to the north actually has a C-G designation the entire length of Franklin Road all the way from Eagle to -- to Locust Grove. The other thing is there is a substantial amount of land to both the north and south of Franklin on Eagle Road that's also designated C-G. We are, actually, asking fora lesser designation, which is C-C, which in working with staff really reduces the height and the maximum building sizes that can be built on the property, which we agree to, because we think it should be compatible with the residential uses in the neighborhood. So, you can see the site that is showing the three properties, that's what we are asking for and you can see the relationship to your current future land use map, you can see all the red to the north and, then, also to the -- to the east of the property. The future land use map as C-C really will enhance the vitality of other uses in the area of Meridian, the mixed use. We are proposing retail, office, day care. An out-patient surgery clinic, which will be compatible with the St. Luke's being close. Restaurants and coffee shops. This also compliments the surrounding residential, commercial, and medical facility services that will be in this area. You can also see the site there and what that would look like on your future land use map, given your approval this evening, how the red all works together. We even anticipate that some of the residential uses to the west that are currently shown in the light green will also probably develop in commercial in the future, so you will see the red moving further, we think, to the west as those properties develop out. Next I want to talk a little bit about the conceptual development plan and I think what's important here is -- is that we have, indeed, provided the interconnected walking paths, we have the hardscape plaza areas that are shown there. We also have the water features. The other key thing is the entrance parkway that we think will -- will enhance the property. In the plan that you're seeing on the Macha plan is -- is, basically, a -- roughly 39 percent of the site is in landscaping. Only 35 percent is actually in building coverage and about 26 percent of the site will actually end up in parking area. As I mentioned before, we do have the eight foot fence that will go along the southern property and that will be a decorative CMU fence. That's covered in condition of approval number ten. Also we have a restriction in condition number 12, which is on building heights adjacent to the residential areas, which is limited to -- to two story. I think the -- if you want to put a stipulation in as far as the height to 35 feet, that's fine with us. Currently that's not in the staff report. Also I'd like to comment as why Holloway on the east did not want to do the rezone at this point. He's agreed to this Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 55 of 62 concept plan. We have worked with them, so we are not planning his property for him. He -- he was, actually, part of the process and agreed to the connection, which is key to the future. He's just not ready at this point in time, given the current recession, to commit to the dollars and, frankly, his -- his property taxes would go up if he rezones and annexes it into the City of Meridian. So, those were the reasons that he didn't want his property taxes raised until he had more certainty as the development pattern moves forward. The other comment that I would like to make is that on the site, since we put up the notice to this hearing and even the broker has a sign up on the site, we have had interested parties to build and develop two, three thousand square foot buildings on this site, as well as an additional 5,000 square foot building on the site. We are also working with Dr. Macha, who is planning a surgery center on -- on this site as well. So, I think that this would be a good project for the City of Meridian. It really fits in with the new design guidelines that you were talking about earlier this evening and we are anxious to get this project moving forward. And we thank you for your positive consideration of our application. Rountree: Any questions? Zaremba: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Just one if I may. On the conceptual development plan, which looks attractive and interesting to me, I don't see any buildings that could have adrive-thru and when staff was presenting earlier you mentioned some things that were by development agreement removed from consideration. I don't remember whether you said drive-thru or not. Canning: I did not. Zaremba: Is that a concern? And the concept at the moment doesn't have any drive- thru establishments, but -- and it doesn't look like that would be compatible with what you're planning, but C-C would include drive-thru establishments if they got a CUP; is that right? Canning: No. I suspect that they are principally permitted in that zone, unless they are within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and, then, it would be a Conditional Use Permit or 300 feet from a residence. So, I'm not sure of the exact dimensions. So, some of them may be Conditional Use Permits, but if they were out by Franklin Road they have be principal permitted. I have no concerns with that with regard to the site. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Rountree: Any other questions? Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 56 of 62 Hoaglun: A question for Anna and maybe Councilman Bird on -- on that 35 foot stipulation, was that going to be just -- you're looking at that primarily up against the residential areas and out front they could be higher or would that be applied throughout the whole development? Bird: My preference would be throughout the whole development. And at 35 feet, depending on the pitch of the roof, you could go above two stories. But it depends on the pitch of the roof to go to -- I think -- I think that's what our limit is around has been -- the general limit has been 35 foot and I don't know why they can always come back in if they find a tenant that wants to go higher and get a variance, but Iwould -- right now would -- myself personally would like to keep it at 35 foot high. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. Bird: Because there is so much residential already out around there that -- that it would -- and I think Mr. Armstrong wants to -- to really blend in with the residential from the way this looks. Rountree: Further comments, questions? Canning: President Rountree, if you could allow me a moment, I will look up what those standards are. Okay. First adrive-thru is accessory or conditional. You were right. Bird: They are conditional. Canning: So, it would be conditional again if it's within -- if it doesn't meet the locational provisions. The height limit for the C-C is 50 feet. I'm -- well, we will let the applicant comment on the height restriction. I'm not sure that they were anticipating that throughout the whole development. Armstrong: Mr. Chairman? Rountree: Mr. Armstrong. Armstrong: I guess my comment would be what we had anticipated was the building height at least adjacent to the residential properties to be, you know, no higher than the 35 feet or the two stories in height and we really hadn't discussed the balance of the property. However, most of the buildings we anticipate will probably be only two -- two stories in height anyway, so -- it's not a major issue, but -- Bird: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. Armstrong, I would have -- I mean I would have no problem -- I didn't realize that our C-C allowed it go to 50. I just don't want to see 50 up against the residential Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 57 of 62 and I -- and, you know, 35 would be tight if you had somebody that wanted to go three stories, but I would have no problem -- the southern part of your deal being limited to 35 and that anything that was next to Franklin could go to the 50, which was allowed -- which is allowed in C-C designation. Armstrong: Mr. Chairman, that would be agreeable with us. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. Hoaglun: Yeah. Mr. President, just a comment on that. That was my question. I -- up against the residential area 35 feet, yeah, you don't want that huge building imposing upon residents that are already there, but as you move out Idon't - I don't see that as being a problem to go up to the 50 foot. Armstrong: Okay. Rountree: Any further questions? Bird: I have none. Zaremba: I was just going to add in support of that, it kind of goes both ways. What the residents would live there would not want somebody 50 feet up able to look into their windows. Bird: Right. Zaremba: If you limit it to 35, then, it's less likely that they would feel their security impinged upon by people looking at them. Rountree: No more comments? Thank you, Mr. Armstrong. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to make comments, provide testimony? This gentleman here. I don't have anybody signed up, so -- if you would state your name and address for the record. Sterm: My name is Jack H. Sterm and I live at 2900 East Springwood Drive. I am one of the biggest property spans on the back of that. I'm hearing about the eight foot fence. I just want to clarify is that on my back property or is it down further or what. Because my backyard is at one point 15 feet away from the property line on the family -- family room side. My bedroom side is -- I'd probably estimate about 30, 32 feet, with an overhang with a patio. So, width I'm respecting everything and all and with two feet or two story high, I like what he said as far as not going up higher, because I mean they are going to be able to look in as it is, but there are going to be times, I guess, they will be closed, like at 5:00 o'clock, 7:00 o'clock at night, where it's respectable, that kind of thing. And my main thing with Matthew was the security, the eight foot brick fence, which he's complying with, but I just want to make sure it's on my back side, if that's -- if they can put that up somewhere. Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 58 of 62 Rountree: We will have the applicant address that. Sterm: Okay. Thank you. Rountree: Thank you. Any other testimony? Seeing none, Mr. Armstrong, if you want to wrap up and address the question that's been presented. Armstrong: Sure. Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. We do plan on building the eight foot high fence on our property line that's directly on the south of the property and I think that was the question we were asked. So, that's our intent. Rountree: And if we would have the site plan put up you could point that out. Armstrong: Does this show on this interactive or do I have to press something here? Holman: Sir, if you press probably the red button on the top, it's like a little highlight, then, you can grab that pen and draw with it. Armstrong: Okay. Here is the -- southern property line is right there and that's the entire two parcels of Macha property. This property in the future, what we are showing is a commitment to the property owners and a concept only and Mr. Holloway has agreed to that. We are also taking the fence along the west property line to about this location here. So, this shows the location of the -- there is one neighbor that has a site here. So, that would be the entirety of the eight foot high fence. And, again, we are limiting these buildings that are on the back side, we have agreed to the two story height consideration. Rountree: Thank you. And I must say you have a very steady hand. Armstrong: Well, thank you. For the first time using it, this is quite the deal here. Canning: So, Mr. Armstrong, do you want to highlight the gentlemen's property there? It's that wedge shaped one right at the end. Armstrong: Yeah. Here is the property right -right there, which will be part of that fence. Canning: Yeah. Bird: All his property will be e Armstrong: The entire property along -- his north, our south. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 59 of 62 Hoaglun: Anna, I have a question on that -- the C-C designation. That does allow for restaurants in that -- that area for that type of zoning? Canning: I'm sure it does, but let me check, because that's what I always do is check, so -- yes, it's a principally permitted use. Hoaglun: And that's one thing we have to watch having numerous phone calls from a residential area that abuts a retail center that went to a restaurant that has an outdoor patio with music is a constant source of my telephone ringing, because I happen to live in the same section as this particular establishment. You know, I guess maybe this is more for the applicant that, you know, as you consider these things, it doesn't work. Having outdoor patio with music up against a residential area just does not work and I know it's an allowed use in that type of zoning area, but it's the type of thing that the residents were there first, the commercial came, it was allowed, everything was okay and, then, that happened and it's just one of those things where we just -- so, it's -- I guess just -- just a warning. I don't want more phone calls when this is developed that music -- especially when the workers -- it doesn't open until noon, but at 10:00 in the morning they start the outside speakers, because they want music as they are setting up and it goes until 11:00 o'clock at night. I can understand their complaint, so -- Anna, that's just my two cents worth on that. Take it and hope you can use it. Thank you. Rountree: Still exploring the -- Bird: It is a restaurant. Canning: I'm stuck. There we go. Rountree: Okay. Canning: I'm sorry, did I miss a question? Rountree: No. No. I thought you were going to show us that. Canning: No. Rountree: All right. But you verified that it is a use that's allowed. Any other questions, comments, additional testimony? Seeing none -- Bird: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the public hearings on G and H. Zaremba: Second. Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 60 of 62 Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on Item G and H. All those in favor aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Okay. Need a motion for action. It would have to be Item 8-G acted on first. Bird: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve the CPA 09-005 and to include all staff and applicant comments. And public testimony. Zaremba: Second. Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 8-G. Roll call vote. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Item 8-H. Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve AZ 09-003 to include applicant, staff, and public comment and that in the restrictions, the south back of the property, no building shall exceed 35 foot in height. The north side of the building -- of the property may go up to 50 feet in height. Zaremba: Second. Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 8-H with the stated stipulations. Roll call voted. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Ordinances: Rountree: Next item on the agenda, it must be a phantom out of the Agenda Manager. It says ordinances and I don't have anything there. Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 61 of 62 Item.10: Other Items: A. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(c) - (to conduct deliberations concerning labor negotiations or to acquire an interest in real property, which is not owned by a public agency) Rountree: The last item is Item 10, an Executive Session. Bird: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-12345(1)(c). Hoaglun: Second. Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to go into Executive Session. Roll call vote. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Rountree: We are out of Executive Session, back in Council chamber. Need a motion or two. Bird: I move we come out of Executive Session. Hoaglun: Second. Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to come out of Executive Session. All in favor aye. Opposed same sign. We are out of Executive Session officially. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Bird: I move we adjourn. Hoaglun: Second. Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Good evening. Meridian City Council September 22, 2009 Page 62 of 62 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:34 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) DATE APPROVED ,,~~~'~~t °F `~'~, a ,~ ~~ ~' ~,r ~J~c EE a $~~~, ~~ ~~o`~ :sue -9O !~T 1 S~ , PLO `~~~ '% q p ~,~` CITY CLERK