Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009 12-08Meridian City Council Meeting December 8, 2009 A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, December 8, 2009, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, President Charlie Rountree, Keith Bird, Brad Hoaglun, and David Zaremba. Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Jacy Jones, Anna Canning, Sonya Wafters, Kristi Vigil, Tom Bany, Clint Dolsby, Scott Steckline, Jeff Lavey, Joe Silva and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X David Zaremba X Brad Hoaglun X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird X Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and get tonight's meeting started. I would like to welcome you all for joining us here this evening, for spending Tuesday night with us. For the record it is Tuesday, December 8th. It's 7:00 o'clock. We will start tonight's meeting with roll call attendance. Madam Clerk. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance De Weerd: If you will all rise and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Michael Canning, Holy Nativity Church. De Weerd: Thank you. Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Tonight will be lead by Michael Canning, he is with Holy Nativity Church. If you will all join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection. Father. M.Canning: Let us pray. Dear God, we gather together today to conduct the matters of the business in the City of Meridian. Guide our hearts and our minds in the spirit of fairness, right thought and speech. Impart your supreme wisdom upon our activities, so that are deliberations may reach a successful conclusion. Thank you for being our source of guidance today, in God's name we pray, amen. De Weerd: I would like to thank you by presenting you a City of Meridian pin. Thank you for being here. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda. Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 2 of 52 De Weerd: Item No. 4 is our adoption of the agenda. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: On the Consent Agenda, Item 5-I, the resolution number is 09-701. On the regular agenda, Item 9-A, the ordinance number is 09-1435. And with those notes I move we adopt the agenda. Hoaglun: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Consent Agenda A. November 17, 2009 City Council Special Workshop Meeting Minutes B. November 18, 2009 City Council Special Meeting Minutes C. November 24, 2009 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes D. November 25, 2009 City Council Special Meeting Minutes E. November 30, 2009 City Council Special Meeting Minutes F. Change Order #2 to the original contract dated June 2, 2009 with Challenger Companies, Inc. for aesthetic upgrades to the exterior of Well #27 Pump House for aNot-to-Exceed Amount of $895.54 G. Approval of Award and Authorization for Issuance of Purchase Order for a Custom Built Brush Attack Truck for aNot-To- Exceed amount of $95,000.00 and Approval for Purchasing Manager to Sign Purchase Order H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval of Cavanaugh Ridge by Affinity Bank Located at 4275 South Locust Grove Road Meridian City Council December S, 2009 Page 3 of 52 1. Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for RZ OS-005: Request for Rezone of 91.09 Acres from R-4 to R-8 Zone 2. Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for PP 08-010: Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 255 residential building lots and 27 common area lots on 91.09 acres in a proposed R-8 zoning district 3. Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for VAR 09-006: Request for Variance to UDC 11-6C-3F to exceed the maximum block length allowed in a residential district for Blocks 7, 12 and 14 Resolution No. :VAC 09-001 - Request for Vacation of a Public Domestic Water and Sewer Easement Depicted on the Smitchger Subdivision North Plat J. First Amendment to Development Agreement: MDA 09-003 - Request for Development Agreement Modification to Update Overall Site Development Plan for Market Square by TJ Brown Located at Northeast Corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road K. Task Order with Brown and Caldwell, Pursuant to Master Agreement dated November 28, 2006, for Construction Stormwater Management Program FY2010 Consulting for the Not-To-Exceed Amount of $25,000.00 De Weerd: Item 5 is our Consent Agenda. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Including the resolution number that I gave earlier, I move that we adopt the Consent Agenda as published and authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Hoaglun: Second. De Weerd: Thank you. I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. If there is no discussion, Madam Clerk, roll call. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 4 of 52 Item 6: Department Reports A. Legal and Public Works Departments 1. Update and Request for Payment for Partial Work Completed for Bittercreek Meadows Sewer De Weerd: Item 6-A, is our Legal and Public Works Departments. I will tum this over to our city attomey Mr. Nary. Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I think Mr. Bany or Mr. Dolsby is also here to discuss this. This is a matter regarding the Bittercreek Meadows sewer project. There is -- a portion of the project has been completed. It's still -- I think there is still some testing and some inspection that's necessary for completion, but I think our discussion tonight was to both update the Council as to that and also to seek guidance in regards to payment for at least the portion of the project that is completed after it passes the necessary review and inspection. Don't know if Clint or Scott wants to talk about the specifics of the project that's completed so the Council is aware. What we are really seeking tonight was simply direction -- this is the matter that Mr. Jewett and Eastem Oregon Construction Company worked on the -- on this particular portion of the sewer line. De Weerd: Okay. Clint. Dolsby: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mr. Nary. Yes, we are just looking for, as Mr. Nary discussed, payment for -- or the ability to negotiate to pay them for the work that's been completed, minus the punch list items that they have left to go before we accept the portions of the work and we will pay them as we accept the portions of the gravity sewer and the pressure that they have installed and nothing -- nothing more. We won't pay them like prematurely or any -- we just want the ability to negotiate the payment I think is what -- Nary: We had that -- Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we had met with -- the Public Works staff and myself have met with Mr. Jewett and his attomey and Eastem Oregon and their attomey and we are still trying to get some billing and some clarity of what the work that's been completed to make sure, again, that we are paying for just work that's been done and for materials that are necessary for the completion of the project and, again, I think what Public Works is simply looking for is the direction to continue that process and, then, to be able to make payments, because of the limited number of meetings we have this year -- all of this, obviously, is within the budget, but we want to make sure we get these paid in a timely fashion for the materials and work that's already done, again, once it's passed the appropriate inspection. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 5 of 52 Zaremba: Is this the project that's supposed to be being done in parallel with a water pipe as well and what's the status of that? Dolsby: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Zaremba, they have not started the water portion of the project yet. It was contracted separately from the sewer and the pressure sewer by Mr. Jewett and JLJ, I believe. The contractor was never under contract to do the water portion of the project. Nary: In our previous discussion -- Zaremba: Is that okay, I guess, is my question. Nary: In our previous discussion, Council, we do -- we do want the water portion to get completed. All we are looking at is the work that's been done to date on the sewer part. I mean there was a discussion earlier, if you recall, regarding reimbursement -- a reimbursement agreement of some sort with Mr. Jewett. At this juncture we haven't really completed that. That's, Iguess, adifferent -- a different discussion for a different day. All we are looking at at the moment is simply just paying for the work that's necessary that's been completed and the materials that are necessary to complete the rest of the project. Hoaglun: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun. Hoaglun: A question for whichever one wants to tackle this. The disputed amount between JLJ and Eastern Oregon, the 253,000 plus, once they work out those differences you may be coming back to us for --.to release funds for that payment and -- or is that going to be from the funds that we are committing now? Bany: Mr. Hoaglun, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the uncontested amount is the amount that we are requesting as a not to exceed amount authorized by you for payment to JLJ, so they can pay Eastern Oregon Contractors for work that's been done and accepted by the city. The contested amount that you have referred to, the 253,000 or so, is an amount just as you described, needs to be reconciled between Eastern Oregon Contractors and JLJ, since they are in contract together. Once that dispute gets resolved and a number is generated by Mr. Jewett, who will, then, make application for payment to us, we will investigate the appropriateness of that request, just as we have done in this case, and review and inspect the materials and the workmanship and, then, bring forward another pay request, likely in a purchase order similar to what we are doing this evening. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 6 of 52 Bird: On the material cost is that material that's in the ground up to this date or is that material that's on the job and still got a lot of material left to be laid? Barry: Mr. Bird, it's the latter. There is a lot of material that is still on the site or in the yard that has been not installed yet and so instead of us paying for a restocking fee, what we are doing is asking Mr. Jewett to acquire a bill of sale from Eastern Oregon Contractors to JLJ that he can furnish to us that we will, then, pay that amount, which is what we are asking again this evening for authorization for once that bill of sale is produced to us. Bird: Do you have a certificate of insurance on this inventory just sitting in this lot? Barry: We -- we did require Mr. Jewett to set up security fencing or some sort of fencing around the material that was on the site to prevent theft of that material. He is to be working on that, but that is one of the issues that is outstanding, which is a condition we have asked him to pursue. The remainder of the material is in a yard, which is secured, and so we are not concerned about that. Bird: We will -- we still want a certificate of insurance -- if we pay this, we want a certificate of insurance from EOC or whoever it is, insurance company stating it has been paid and if that stuff disappears they will replace it, not out of our pocket. Barry: Okay. We can look into that, Mr. Bird. I don't know about the insurance issues or if Mr. Nary has an idea about that, but as far as the securing of the property, we did try to address that with security fencing and also with the supply house holding the materials that are not yet installed and not on site. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Bird, they are not going to give us an insurance policy for theft. We are not going to pay for it twice. So, we want -- we want a clear bill of sale of what we have purchased. If that doesn't -- if it isn't available for it to be used again, Mr. Jewett is the one that's responsible to pay for it. But they won't provide us insurance for theft for that. Bird: They can give you -- when they get the money they can give you a certificate of insurance that that inventory that they have got in their yard has been paid for and belongs to the City of Meridian or whoever paid for it. Nary: Right. They are going to give us a bill of sale. Yes, sir. Bird: A bill of sale -- that's no good. If it disappears who is going to pay for it? Nary: It's going to be part of the next job. That's part of what -- that's the reason we are paying for it. Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 7 of 52 Bird: You're legal, Bill, but I think we are playing with fire here. I hope we don't get burned. But I've had to do it a hundred times when I bill for inventory that I had in my shop, I had to give them a certificate of insurance that said that if it disappears from my shop my insurance company buys more. Nary: We will have something to make sure that's secured, Mr. Bird, before we pay them. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Tom, have we accepted not only the quality, but ownership of the work that's been accomplished to this point in time? Bany: The payment request that we are asking you to approve this evening is a not to exceed amount, is for work that has been reviewed and inspected by the city or will be completed -- punch list items and the like completed with a retainage amount that will be withheld from the payment to JLJ. We have as a standard in our standard contract a withholding of five percent retainage, which is what has been excluded from this particular payment request and we are holding that, if you will, in lieu of them completing the punch list items that we just finished generating yesterday, because of the sense of urgency on this project. So, the answer -- the short answer to your question is, yes, we do have -- we would not pay for work that has not been inspected, tested, or approved by the City. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Tom, then, if we are holding five percent retainage is that going to cover the punch list out of this first part? Bany: We had that same discussion with Mr. Jewett and EOC in a meeting last Thursday and we scrambled and worked very diligently, our inspection team, to generate a current punch list. That punch list was finalized yesterday. And on review of that punch list it seems that we will have the right amount of money in retainage to complete the punch list items. However, I need to qualify that, because as you may or may not know, if one item, for example, tends to be a bigger issue than was anticipated in the inspection and there is digging or asphalt that needs to be broken in order to pull a manhole out or things like that, then, the amount would not be sufficient with regard to the retainage we are holding. However, there is a performance bond that Mr. Jewett is still holding on the project from Eastern Oregon Contractors. We have been assured by Mr. Jewett that that particular performance bond would be executed to cover the costs associated with any of the work that needs to be done. One of the concerns we have had is how do we, as the city, since the performance bond is not in our name, insure Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 8 of 52 that Mr. Jewett will execute that performance bond should the work be not satisfactory to the City of Meridian, the owner and also payee on the project. So, that is one other issue that we are trying to aggressively work out. As you may or may not know, the legal dispute between Eastern Oregon Contractors and JLJ is heating and has been for some time. Although it is not our dispute, we are trying to do our best to accommodate the parties with regard to payment, but we also don't want to be sloppy in our work. So, tonight is an effort to get City Council's approval to authorize payment up to the amount that we are requesting, which is within our budget, to allow us to expedite that payment once the satisfaction of the city has been met with regard to punch list items and inspection of the work. Bird: Is that -- is that 421 and change -- does that include the five percent or is the five percent been taken out? Barry: The five percent has been withheld from that. Bird: Okay. So, in other words, it was, basically, 445,000 or something like that? Because we should have been -- we should be holding about 22, 23 thousand. Bany: I think we are holding 12,000, Mr. Bird, or roughly. And the reason that is is if you look -- we are purchasing materials which we don't hold retainage for, we only hold retainage on workmanship. So, the retainage amount that's being withheld is the five percent of the two hundred and something. I don't have the memo in front of me, but we don't hold -- Bird: Two hundred and sixty-eight thousand. Bany: Two hundred and sixty-eight thousand. Thank you. So, that's -- that's the five percent that we are withholding. The -- you know, it's not our practice to withhold retainage on purchase of materials. It's not a workmanship issue. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Question for Mr. Nary. We do not have a reimbursement agreement in place; is that correct? Nary: We do not. Rountree: I'm extremely concerned given the nature of the project, the nature of the contract, the rather laborious effort we have gone through to this point in time to set a precedent by paying this purchase order -- a purchase order for work that was contracted by another individual and is really not our responsibility until we get a reimbursement agreement in place. I'm really confused by the statement in this memorandum that if we don't approve this purchase order we will be subject to some Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 9 of 52 kind of claim or litigation. If we haven't accepted ownership, if we aren't contractually obliged to do this, we don't have a reimbursement agreement in place, why are we even here until that gets in place? Given our history with this project and the individuals involved, I'm very hesitant to move forward at this point in time. Barry: Mr. Rountree, I appreciate that and to some of your comments I think you have every reason to be concerned and as it relates to this particular project, there is a contractual agreement that we have with Mr. Jewett for him to construct the water portion and the sewer portion of the project. We do owe Mr. Jewett for the sewer portions of the work if they are satisfactorily performed and inspected and tested and approved by the city, which is what we are requesting for this evening. The issues between Eastern Oregon and JLJ, be that as it may, are complicating the matters with the City of Meridian. There have been, by Eastem Oregon, accusations that the city has been intentionally stalling or withholding payment to JLJ, which is harming them, which is why the statement was written as it was. Be that as it may, as we have worked with JLJ and EOC at last Thursday's meeting we told them that we would make every effort to expedite with reason the processing of the payment that was rightfully owed for work that was performed and accepted by the City of Meridian. That's why there is a contested amount that we are not recommending moving forward on at this point in time and we will work -- excuse me -- let JLJ and EOC work out those differences before there is any processing of additional payments on the project. I don't know if Mr. Nary has anything further to add. Rountree: Just for Bill, Madam Mayor. What's the status of the reimbursement agreement? Is it in progress? Is it close to being signed? Where are we? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mr. Steckline and I have met with Mr. Jewett previously about that. I mean they had asked us not to finish completing it, so right now I mean the work was done on our end to complete this reimbursement agreement. So, the only reason we are here today is -- I mean Mr. Barry is right, there is a dispute ongoing with JLJ and EOC. That doesn't really have anything to do with the city at the moment. All we are looking at is purchasing the portion of the project that we would be purchasing at some point anyway for work that's already completed. The intent is to, then, move and consider whether or not to, then, complete the project through the bidding process and, basically, hire a new contractor to go forward or allow the process -- or allow it out for bid so that it can be completed. So, it's really just to purchase what's in the ground or the materials that are not necessary to complete the remainder of the project. So, there is no reimbursement agreement at the moment and Mr. Jewett is the one that's, basically, decided that he didn't need it at this point if the city is willing to simply purchase what's out there. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Bill, who are we going to make the check out to? Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 10 of 52 Nary: There is a title company that's part of the original bid one to handle payment and they are required to, then, bring those things before they can receive payment. So, it woul that's holding the escrow money. Bird: The check will actually be paid to the title company? Nary: Yes. on this project that is the the lien releases and all d go to the title company Bird: Okay. Anything legally that we are not looking at? I mean I - I can't believe we are paying for uninsured material, which I know you will take care of that. Nary: And I just sent this to our insurer to make sure whatever they need to -- from the other company we can get. I mean one of the -- part of it is on the supplier's lot, so I'm not super concerned about that. It's just --the material that's on Mr. Jewett's property is large piping. Bird: Let me tell you, even if it's on the supplier's deal, somebody else comes in and needs that pipe, they are out of it, they give it to them and they reorder, they got the best deal, we get to the point where we need it, they don't have it in yet, we shut our job down for six weeks. That can't happen. Nary: Sure. No. I understand what you're saying, sir. De Weerd: Any other questions from Council? Mr. Nary, if I understand this, Mr. Jewett was supposed to originate the agreement for payment and he hasn't, so I guess we still go back to if that's something that he was supposed to initiate and hasn't, why are we paying him? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess Mr. Bany may have a different opinion. The reimbursement agreement is a tool in which to base, from an accounting standpoint, why you're paying money to an individual for -- for whatever purpose. That's all it is. Your -- that's a tool that under our current ordinance, which is not the one that's applicable to this circumstance, there is some specifics that are required to have a reimbursement agreement. Here this is simply a purchase. We are purchasing infrastructure that's constructed, that meets our city standard, that passes our inspection, and materials to complete the rest of the project. This is simply a purchase and sale. It isn't required for Mr. Jewett, as a condition precedent to being paid on this job that he has to do a reimbursement agreement. It was a tool and it was a mechanism we are most comfortable with, but it wasn't required. You aren't necessarily mandated to do this either. So, I mean I don't disagree with -- with your concern from you and the Council, you're not required to buy this material today either. You're not required to buy this -- this infrastructure that's constructed, so -- and that's why we are in front of you. But it is just simply a purchase and sale. The reimbursement agreement -- if ideally we -- this could have been done without this problem or if the job isn't Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 11 of 52 completed and we have a dispute between the contractor and Mr. Jewett, we wouldn't be here. We would probably just be discussing the reimbursement agreement. But we have a contractor who hasn't been paid, we have infrastructure that's completed, infrastructure that, in essence, should meet city standards, we hope. Has been completed. And all we are simply doing is paying for what we are going -- we would pay for at some point in time. So, I understand all of your concerns. I -- again, you're not obligated to authorize this to go forward, but we did say we would bring it forward to you and get your direction. And if Mr. Barry disagrees or has a different perspective on it, that's perfectly fine, too. Bany: No. I think Mr. Nary's got it right. The project, as you may recall, was one that was conceived back in March of last year and in the contract that was developed at that point in time that the City Council entered into with Mr. Jewett, required that Mr. Jewett construct the water line at his expense -- immediate expense down to the Bittercreek Meadows Subdivision. We~ got, in exchange, a water well and we were, then, obligated to build the sewer line and the lift station. The sewer line down Ten Mile to the Bittercreek Meadows Subdivision and to build a lift station. When this was conceived we recognized that it would be very complicated and potentially a legal liability for us to have two contractors working in the same right of way at the same time on two different projects, i.e., a water project from Mr. Jewett, the sewer project for the City of Meridian. So, the contract was crafted so that the city could assign the sewer portion of the work to Mr. Jewett with the understanding that Mr. Jewett would get paid in full at -- within 30 days of completion of the sewer project. We assigned the project to Mr. Jewett. Mr. Jewett went through the bidding process. EOC the lowest responsible bidder at the time and they entered into contract together to do both the water and the sewer work. Mr. Jewett made the decision to phase the project and chose on his own own not to move forward the water piece of the project, which undermined the integrity of the entire agreement, which was to, again, coordinate construction in the right of way in the same project areas for water and sewer construction. He failed to move the water portion forward, but he did move the sewer portion forward. The unfortunate circumstance of having a contractor who hasn't followed specifications and who has not complied with the inspectors' requirements for the completion of the project to the satisfaction of the city standards, has also complicated this matter and because EOC, the contractor, and Jim -- Mr. Jewett have had other differences of opinions, which has created a very complex working arrangement, the situation is such that EOC has terminated the entire contract with Mr. Jewett and we are at a point now where we are trying to clean all of this mess up by paying Mr. Jewett for work that was legitimately done and done correctly as inspected and -- inspected by our city inspector. So, I don't know if that maybe gives us a whole perspective of where we are on the project. As you can see it's a mess and it's not a predicament that we would like to be in, but we are doing our best to move through the issues and legitimately pay for that which is owed and move along the issues, so that we don't have these outstanding from much longer. So, I know the discomfort that you have with this. We are equally uncomfortable from a legal side, as well as a Public Works side, and that is why we are trying to do what we can at least in pieces and parts to move this forward and move along the contractor and get this project rebid and back on track. Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 12 of 52 De Weerd: So, Mr. Barry, in moving forward what are the next steps? Barry: Well, you have a couple of options. The one option available to you this evening is, of course, paying out for the work that's been done and, then, another option is to require staff to go back and create some sort of purchase agreement, which ties up some of the loose ends or concerns that the City Council might have. Either one of those two options is available to you. Once that work has been done or once we have paid that out and quantified the work that remains, our plan in Public Works is to go rebid the project and send it back out to the street and make it known that -- we will probably do it under very similar bidding documents that we sent out before and, then, let, as an addendum onto the contract -- onto the bidding documents, let contractors who wish to bid know what work has been done, so they can minus that from their bid and, then, we would have an across-the-board whole new set -- as if it was a brand new project -- bidders and we would choose the lowest responsible bidder and enter into contract with -- or Mr. Jewett would enter into contract with them, because it's an assigned party and we would go through the purchase agreement slash reimbursement agreement with Mr. Jewett in this case prior to Mr. Jewett allowing the contractor to do work, which was one other problem in this situation, is Mr. Jewett had -- had ordered the contractor to begin work without placing in -- in effect the reimbursement agreement between the city and JLJ. So, essentially, the contractor's done roughly 450,000 dollars worth of work and hasn't been paid by Mr. Jewett yet. So, we know that we have a responsibility to pay for work that's been done and is done to specifications and it's been accepted by the city and that's what we bring forward tonight. De Weerd: Now, Mr. Barry, we also had an agreement that this work would be done before a date certain. Barry: We did. De Weerd: And so how does this affect that piece of it? Barry: This doesn't affect it any differently than Mr. Jewett's decision not to move forward the water piece of the project. It is, essentially, impossible for Mr. Jewett to finish the project by the date certain, which I'll remind the Council is December 31st of this year. Mr. Jewett back in August had made the decision, as I understand, not to move forward the water portion. That immediately created a situation where he was not going to be able to meet the intent of the contract that we have with Mr. Jewett. This particular debacle that we are discussing now adds to that fact that we will not be able to expect Mr. Jewett to have any of the work at this point in time done before the date certain. So, what we will likely have to do is amend the agreement that we have with Mr. Jewett as part of this project and we have talked about that in the past, you may recall, to extend that date certain to give Mr. Jewett time now to rebid the project and for us to enter the appropriate negotiations and develop the contracts associated with completion of the project. So, the date certain is, essentially, a moot point at this point in time. It cannot be met. Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 13 of 52 Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Tom or Bill, which ever one of you want to jump in on this. We are holding five percent, we got concerns of whether that will even cover the warranty -- or the punch list that we got now. How long is the warranty on this project when it's done? One year? Barry: That's correct. Bird: Who is going to -- how are we going to cover that for this -for this amount of money, we are approximately paying out of a total deal -- we are -- they have billed for 30 percent or so like that, I believe, is what we are paying is about 30 percent of the total contract. Not quite. Twenty-eight. But who is going to cover the warranty items? How are we going to get paid for that? Are we going to -- are we going to eat that or are we going to ask the new contractor or whoever gets the next bid to add to his bid to cover that or -- what does the contract say for retainage? Can we hold ten percent? I know it's not supposed to be held, but let me tell you it does happen. Bany: Well, Mr. Bird, a couple of things. First of all, our contract currently -- contract documents only allow five percent retainage withholding. Period. So, if, however, the Council decided that they wanted to direct staff to develop a purchase agreement, we could put stipulations in that agreement that the other party would have to sign, which could include a ten percent retainage amount, for example. It could also include clarification on warranty issues as well. Purchase order is just essentially, as you know, just a payment application and does not hold with it the same types of specified contract language that we might get in a purchase agreement. So, there is that -- there is that option, as I mentioned before, where a purchase agreement could be developed -- as a matter of fact, it's just as Mr. Nary said, the purchase agreement was, essentially, done, but those stipulations were still being somewhat negotiated and Mr. Jewett was uncomfortable with trying to move that forward in the time frame that we currently are operating under at this point in time. Plus EOC wanted to expedite their receivable of payments as well. So, as it relates to warranty work, we have been told by the EOC representative that they will honor the one year contract for the work that they have performed and the city will accept, but we don't have that guarantee, per se, unless the contract language itself, which we generally put in there, requires, since they bid on the project and completed up to the amount we have described tonight, they would have to honor that one year contract in the original bidding documents that we have -- that we have described. So, it would be our intention not to place the new contractor in responsible -- responsible for the other contract. I mean that doesn't -- there is no legal basis for that. So, what we do -- and that's why our inspection team is working diligently to quantify the work that's been done, so it's very clear to all parties involved moving forward what is the responsibility from a warranty standpoint and a payment standpoint to EOC versus other work that still has yet to be done on the project. Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 14 of 52 Bird: I will guarantee you once they get their money they are not coming back for no warranty. Once they get paid they are not coming back and I can't blame them. But in the same token, in their defense, they are out this money. They are not out all of it, but a lot of it's out of their pocket. They got probably ten to 15 percent profit in it and I -- you know, it's against my better judgment to do this, but I'm depending on you, Bill, to make sure that we are legally -- we don't get -- we don't wind up paying another 450,000. De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba? Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I have some discomfort in that it sounds like to me that we are attempting to live up to our side of the agreement where we already know the other party isn't or can't or won't live up their side of the agreement. I guess the question comes to mind did we require any kind of a performance bond or perhaps did ACRD before they let them start tearing up their street, require any performance bond, that if we waited 23 more days we call the bond and hire somebody else to finish it. Bany: Mr. Zaremba, that -- that line of thinking was one which we pursued to a certain degree as well between legal and Public Works and I guess to keep it brief, we abandoned that particular idea, because we thought it would exacerbate the legal issues surrounding the current situation we have before us. As it relates to the performance bond, though, as we have come to realize, the performance bond is not been let in the city's name or the city has not -- and the city has not been included on that performance bond. So, we don't have any legal right -- Mr. Nary can correct me if I'm wrong -- to require Mr. Jewett to execute nor do we have the right to execute ourself that bond, since we are not listed on it. A purchase agreement would allow an opportunity to bind Mr. Jewett to that stipulation, which would allow us potentially, if he agreed to it, to require Mr. Jewett to execute that performance bond for work that needs to be done. That is one issue that is still a matter of discussion, if you will. So, there is that option. But the purchase order option would not necessarily allow us to do that. Although Mr. Jewett has agreed verbally to cooperate and coordinate with us, I don't believe we have anything at the moment that would obligate him to execute that performance bond on the city's behalf. Nary: Madam Mayor? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: As per normal I think we have beat this up pretty bad. I find nothing in what's been said this evening to protect our interest. I would make a motion that we direct staff to pursue a purchase order, to clarify the issues that have been brought up this evening, to identify who is accountable and for what and who is not accountable and for what and bring it back next week, schedule it for the workshop. We will deal with it, then, if it can be done in a week. Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 15 of 52 Barry: Madam Mayor -- De Weerd: Let me get a second and, then -- Bird: I'll second it. De Weerd: Thank you. I have a motion and a second. Mr. Bany. Barry: Excuse me. Mr. Rountree, as a matter of clarification, do you mean purchase agreement or -- you said purchase order. Rountree: Purchase agreement. Excuse me. Barry: Great. Thank you. De Weerd: Second agrees? Rountree: Second agrees. And I have also got a -- Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I don't know how we are going to -- we have been trying for six months to get a reimbursement agreement. How are we going to get a purchase agreement in a week? Barry: Well, Mr. Bird -- Bird: You got miracles? Barry: Mr. Bird, as I understand the purchase agreement is largely done on the city's side. It's a matter of moving Mr. Jewett. Bird: Right. Barry: That's correct. Bird: I think the motion said also to bring back the other side. Bany: Uh-huh. Nary: Well, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think one of the things -- and we did have this discussion yesterday with Mr. Jewett and maybe that might alleviate some of the Council's concern, but Mr. Jewett did say at least yesterday verbally that separating out what's owed to him -- we have -- you all know we don't have any contract relation with EOC, so all we are doing is, essentially, using Mr. Jewett as an agent to purchase infrastructure that's been constructed by somebody else that meets our standards for our use. In our discussion yesterday what we were trying to get was a Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 16 of 52 commitment from -- from Mr. Jewett to simply pay EOC and get them removed from this discussion, because that's what's complicating it from the city's side. Mr. Jewett's been an agent and been given this job to perform and there is this issue that's still outstanding between him and the city and him and EOC. There is no issues between EOC and the city at the moment and so the desire was to say, look, tell us how much EOC's portion is and we can separate that out and all the issues with Mr. Jewett that we can tie up, whether it's a reimbursement agreement, a purchase agreement, whatever -- we don't have any reason to have a purchase agreement or anything else we really need with EOC, we really need, I guess, a better, tighter, clearer agreement with Mr. Jewett on what needs to get done and when it needs to get down and who is responsible for it and who is going to pay for what and who is going to warranty whatever it's going to be warrantied, how are these all going to be performed. But EOC has, basically, completed their task, they have dissolved their contractual relationship with Mr. Jewett, they are in dispute over some -- some funds and some costs, but all we were trying to do was separate them out of the city's discussion, because, again, we don't have a relationship with them. That we may be able to accomplish by next week. I don't know. But we can certainly try to do that. The other issues with Mr. Jewett -- are we going to have it done by next week, boy, that would be a great Christmas present for all of us, but I'm not sure that's going to happen. But we can at least remove one person from this discussion in a way that's comfortable for the city, that the city is protected on what we are purchasing, then, that may be satisfactory for you. De Weerd: As long as what we are purchasing is not liened against in the dispute between EOC and JLJ. Nary: Correct. Yes. De Weerd: And that is what we need to have in the purchase agreement is that when we buy this we will own it. Nary: Yeah. And that was the purpose of using the escrow company as the mechanism, because it already is required in their contract for them to provide that kind of releases before we -- they could get paid anyway. De Weerd: And we definitely want releases from EOC and JLJ as part of cutting the check. Nary: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion. Any further discussion? Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council December S, 2009 Page 17 of 52 Barry: Thank you all. I appreciate it. B. Legal Department 1. Report on the Amendment to the Fire Union Agreement: Appendix "E" to Memorandum Agreement Amendment to the Collective Labor Agreement Between the City of Meridian and Meridian Firefighters I.A.F.F. Local 4627 for Training Captain from October 1, 2009 Until September 30. De Weerd: Okay. Item 6-B is also our legal department. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is significantly less complicated -- Rountree: Excuse me, Bill. Should I recuse myself from this item? Nary: I don't believe you need to. Well, you know -- De Weerd: I don't think you benefit -- Rountree: I'm a signatory -- Nary: Yeah. Probably because of that. The subject matter, no, but, yes, probably that. This matter is significantly less complicated than the last one. This is an amendment to the current collective bargaining agreement between the city and the IAFF Local 4627, our fire union. This is to incorporate the new position of training captain into the agreement. When the agreement was originally entered into back in 2007 there was no training captain position in the department. There is -- as of October 1 of this year we have that position. The training captain position will be a union position. It will be treated similarly in the collective bargaining agreement as to the -- the way the fire inspector is treated. It's predominately a 40 hour a week job. Has a generally set schedule that can be -- it can be amended or adjusted based on the fire chiefs discretion as to the needs of the position and what it needs to do in performing the basic functions or requirements of the training captain, but the -- so, this agreement, basically, runs through the remainder of the term of the current collective bargaining agreement, which expires September 30th of 2010. Again, it pretty much speaks for itself. You folks are probably aware in the past we have had to amend the agreements periodically to either include a new position or some other working condition and this is simply one of those. This position, I believe, has been hired -- is that correct Chief Silva? As far as I understand. I don't recall when the starting date was. De Weerd: I believe it's in January. Nary: January? Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 18 of 52 Silva: Yes. Correct. Nary: So, the -- so, this, basically, just incorporates all the conditions that would make it a part of the contract, make it similar to the 40 hour week position that's already in the contract itself, and the union is agreeable, you have the signed agreement by the union president Tyler Rountree in front of you. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, unless you want to have a long discussion -- De Weerd: No. Mr. Hoaglun, do you have a motion? Hoaglun: I move that we approve Appendix E, the Memorandum Agreement amending the collective labor agreement between the City of Meridian and the Meridian Firefighters Local 4627 for the training captain position from October 1, 2009, until September 30th, 2010, and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, roll call. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Items Moved From Consent Agenda De Weerd: There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda. Item 8: Action Items A. Public Hearing: AZ 09-004 The Baby Place by Brent ~ Coleen Goodwin Located at 270 North Linder Road: Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.98 of an Acre from R1 in Ada County to C-C (Community Business) Zoning District De Weerd: So, we will move to Item 8-A, public hearing AZ 09-004. I will open this public hearing with staff comments. Wafters: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application before you is a request for annexation and zoning of .98 of an acre from R-1 in Ada Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 19 of 52 County to C-C. Excuse me. Yes. C-C. Community commercial. The property is located at 270 North Linder Road, a quarter mile north of Franklin Road on the east side of Linder. This is an aerial view of the property. This property hooked up to city sewer in March of 2006, but has not been hooked up to city water. The applicants are currently operating a birthing center on the site, called the Baby Place. They have submitted a concept plan -- actually, not a concept, a detailed site plan showing the location of the existing structure, access driveway to Linder Road. Parking, landscaping, and fencing. The Commission recommended approval at their November 5th, 2009, public hearing. Summary of the Commission hearing -- Jason Kuglin, Paul Stark, and Verlyn Brower testified in favor of the application. Gary Reimer, Margaret Reimber and Jim Witt testified in opposition of the application. Written testimony was submitted by Jason Kuglin and Design West in response to the staff report. Key issues of discussion by the Commission -- the proposed hours of operation of the birthing center and a previous and continued operation of the business without the proper approvals in Ada County. Key Commission changes to the staff recommendation was a modification to the developr!nent agreement provision 1.2B, to include the timing for the cross-access easement to be granted at the time of the future construction on the site and/or expansion of the existing parking lot. There are no outstanding issues for the City Council and no written testimony has been received since the Commission meeting. Staff will stand for any questions the Council may have at this time. De Weerd: Council, any questions at this point? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here this evening? Would you like to provide testimony. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Kuglin: Jason Kuglin, 2474 South China Rapids Place, Meridian. I currently work for Pinnacle Engineers and I'm representing the Baby Place at 270 North Linder. The only real thing that I'd like to bring up was the topic of discussion at the last hearing as far as the history and perhaps I can clarify this a little bit, what exactly put us into the position to be asking for annexation. The applicants when they originally purchased this property was under the understanding that it was amulti-use property and with that intent they went and got permits to use the modifications to the existing house and at the time of inspection from the electrical they -- the electrical inspector discovered that they were operating a business on a residential property. Once that was discovered they, then, applied at the county to get rezoned and, then, found out at that point that there was a standing agreement with the City of Meridian before the county will even accept an application for that they have to first ask the city to be annexed and if denied, then, they can, then, change that zoning. So, with that all in place that's what put us here and it wasn't that they were trying to not operate legally or that they haven't tried to do that up to this point. There was money spent with the county trying to get that application through and it didn't -- didn't work and, then, we got to here. So, I hope that Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 20 of 52 alleviates some of the concern with that. The other issues that were brought up during the other -- during the previous hearing was the site being modified with respect to the parking. The actual parking that's drawn there, the shaded area there, has existed since the Goodwins purchased this property and, in fact, the only thing that's actually going to need to be done is striping added to it. So, this won't affect -- there is going to be very minimal changes to the site from what is already there and, in fact, the only thing that's really going to happen that's going to be noticeable to the neighbors is there is going to be landscaping and the removal of the one entry off of Linder. And I think that that covers pretty much all the issues that we'd like to address. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant's representative? Bird: I have none. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I'm curious about the discussion about that proposed hours of operation. I would think a birthing center you don't have control over the hours of which somebody might show up needing a birthing. Kuglin: Right. And that was what we had talked about. Their office hours when they see expectant mothers are -- is from Monday to Wednesday and that's their hours of standard operation. Obviously, if there is a birth they don't make them wait until Monday to come in and so that was what the discussion was, that there are -- there are, in fact, people that do come there during -- after hours, but that is covered in this C-C zoning and it's -- you know, it's part of that zoning. Zaremba: Okay. And may I ask a second question? Would you describe or summarize how your relationship is going with the paramedics, who occasionally have been called to that site, I believe? Kuglin: That -- it's my understanding that that relationship is ongoing and probably is going to continue to be on something that continues to get better as time goes on. It's my understanding that from the beginning of the operation there that there has been some tension, but that is -- seems to be getting better. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Kuglin: Thanks. Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 21 of 52 De Weerd: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide public testimony on this item? Yes, sir. Please state your name and address for the record. Taylor: My name is Ryan Taylor. My address is 4101 East Winterbeny Drive, Nampa, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Taylor: I actually work for the city of Nampa and my wife and I have used the Baby Place birthing services for both of our children now and we plan to use them, if God willing, we have anymore children. To understand the request of Colleen, the owner of the Baby Place, you have to understand her a little bit. She likes to stick in the light. She doesn't like the gray areas and she doesn't like the black areas, obviously. She wants to be in the light and clear and so she is going through the proper steps, as have been told by her that she needs to take to make sure that she is compliant with all laws and ordinances and things that she needs to be compliant with for her business, because that is her first priority as a business, so that she can maintain the level and quality job that she does for families like myself. My wife and I are also here to represent Michael and Marlene Nelson of Meridian, Idaho. They live at 3600 North Black Cat, Meridian, Idaho. And I just think I -- I am definitely in favor for it. I think it will benefit the City of Meridian with a business tax base that she will provide and it will also benefit her to be in compliance with everything that she needs to be in compliance with. That's it. De Weerd: Thank you very much. Taylor: Thank you. De Weerd: Any further testimony? Hoaglun: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I would like to hear from our fire department. As first responders I think they have had to be on site a few,times and get their comments on -- on this. De Weerd: Mr. Silva. Silva: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Hoaglun, to comment on Jason's -- comments about the working relationship with the paramedics, as you well know we are the first -- also the first responders to that location and in the past we have had some protocol issues in the past, but our medical deputy chief EMS met with on site staff to try to resolve some of those issues and as Jason alluded to, that relationship has improved quite considerably and our goal, just like the Ada County paramedics, is to provide for future care is our top priority, but that is as a result of our field contacts Meridian Ciry Council December 8, 2009 Page 22 of 52 through Mark Niemeyer, our EMS chief, has improved some of those relationship -- those relationship issues and protocol issues that we have encountered there. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. If there is no further testimony, Council, any further questions for staff? Does the applicant have any concluding remarks? Staff, any final remarks? Okay. Council, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Bird: So moved. Hoaglun: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 8-A. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carves. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: As an item of discussion, what's the status of hook up to city services, like water and sewer? Anybody know that? Bird: They've already got sewer. Do they have water? Dolsby: It's available to the site, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Bird, it's there to the site. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Hearing no more discussion, I would move that we approve AZ 09-004, the Baby Place, and change annexation and zoning, R-1 in Ada County to C-C zoning district. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carries. Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 23 of 52 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. B. Public Hearing: AZ 09-005 JJA Land by Mason and Stanfield, Inc. Located at Northwest Corner of North Linder Road and West Ustick Road: Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.89 Acres from RUT (Ada County) to C-C (Community Business) Zoning District De Weerd: Item 8-B is public hearing AZ 09-005. I will open this public hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is JJA Land and it is located at the northwest comer of Linder Road and Ustick, as you can see here, and the application before you tonight is the annexation of 5.89 acres to C-C zoning district. The request is to annex this property and put it in the C-C zoning district. At the time the application is not proposing to develop the site and has provided no concept plan. The reason for that is there is an existing home. When ACRD went to go make intersection improvements that they found out that the home's well was in the property they acquired for the road right of way. So, they hooked the property up to city services at the time that they were doing the intersection improvements. So, we are now coming through doing the annexation for this property, because they are receiving city services. The Commission did recommend approval at their November 5th, 2009, public hearing. At that Commission hearing Scott Stanfield spoke in favor of the application. There was no one there speaking in opposition or commenting, nor did anyone provide written testimony. There was no key issues of discussion by the Commission, nor were there any changes to stafFs initial recommendation. And to our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before City Council. I did want to go over some of the pertinent DA provisions. We have recommended a development agreement, since we have no concept plan, and the -- I have highlighted just some of them there for you. The first one is that the applicant will be required to get a certificate of zoning compliance and design review and an alternative compliance is required if they are proposing any change of use for the existing single family home located here in this comer to a nonresidential use. So, we are going to get all necessary applications if that use changes. The second one is that we said we would issue one -- or proposing that we would issue one CZC for the portion that is located south of the right-in, right-out access point of Linder Road, provided the existing home is removed. So, again, in that location. Additional CZC shall not be issued until a concept plan is submitted and approved for the subject property and that would happen with a preliminary plat application. The reason that we are interested in the preliminary plat application is because Crosswind here needs to get extended through the property to Linder Road. Doesn't have to be straight, it can meander, somehow go through the property, but it does need to get extended through the plat process. So, detailing out those other requirements for the development, they need to extend Crosswind, they need to provide a five foot public access recreational easement in favor of the City of Meridian and that would be from the back of sidewalk at the western edge of the existing access on Ustick Road. So, I think you can kind of see the existing access down here on the -- on the Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 24 of 52 aerial and it needs to go to the east property line and, then, we'd have a 25 foot landscape easement. And, then, as you look at number four, what that one's aimed at getting is the ten foot recreational multi-use pathway along the ACHD access road currently located there. And, then, finally, there is a requirement for a five foot pathway that needs to connect up to the ten foot pathway at sometime in the future. So, those are the primary issues we are getting those pathway easement at this time and making sure that we have those detailed and, then, also making sure that the applicant was aware that they needed to extend Crosswind. So, with that I would answer any questions Council may have. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, is this -- is this the piece of property that there is a dispute between it and that one to the west on boundary lines? Canning: To my knowledge, that dispute got resolved, if you want to call it that. I think that the developer of this subdivision just gave up the property in dispute. I think that's how it got resolved. Scott, were you in on that one? Maybe the applicant's representative -- but I do remember when that final plat went through I made sure that it was resolved. Bird: Okay. Thanks, Anna. De Weerd: I seem to remember that, too. Rountree: Uh-huh. Yes. Canning: That was a long Mime ago and it's interesting we all remember it. Yeah. De Weerd: It was notable. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Anna, going through your explanation again on the residence, if this is annexed and zoned C-C, residential use would not be allowed? Canning: Well, it will stay as a nonconforming use for now. But if they want to do anything else with that house, then, it needs -- for any other use other than residential, for the existing house, then, it needs to be --fully comply, basically. Rountree: What does that mean? I'm concerned about -- who knows what's going on in that house, other than residential. Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 25 of 52 Canning: If code enforcement were to find that there was something other than that the house is being used for something other than a residence, we would shut them down until they came back with a certificate of zoning compliance and design review and all the appropriate applications, meeting all the appropriate standards Rountree: I guess my concern is I don't believe it meets any requirements in terms of setback and landscaping. It'would have to be removed to meet all those requirements. Canning: Actually, number two says one certificate of zoning compliance maybe issued for the -- actually, it's number three. For the portion of the property that is located south of the right-in, right-out access point to Linder Road, provided the existing home is removed. So, that is anticipated. Did that answer the question? I'm afraid it didn't. Rountree: You're the ones that have to enforce the little things that crop up, so if you're comfortable with the DA language and the provisions that -- and I'm not going to name names or businesses, but if it's C-C'd, there is all kinds of things that could go in there. Canning: And they will need to come in for the proper approvals. Rountree: Okay. Hoaglun: Madam Mayor? Just a comment that the photo that we are looking at is prior to that interchange reconstruction it looks like. Rountree: It is. Hoaglun: And that -- that north -- on the north side of Ustick Road on Linder, that road is about six feet away from that house now, if that. So, I don't anticipate it being a residence anytime soon. That's one -- you're going to be hearing a lot of traffic noise and that house has been there a very very long time, so I anticipate changes there if anything's going to happen. De Weerd: We can ask the applicant about that. Anything further for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward and make comment? Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Stanfield: Scott Stanfield with Mason Stanfield Engineering, 314 Batiola in Caldwell, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Stanfield: I won't repeat what Anna said. She pretty much summarized it quite well. I will add that this development agreement and the proposed conditions are in complete agreement with my client and I appreciate the staffs willingness to negotiate back and forth and come to this agreement that you see before you tonight. I think it's awin-win Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 26 of 52 situation. And, Councilman Bird, the boundary dispute has been long resolved quite some time ago. It wasn't so much a property line dispute as it was a fence line. The fence line wasn't on the property line„ it was a couple feet off, so when the developer to the west developed, he took the fence down and my client said, okay, that's where the property line is. So, everything's been cleaned up and clarified. And, Council Member Hoaglun, I think it was you that was stating that the house is right there on the comer and, indeed, it is, it's right there and my client fully understands that if they do anything other than a residential type use, the house is probably going to have to come down, because there is really no way to provide any alternative compliance and meet code. So, they are prepared to deal with that. And the property, you know, as Anna said, they don't have any plans to develop it, but once this is annexed -- hopefully it is annexed -- then, they are going to go head and start marketing it. So, one thing leads to another and maybe some day there will be something there, but nothing planned for the intermediate time. De Weerd: Is it currently occupied? Stanfield: It is. There is an employee of the land -- of the land owner's that actually uses that as his residence. He's one of their property managers. Just a single man, I do believe. De Weerd: Yeah. It's not a very good location to have any kids in. Stanfield: No. It's unfortunate. My client put quite a bit of money into the interior of the house about three years ago and, then, ACRD came along and wanted to acquire right of way and so they worked a deal out and the inside -- it's nice inside, but you really wouldn't want to raise a family there, in my opinion. De Weerd: Council, any questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. Hoaglun: Just one quick question, Scott. I don't want to show my age, but I remember as a youngster that -- that had an artesian well on that property that flowed pretty well. That may be dried up by now. Is it -- was that part of the well that they were using that ACHD covered? Because it was along Linder Road atone time. Stanfield: I believe, Mr. Hoaglun, that was it. Because no mapping was available, it just was discovered by ACHD's contractor during construction and it had to come out and come out real fast to keep the roadway project moving ahead, but I believe that is the source. And it's already hooked up to city sewer. The house -- the previous -- the previous previous land owner a couple decades ago he had an agreement to the City of Meridian and it's been hooked up to city sewer for quite some time. So, it was just this latest endeavor that's causing this thing this evening. Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 27 of 52 Rountree: Madam Mayor, I do have a question about access to the settling pond -- storm water pond. Will that be through the property along the drainage with -- Stanfield: Mayor, Councilman Rountree, I'm going off my memory. ACHD's plans do have an access road and I think they realigned it. It might be tucked into our extreme southwest comer within the 25 foot landscape setback that will exist if and when this parcel develops. I believe that's where Anna was referring to. That's the pathway going up to that comer. The Creason Lateral, the drain, everything has been relocated since this photo's been taken. De Weerd: Did you have -- Rountree: That's all I have. I have a comment for staff. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further from Council? Thank you. Stanfield: Thank you. De Weerd: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to offer testimony on this item? Okay. Council, seeing none, Mr. Rountree, did you have a question for staff? Rountree: Well, I don't have a question, I just have an observation and it's not even on this project, but it brought it to mind on that storm water pond. It appears that the neighbors are utilizing it as an RV four wheel playground and probably ought to let ACHD know they need to get that thing fenced off. Canning: They are in the audience. De Weerd: And we know there is a report due in the morning after a Council meeting, so we know that will be followed up on. Rountree: It just reminded me seeing that, so -- De Weerd: Thank you. Rountree: Having said that and if there is no more public testimony, I move that we close the public hearing. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 8-B. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 28 of 52 Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the annexation for 09-005. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, Madam Clerk, roll call. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. C. Continued Public Hearing: AZ 09-008 Meridian Crossing by James Zeiter located at 1085 S. Ten Mile Road: Request for Annexation and Zoning of a total of 115.26 Acres Consisting of 48.59 Acres to the C-C (Community Business) Zoning District; 27.27 Acres to the H-E Zoning District; 22.57 Acres to the M-E Zoning.. District; and 16.83 Acres to the R-40 Zoning District De Weerd: Item 8-C is AZ 09-008, a continued public hearing. I will ask for staff comments at this time. Wafters: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the next application before you is a request for annexation and zoning of 115.26 acres, consisting of 48.59 acres of C-C, community business; 27.27 acres of HE, high density employment; 22.57 acres of ME, mixed employment, and 16.83 acres of R-4, high density residential. The property is located at 1085 South Ten Mile Road, on the north side of Interstate 84, midway between Ten Mile and Black Cat Roads. This is an aerial view of the property. This property lies within the area subject to the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan, shown here on the screen. The future land use map contained in the plan designates this site as medium high density residential, mixed use commercial, high density employment, and mixed employment. The zoning requested for this site is consistent with the future land use map. The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan showing how the property is proposed to develop with flex office, condos, and townhouses, ground level retail with residential above, ground level retail with office above, research and development, restaurants, offices, parking structures and amphitheater and park area with lakes. Access to this site is depicted via two access points from Baraya Subdivision at the north and northwest property boundaries. You can see that here in yellow. North and west of the site. Several other stub streets are proposed to adjacent properties for future connectivity as shown on the site plan. The Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 29 of 52 proposed street system depicted on the plan is generally consistent with the transportation plan for this area contained in the Ten Mile plan. There is a 3,400 foot long section of the northwest pipeline that bisects this site and runs from the southeast comer to the northwest comer. You can see it here. Pretty much the middle of the site here. The concept plan depicts a 75 foot wide right-of--way easement for use by the pipeline company. The easement is proposed to be an open landscaped area with landscape material and methods approved by the pipeline company. Ten foot wide segments of the city's adopted multi-use regional pathway system are required to be constructed within the site in accord with the master pathways plan in the general locations noted in green. Exact location of the pathway shall be determined by the planning department and parks department at the time of development. Said pathway shall be primarily located within the pipeline easement and provide connectivity to the planned pathway in Baraya Subdivision at the northwest comer of the site. The pathway stub shall also be provided further to the south and to the east boundary on the north end of the site for connectivity with future segments of the pathway. The applicant has submitted pictures showing conceptual building elevation designs that will be typical within the proposed development. Building heights are proposed to be generally four to six stories, with a few taller buildings located in the mixed use commercial area. Low rise retail and restaurant space will be provided within the central linear park, which will allow easy access for adjoining uses. Staff is supportive of the concept building design. Future buildings shall be consistent with the city's design manual, the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan, and the Unified Development Code. The Commission recommended approval of this application at their October 15th, 2009, public hearing. Summary of the Commission public hearing. Mike Wilson, Joann Butler, and Brad Boe testified in favor of the application. No one opposed the application. Written testimony was received from Joann Butler in response to the staff report. Key issues of discussion by the Commission, the timeline and build out of the entire site and land use during that period until full build out occurs. Concern related to the proposed location of residential uses in proximity to the northwest pipeline and commendation of the proposed development plan in relation to that Ten Mile interchange specific area plan for this area. Key Commission changes to the staff recommendation was a modification to the wording of development agreement provision 1.2A as shown in Exhibit B and modify the wording of development agreement provision 1.2C also as shown in Exhibit B. There are no outstanding issues for City Council. Written testimony since the Commission hearing. Joann Butler did submit a response to the Commission recommendations that you should have. Staff will stand for any questions the Council may have at this time. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Bird: Not at this time. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 30 of 52 Zaremba: In your comments you mentioned park areas with lakes and I know the Comprehensive Plan indicates that there would be a pretty sizable park here. I think I'm seeing where that is, but can you maybe indicate better, either by moving the arrow around or something? That area is the park? Do we know how many acres that is? Wafters: I don't believe I have that information. The applicant could probably address that, Councilman Zaremba. Canning: Councilman Zaremba, let me address the comment that the comp plan shows the sizable park. It does not. When the Ten Mile specific area plan came through it superceded what was on the former comp plan and it did not bring a park location on this property forward. Zaremba: Okay. Canning: So, the park shifted to follow the Perdham Drain as shown here. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. If there is nothing further, would the applicant's representative like to make comment at this time? Good evening. Wilson: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I do have some hard copies of some of the exhibits and, then, a color copy of the site plan that might help you visualize. De Weerd: Okay. Sir, if you could also state your name for the record. Wilson: I will. My name is Mike Wilson. My title is senior land planner with Stanley Consultants. Our business address is 2264 South Bonito Way, located right here in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. If you would like to hand that to the city clerk, she will distribute it to the Council. Wilson: Thank you. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I will share my time this evening also with Joann Butler and if you do have questions maybe hold those questions until after both of us have had an opportunity to present to you tonight. Staff has done a great job analyzing and presenting the proposed application before you tonight. We are supportive of the findings that have been presented in the staff report and their recommendation for approval. Obviously, we are thrilled to be before you tonight to present this project to you. It's one of the first applications that you have probably seen in the Ten Mile interchange specific planning area and certainly we are also appreciative of the unanimous recommendation for approval that we received from the Planning and Zoning Commission and also for them commending us for preparing a plan that actually followed the Comprehensive Plan and the Ten Mile plan. So, we Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 31 of 52 definitely appreciate that. We are also appreciative of staff and those that we have worked with on this project and for the support that we have received to date and to my knowledge we haven't received any opposition to the project as presented. So, what you have before you is the proposed concept plan. Obviously, the specific plan offers a dynamic vision for the future development of the Ten Mile area. The concept plan before you supports that vision. It will bolster the city as a place for business, culture, recreation, and a great place to live. We also feel that the plan is in harmony with the vision established by the city, which is to create a place where residents can live, work, and raise a family, as stated' in the plan. We also feel that this plan will set a precedent for development in the Ten Mile area. Just to give you some idea of the overall development features of the site, conceptually we are proposing 1,034 residential units. The overall residential density is 8.97 dwelling units per acre overall. There are over 9,000 proposed parking spaces, primarily in structured parking, as opposed to surface parking areas. And those -- the structured parking will be located behind buildings or incorporated within the buildings themselves. There is 130,000 square feet of flex office space, 150,000 square feet of research development space, approximately 450,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space, and, then, over a million square feet of proposed office. As you can see in the concept plan there is a proposed linear park that was pointed out. This is reserved as a community park, which will include water features and amphitheater as stated, pedestrian pathways and plazas, dining establishments, all integrated within the park itself and, then, specialized boutique retail services. The park is centrally located, so it's easily accessible to those residents in the community and those working within the -- within the area. You will also note that, again, the gas pipeline runs central to the site. That will be reserved as primarily an open area, so that the pipeline company has easy access to the pipe itself and that we are not degrading the pipe and that we are limiting the amount of development that would occur within that area. The buildings themselves, could you maybe tum to the building elevations? The concept buildings for the building, as you can see, will be brought up closer, so that it creates more of an urban village and the building height, as stated, will vary, primarily between four and six stories. You're looking at low to mid rise office buildings and residential buildings, with retail on the ground level and residential above. Again, off-street parking will be provided primarily in parking structures. We have tried to design the buildings to a human scale, so that they do have a pedestrian feel to them. Obviously, as detailed plans are developed for each phase we will submit those plans to the city, as well as detailed landscaping drawings and architectural design that will be reviewed further by the city in conformance with the design guidelines that are adopted In the Ten Mile plan, as well as those design guidelines that have been adopted in the ordinance. The transportation component, again, as stated by staff, generally mirrors the transportation network shown in the Ten Mile plan. Again, we took into consideration the location of the pipeline, limited our crossings over the pipeline to a minimum, as well as provided those crossings at 90 degree angles as recommended by the pipeline company. We are also designing in roundabouts, as recommended in the plan, to keep traffic moving within the -- within the area. Obviously, again, as detailed plans are put forward we will work with ACHD and the city on those transportation designs. Could we go back to the site plan again? Let's see. Actually, let's go to the land use plan. I'm sorry. That one right there. Thank you. So, Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 32 of 52 what we have requested -- basically there are -- as stated by staff, four proposed land uses within this site. The medium high density residential, mixed use commercial, mixed employment, and high density employment. As stated in the Ten Mile interchange plan, it states that the goal of the plan is to promote more organic and holistic development patterns, to mix uses more than to obey lines on a map, not to separate uses by area, but to promote the best use of each areas in concert with the others. The lands in this land use map, then, are flexible. These lines should adjust and evolve to create a place that is truly an integrated whole, mix of uses, both vertically and horizontally. The exact shape of many of the land use areas is somewhat conceptual. Obviously, what we have tried to do is show you how the site plan would lay over the land use plan that's been adopted in the Ten Mile area and we have developed a plan to include. an integration of uses, both vertically and horizontally and although we are not following the lines exactly, we are incorporating all of the land uses designated on the land use map. As far as the zoning, we are requesting four zones in correspondence with the land use as proposed. The high density residential, mixed employment, community business district and high density employment. The high density residential area will consist of approximately 64 townhomes and 171 apartments or condominiums. The residential density in that area, which is depicted on the plan that you see before you in the yellow tone at the northern portion of the site, the residential density will be roughly 13.9 dwelling units per acre, which is in with -- within the range identified in the flan, which is eight to 15 units per acre. The community business district, which is the pink or the salmon color on the map before you, again, integrates both vertically and horizontally various uses to include office, retail, and residential, again, in accordance with the plan. The next employment area is intended for flex office, which may include office and research and development facilities. And, then, the high density employment division is to create nonresidential uses, such as a corporate campus, business, and professional office space, research and development and, then, limited retail services that would primarily benefit or serve those that are working within that area. As stated, the gas pipeline does run through the site. We have recognized the 75 f©ot wide right-of-way easement for use by the pipeline company. Again, it does limit the number of crossings and provided those crossings at 90 degree angles. We feel that in addition to the easement with the linear park running through the -- on the south side, that that provides an additional buffering from the pipeline and, then, also as you note on the site plan itself there is a proposed roadway running along the northern side of the pipeline, again, to provide additional buffering from the pipeline. You should have in your packet communication from the pipeline company. We have met with Williams Northwest Pipeline. They are in support of the concept plan as presented and we will continue to work with the pipeline company and the city as those detailed plans are prepared and work with pipeline company prior to construction. We do feel that we have taken the appropriate steps in minimizing the risk of development near the pipeline, again, by recognizing the easement and the other elements that I have discussed. And, in summary, we look forward to continuing to work with the city on this project as we move forward. We do feel that this project will set in motion the vision that has been adopted in the Ten Mile plan and, again, it builds on the city's platform that this will be a place that you can live, work, and raise a family. The concept plan does encompass a variety of uses and it really creates a dynamic Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 33 of 52 sense of place and it's not just another cookie cutter development. We recognize the support that we have received on this project and certainly look forward to your approval and I will wait for questions until after Joann has had an opportunity to present to you as well. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Ms. Butler, do you have comment? Asking that of an attorney -- it's like asking that of a politician; right? Butler: Almost. Not quite. Joann Butler. 251 East Front Street, representing the applicant here. Good evening. I just have a few comments to make to clarify a couple of things. I did meet with Deputy Chief Silva and I think he wanted to make sure that we saw eye to eye on the issues of the Williams pipeline and I know he wants to make you aware that that pipeline is in the area and you know that and we want the Council also to understand that we are -- we do recognize the important issues about the pipeline and, in fact, we met with the pipeline company well before we even submitted our application and went to the -- and, in fact, they said they didn't like our original design, because we had a road going over the pipeline and so very expensive redesign was taken back and vetted by the pipeline company again, even before we got to the city. So, we are very much aware of those issues and at this time the pipeline company has said -- and I'll just paraphrase from -- well, no, I will give you a quote from their e- mail -- was that at the concept level you are in accord with the guidelines that are described in our developer's handbook. As the designs become more detailed and the specifics of the infrastructure are determined, I'm sure that issues will develop that will have to be worked through. Based on this preliminary work I'm optimistic that conflicts can be successfully resolved and we discussed that at the Planning and Zoning Commission and you will read in the planning development section of Exhibit Cthat -- and Ithink that is A-1 -- that talked about that uses where people are not able to leave the area quickly in the event. of an emergency will be discouraged or are discouraged in the vicinity of the pipeline. So, I'm sure they will be discussed as we get more detailed. The city may want to discuss, as Deputy Chief Silva and I have talked about, may want to explore setting additional standards in connection with the pipeline to be uniformly applied to all property along the pipeline, not just in the Ten Mile area. We are more than happy to sit down with the city at any step of the way and certainly offer what we can to any discussion as to what's appropriate in that area. There are other -- along the lines of -- there are two other items in your staff report and it sounds like you may have a letter that Isent -- or an a-mail that I .sent -- on pages six and seven of Exhibit C from the fire department 3.2 and 3.22, I just want to explain what we'd like to have clarified. We know this staff report will be attached to the development agreement, so we want to make sure that we are really clear, because by the time we all come back to look at this we want to make sure that we remember what we said. In 3.2H right now it reads that we are to show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,00 feet of the project. We discussed that a little bit at P&Z and we -- we said that we can certainly tell you what's within our project, but we really won't have -- we won't be privy to the information on what's outside of the project, so we just wanted to clarify that to say that we would show all those hydrants existing within the project and we know fire department will have the information elsewhere. So, if you Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 34 of 52 could make that change. The other change on 3.22, I think we said at the Planning and Zoning Commission that the fire department was making a comment to the effect that the proposed project will require the availability of a ladder truck within two and a half miles of the project to serve all buildings greater than 30 feet in height. Just so that we are clear, that is not a condition of approval later, there is a fire station within two and a half miles of the site today. There will be a fire station south of the freeway that's closer than that. I know that the city, according to your capital improvements plan and with -- just purchased a ladder truck this past year or in 2009, which is great and I understand that you found a demo version, so you were able to get a deal on that and that's tremendous. And I would just point out that a quick calculation of the impact fees for the fire department will be about 1.1 million. So, I'm sure that those fees can go towards other fire improvements that are needed in the area. The only other comment which has -- is really not for discussion tonight, but I'd like the Council and staff to consider for the future and keep it in mind. If approved we would very much appreciate working with your planning and your legal and your Public Works staff to explore the possibility of establishing a community infrastructure district in this area, not only for this property, but for other property in the area, to look at coming up with the funds to serve community infrastructure, the bigger pieces of infrastructure, perhaps the roads, whatever in this area. We see this -- the CID as being an invaluable tool that the city has at its disposal and we don't have that many at our disposal in cities and so at another time we'd love to discuss that with you. So, with that, if you would, please, make those changes to the staff report so the development agreement reads fine, that's all I have. Thank you. De Weerd: Council, any questions for Ms. Butler or Mr. Wilson? Bird: I have none. Rountree: None. De Weerd: Okay. Just a comment about the impact fees. That might buy one truck, even with a deal. De Weerd: But we are always looking for a deal. Rountree: But we are always looking for a deal. De Weerd: Yeah. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide public testimony on this item? Hoaglun: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Hoaglun: I'd like, once again, to hear from the fire department. This is going through the -- or being built with a major pipeline going through and if Deputy Chief Silva could comment. Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 35 of 52 Silva: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Hoaglun, three quick comments to kind of clarify some points. Ms. Butler referred to that ladder truck and, obviously, we would be in front of Council -- in front of Council if we did have a deal on that, but the reason to bring that out is this will require a ladder truck within two and a half miles and so that can have along-term effect on city expenses, operating costs associated with station number six south of the freeway, that staffing would have to go from three to four, so we want to make sure that Council is aware of, you know, some of the things that go along having mid rise buildings above 30 feet, you know, within a certain planning area. So, that was just a matter of information I wanted to share with Council going forward. The other item referred to was the hydrants within 1,000 feet. What we would like to do is'coordinate the placement of those hydrants, so by knowing the overall picture, even though it may lie outside the scope of this project, by knowing where those hydrants lie, then, we can provide for better coordination of the spacing of hydrants going forward. So, it's just a matter of us being aware of other hydrants that may be in the areas that develop before this project may move forward or, you know, just we can coordinate the installation of the hydrants and provide for proper spacing. Obviously, the fire department does have a concern. You have a major interstate gas -- high pressure gas pipeline that goes through the middle of this project. Obviously, pipelines like this are -- operate within -- throughout the northwest that this hydrant -- or, excuse me, this pipeline goes throughout the northwest. There is development that takes place along that pipeline. We are -- you know, the concept plan does show some additional setback off of that edge of easement, that that pipeline has a 75 foot wide easement and it makes sense to us that they have provided for some additional spacing off of that edge of that easement to provide for additional safety of the people who operate, work, and live within -- within proximity of the pipeline. So, those are, essentially, our comment. It is a very -- it, actually, comprises -- the corridor has two pipelines, one 22 inch and one 24 inch, that operate at pressures of about 850 pounds. So, I mean these are things not to be taken lightly, but as I shared with Mr. Wilson, development does take place in other parts of the northwest in close proximity to these pipelines, as long as we have taken additional precautions. There is different ways to mitigate it and we can -- we can address those issues as they -- the plans move forward through the process. De Weerd: I guess, Mr. Silva, I recall another application we have had conversations about this pipeline as well and that wasn't in the Ten Mile area. I had hoped in the Ten Mile area specific plan these were issues that had been vetted and considered and I know that's why the green space was moved more along the gas line for a preserved corridor and I think they have done a good job in doing that. I do think it's very important for the city to get with the pipeline and come up with protocols that we feel comfortable in our city not during an application process, but certainly before the whole area along that pipeline develops, so everyone is playing on a level playing field and knows the expectations going into it and I think you have been trying to work towards that end, but we do need to make sure that that moves along as well. Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 36 of 52 Silva: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, obviously, this has spawned some discussion with the planning department, we need to move that and we'd like to bring that forward in front 'of you during a strategic planning session that we give direction to staff to develop that -- that standard, so that all -- it does level the playing field for all development along this corridor. You're absolutely right. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, just to follow up to a comment Joe made, a question for Joe, just to be sure, on the hydrant issue, you're just asking that if there is development that occurs before this property is developed, that they would show where those hydrants are in relationship to the hydrants that would also be shown on their property. That's what you're asking for; correct? Silva: That's correct, Madam Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun. That way we just provide for better spacing and utilization of that infrastructure. Hoaglun: Okay. Great. Thank you. De Weerd: Council, any further questions? Mr. Wilson, any concluding remarks? Or applicant? You know, I would like to comment that staff has had nothing but positive comments about this application, the people that they have been working with, and certainly the design in how you have put application to our Ten Mile area specific plan. So, you know, certainly on behalf of the staff and what we see in front of us, I would like to commend you for a beautiful application and something that I know our community will embrace and take great pride in. I don't know what Council will do, but just thought I'd get my two cents worth in. That was testimony. Council, if there is nothing further I would entertain a motion to close. Bird: So moved. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on this item. All those in favor say eye. All ayes. Motion carves. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve AZ 09-008 and to incorporate Ms. Butler's a-mail to staff regarding the DAs and all to -- to incorporate staff comment and public testimony. Rountree: Second. Meridian City Council December S, 2009 Page 37 of 52 De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Rountree: Mr. Mayor, on the motion I think the clarification for showing the hydrants is a good clarification to make. It could be added to that that the reason is that if development occurs prior to this site developing that those locations would be -- Bird: And that was part of the testimony on that. Rountree: Okay. Bird: I agree. Motion maker agrees. Hoaglun: Yeah. Second agrees. Rountree: And I guess prior to -- to voting I just wanted to say it's -- it's very exciting for me to see in what have been the worst of times and hopefully coming out of the worst of times to see something like this being brought forward, knowing full well that this isn't going to happen tomorrow, but that somebody has the vision and the desire to move us and comply with the vision that we have established. In these times we see this I can only hope that -- I'm not sure how it can get better, but as the times get better it probably will get better as well as it develops. De Weerd: And you really have set the tone and that is greatly appreciated and I know that the property owner was' involved in the planning of this area. So, it's appreciated that ongoing commitment and relationship that's been involved and on our end we look forward to moving forward with that relationship as well and hope it's long term. Any other comments from Council? Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountreee, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. D. Public Hearing: AZ 09-009 Southridge-Hodges by Linder 109, LLC Located at 1785 South Windy Ridge Lane: Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.16 Acres from RUT in Ada County to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District De Weerd: Item 8-D is a public hearing on AZ 09-009. I will open this public hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the South Ridge Hodges project and it's located at 1785 South Windy Ridge Lane, east of Ten Mile Road and west -- on the west side the realigned Overland Road, which you can see in faint outline Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 38 of 52 here. The application before you is the annexation of 6.16 acres to R-8 zoning. The subject site is a remnant ;parcel that was considered as part of the South Ridge development. We did ask the applicant of that -- of that project to include a sketch plat of this property, anticipating ghat at some time it would be part of the South Ridge. So, it was considered in that South Ridge project. Since that time the applicant as actually acquired the parcel and is in the process of incorporating it into his project. At this time we are just asking you to annex it with the designation on that's on the current plan. I will tell you that the applicant is proposing a Comprehensive Plan map amendment that he will be submitting at the middle of this month, so -- but this will bring it in conforming to the existing Ten Mile interchange specific area plan. So, we have not recommended a DA at this point. The Commission voted for approval at their November 5th, 2009, public hearing. Van Elg spoke in favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition or commented or provided written testimony. There is no key issues of discussion. There is no changes to staffs recommendation, and to our knowledge there are no outstanding issues for City Council. And with that I'll answer any questions Council may have. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Is the applicant here? Collins: Madam Mayor, Council Members, my name is Roger Collins, I'm with the Land Group, representing the owner and we are in complete agreement with staffs recommendations and I'd stand for any questions you may have. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: It's not directly relevant, but I think driving out there it looked to me like the -- is that the Ridenbaugh Canal -- is being realigned? Collins: Yes. That's correct. Zaremba: And through your property, is -- Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 39 of 52 Collins: Yes. That's correct. Zaremba: That makes sense, I guess. Collins: It will in the overall plan, yes. Zaremba: Okay. Good. De Weerd: Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who like to provide testimony? Now is your chance. He can make it up. Extra credit. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Seeing no interest in providing testimony, I move that we close the public hearing on Item 8-D. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on this item. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the request for Item 8-E. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve this item, Item 8-D. If there is any discussion? Madam Clerk, roll call. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion. carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. E. Public Hearing: ZOA 09-004 Sign Code Text Amendment: Request to amend the City's Current Standard for Signs and to Amend the Following Chapters: Definitions, Measurements, Nonconforming, Outdoor Lighting and Conditional Uses When Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 40 of 52 Such Sections Address Sign Standard for Sign Code Test Amendment by City or Meridian Planning Department De Weerd: Item 8-E is a public hearing on ZOA 09-004 on our sign code text amendment. Vigil: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Before you is a zoning ordinance amendment to amend the text of the UDC. The section proposed for amendment includes signs, definitions, measurements, nonconforming, outdoor lighting, alternative compliance and conditional uses. The purpose of the amendment is to create a progressive and concise code, which will provide Meridian residents and business partners functionality, while taking into account esthetically pleasing structures. A portion of the amendment will provide business owners in the Old Town an opportunity for increased visibility with different types of sign choices, making the code clearer and eliminating areas of uncertainty will enhance service for Meridian residents and business partners alike. A few of the major changes include a restructure of the sign code section to be consistent with the rest of the UDC. Our goals on this -- ourgoals on this is to make the sign code easier to interpret and understand, make the sign code easier to enforce, and to make the sign code more equitable. We reassigned and condensed sections. We cleaned up uncertainties and we cleaned up related code sections. A few new text has been added. One of the types of signs that has been added are portable signs in the downtown area. Temporary signs are now defined as limited duration signs with new proposed standards. Changeable copy signs have been added for all allowed nonresidential uses in all zones and we have a new section for vehicle signs as well. Portable signs in downtown will give business owners an opportunity to come in and apply for a permit for a permanent sign for business identification on their sidewalk in front of their business to give them an opportunity for a free-standing sign where they may not have that opportunity. These will be allowed for retail, restaurants, drinking establishments, and personal services. They are allowed -- they will be allowed one portable sign per entrance and one per street frontage. The maximum background area of any portable sign cannot be more than eight square feet. Limited duration signs I mentioned. There are new proposed standards. These are now called temporary signs, as we see them, and this fall Council approved 180 days for temporary signs for business owners until this code -- this proposed code was adopted. The committee has proposed to take it to 120 days, instead of the 180 days, which was increased from the 90 days we have now. Also, a maximum background area of 20 square feet has been proposed, instead of the current 16 square feet as codified. Banner signs attached to a building would be allowed 32 square feet or 60 square feet for buildings over 100 square feet gross floor area. There would still only be permitted one per business at anytime and a permit is required for any limited duration sign still. Changeable copy signs for allowed nonresidential uses would allow churches, schools, and day cares in residential districts, all commercial districts, including office, C-C, and C-N. Currently they are only allowed in C-G, I-L and I-H. And, then, the last section of the code that is new that we wrote with the committee are vehicle identification signs. These vehicle identification signs will apply to fleet vehicles within the city. They cannot extend or project beyond two inches of the original vehicle and it Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 41 of 52 would not apply to interior vehicle signs exceeding two square feet in overall size. Summary of the public hearing of the Commission. Virginia Cunningham and Kathy Rice testified in favor. There were no in opposition, no commenting, and Virginia Cunningham also supplied written testimony. Key issues of discussion by the Commission was to decrease the minimum vertical clearance of any hanging sign under a canopy from 16 and one half feet to 13 and one half feet and also to allow projecting signs in all districts. Key Commission changes to staff recommendation, per the recommendation of staff the Commission recommended approval to change the minimum vertical clearance of any hanging sign under a canopy from 16 and one half feet to 13 and one half feet. The Commission recommended allowing projecting signs in all districts within an approved alternative compliance application. Outstanding issues for City Council tonight. The draft sign code prohibits any benches with commercially available space for advertising. However, staff understands the need for bus benches located at designated bus stops. Therefore, staff will collaborate with agencies to develop an agreement for such benches and amend the UDC accordingly. Also, following the Commission meeting staff became aware of a minor issue and a proposed nonconforming section for signs. Staff will also bring a UDC amendment back shortly, but staff is not recommending holding back the application this evening. And with that I will stand for any questions. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Bird. Bird: Explain the vehicle signs to me. I didn't quite understand it. Vigil: In the past we have had business owners construct signs on trailers that would be three feet high, eight feet high, and they would be constructed of two by fours with banners attached to them, creating esthetically unpleasing signs and also safety concerns for code enforcement of the police department. So, what we proposed is with the vehicle signs for fleet vehicles, if it is attached with -- if they are painted on or vinyl stickers or magnetic, then, these provisions apply to them. So, they would not extend more than two inches from the body of the vehicle. Bird: You're saying trailers. Are you considering trailers as vehicles? Vehicles is a motorized object that can - I think that can motor -- propel itself down the road. I had a problem with this, because in the glass business a lot of us put our signs up on our glass racks, which is not part of the body of the truck, it sits back and some of them can be as high as ten to twelve feet up there. I understand what you're saying about trailers, but I don't consider a trailer a vehicle. Vigil: Councilman Bird, state statute does consider a trailer a vehicle, because it is licensed. We did check with Emily Kane in the city attorney's office to make sure we were classifying them correctly and if you have a fleet trailer like your -- like the glass business trailers or even if you have apublic -- or a contractor, those kinds of trailers Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 42 of 52 will not be necessarily affected by this. Same with your pizza delivery guys or your driving training school guys that have the signs on top as well, they are fleet vehicles. Bird: Now, this is spelled out real clear in this UDC code. It's not going to be something that comes back and bites us? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean Councilman Bird is correct to hone in on vehicle signs as being difficult and I remember when we brought the UDC through we had more than one discussion on vehicle signs and it is difficult for us. Our goal is always to allow the fleet vehicles to have their signage. I don't think we have had an instance where someone has come in with a fleet vehicle where we have had a problem with it. It's always the opposite. Someone has come in with a gerrymandered monument sign parked in a parking spot trying to call it a vehicle sign. So, I'm --did we get it perfect? We try. We always try. But, you know, we may have to come back with refinements. I think we have gotten a lot closer this time, but it's -- the problem has never been with the fleet vehicles. We haven't had code enforcement come in saying, geez, these guys have fleet vehicles that don't meet your sign ordinance. That's never the problem. It's always the other way around, so -- Bird: And I understand that. I really do. I -- and lunderstand -- we don't want some guy to go out there and put an eight by ten wall up in the middle of his trailer and park it there with a sign, you know. I realize that. But you've got your fleet vehicles and a lot of them their signs -- particularly in the glass business, are put on -- put on the glass racks, which are not part of the body, and if we got it stated as the body, then, they would all be in -- on compliance. Canning: Is the -- do the -- forgive me, Madam Mayor. If I might ask a couple questions, just so I understand a little better. Is the -- are the glass racks -- is that a specific trailer you buy or isthat atrailer -- a trailer you manufacture or -- Bird: The trailer you can buy or we have them built. I'm talking about the trucks that have the glass racks on them. Now, some of the trucks -- your one tons and bigger, the glass rack on that is part of the frame. I mean you just buy a chassis and they -- and, then, you take it to California or somewhere and get the thing. Canning: So, that would be part of the original manufacture? Bird: That would be -- yeah. The three-quarter ton you buy the glass rack set and, then, you physically put it on the truck and that can be removed to another truck if you want to -- but the big one is fit right to that chassis. So, you know, if you have got a '75 Chevy one ton that rack on there is only going to fit a '75 Chevy one ton. It's not going to fit a Ford or something like that. And that's where you usually put the -- you usually put one on the door and you usually put on up on the rack. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I -- Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 43 of 52 Bird: And I don't see what -- if your code is clear like you said, I don't see where we are -- that's going to affect the glass trucks. Canning: We have -- with the intent of that section we have made it clear that we are not trying to regular fleet signs and I think that that intent comes through clearly and for someone looking at that situation I think they would clearly say that's a fleet vehicle and not be concerned. Bird: And I just want to make sure we get this sign this time as close as we can being white, not have any gray or black areas. Vigil: So do we. Canning: Yeah. Vigil: Especially me. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, when the UDC went through I -- I made a point to tell you all that I didn't touch the sign ordinance much, because it had been touched twice right before that and so I didn't -- I tried to make some minimal improvements to get it sort of consistent with our code, but I did not -- we didn't try and rewrite it at that time. So, we have waited the appropriate amount of time, my wounds have healed, I was ready to take this one on. Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, question for Kristi or Anna. I just want to be certain on definition of fleet vehicle. So, if -- to speak specifically to driver's training and the pizza vehicles, those would be considered as fleet vehicles? Vigil: Madam Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, yes, they would be considered fleet vehicles. Hoaglun: Even if the driver's training might be a fleet of one? Vigil: Well, that's more of a safety issue, I think, on driver's training cars -- yeah. And so they would be excluded. Canning: And with regard to the pizza ones, a lot of times those are just temporary while that person's working, so -- Vigil: They take them off and charge them at night is what I understand from my research. Hoaglun: Okay. And, then, I wanted to be sure if they are a fleet, then, that does not apply to them, this section, or -- I thought I had it one time and, then, I lost it, so -- Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 44 of 52 Vigil: Let me -- I can read the purpose of this section to you. The purpose of the section is to allow vehicles used for business identification of fleet vehicles. So, the standards are written for the fleet vehicles. Canning: So, it's -- it's always interpretation and with enforcement also, but we look at the standards and we go back and we look at the purpose statement and we have to balance those two and as we go through. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: It's like what -- Country Glass down here, right now he's got one glass truck and it's signed up and stuff. I would still consider that a fleet vehicle, because if he buys another one, it's going to ~e signed up the same way. So, I would consider, even though he has one now, it's still a fleet vehicle. Is that the way you guys consider it? Canning: Yes. Vigil: Yes. Hoaglun: And, Madam Mayor, just to follow up. This would only pertain to businesses that are within the city's jurisdiction? Vigil: It would have -- well, if they are driving down the street -- it would be a safety issue at that point if they are driving down the street and they don't meet the ordinance and it would become a police department issue is what I understand from Mrs. Kane and the city attorney's office, if they are parked within the City of Meridian and they do not meet this section of the code, then, code enforcement will be able to have a conversation with them and rectify the situation or remedy. Canning: It does not address county issues. Hoaglun: Okay. And what do we do during -- if -- you know, one of the things that candidates do for whatever office -- oftentimes there is pickup trucks with a sign, you know, they build a rack, they put it in the .back, and they are signs and they are in parades, but they also drive around the state. What -- what -- how do we handle that? Is there a situation for that? Vigil: They -- election signs have never been regulated by our sign code, because of freedom of speech, and so we do not have any standards within our sign code for election signs. Bird: I wish you did. I wish you allowed ten per opponent. Ten per candidate. Vigil: Ten per opponent? Make it easier. Meridian City Council December S, 2009 Page 45 of 52 Bird: Not only harder to put out on a lot and remember where you put it. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I do have a couple comments, but I do want to say that I sat on this committee that -- that went through this and have to give credit where credit is due. The folks that were on the committee did an outstanding job of paying attention to detail and really and truly it came across to me that the folks on that committee -- and a good share of them were business people or people in the sign industry, it wasn't just the City of Meridian. In fact, we had little representation, other than the police department and the planning. staff. And I was the public citizen at large and a Councilman, but the rest of the folks were business folks. They have the same desire, I believe, that we have with the sign ordinance and that's to, as best we can, protect the esthetic value of our city and the landscaped areas around our businesses and in and out and around our residents. It came across. It also came across very clearly that a number of businesses live and die by their ability to get people in their front doors, that people believe that signage is what makes that happen. I don't know that there is any research that proves that, but that's certainly a belief on the part of folks. The committee did a great job. They give and took. The only thing they didn't give and take on was the limited duration sign and I tried to stick to 90 days and I was the only voice in the group, including code enforcement, that wanted something less than 120 days. Now, that discussion was interesting. My position was, well, let's leave it at 90 days and continue to extend our 120 or 180 day resolution for another period of time until the economy got better. Their position was, well, let's just do it 120 days and if that becomes a problem amend the ordinance and take it back to 90 days. I just throw that out as -- that was discussed. The outcome of the group was let's leave it at 120 days and code enforcement's perspective it was easier for them to enforce the regulation and, obviously, from the business and to sign in perspective. Actually, several -- at least one of the sign industries persons said, no, it ought to be less, because they have the same sense that all of us had that some of these limited duration signs tend to become rather cluttery. Trying to accommodate that, the spacing of those signs, was not generous for the businesses, but generous for the spacing some 50 feet minimum between signs. So, I think that will help. Anyway, that was the outcome of that issue and probably the -- really, the only issue that had an awful lot of debate, if you will -- the rest of the issues were thoughtfully dealt with, discussed, and general consensus amongst the group with everything we did discuss and it was line by line. It wasn't painful at all. It was interesting. I enjoyed it. But I do have questions about the limited duration and I have specific questions about -- if I can get it back here. One of the standards -- and it's standard four, all limited duration signs shall be weather proofed and kept in a state of good appearance. And I have to go back to the same example I used multiple times in the committee is that that area on Fairview, Smoky Mountain and the bank and -- and that area -- there is just a clutter of signs on that landscape mound out in front of those businesses. They are askew. They are driven in the ground with stakes and tied to Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 46 of 52 stakes. One business has their sign on the very top of a brand new -- not a monument sign, but a district or a business sign with multiple spaces and about ten or 15 feet away it's got one of those signs that I love so much in day glow colors, staked in the ground for the same business. We have got to get a handle on that some way. The folks on this committee appreciated that and they don't like it either. So, I don't know, it's just an enforcement issue and it's a big enforcement issue. The thing I have a problem with as a standard is the state of ggod condition. Driving down from that point down Fairview through Meridian Road this morning I see signs that are wrapped in PVC pipe and staked in the ground with metal fence posts. The font size on them are so small you can hardly read it if you're driving by, you have to stop in front of it at the stop light to read it. There is so much text that there is no way you can read it if you are driving. To me it's simply clutter. It doesn't provide anything for anybody. Right next to it is another one of my favorite signs. It's -- the sign itself is pulled together with cables and turn buckles and u-bolts and it's sand bagged to the ground, in a landscape area. To me that's -- in my mind that's not good appearance, but in trying to enforce that statement -- and we had this discussion about how -- how do you get a standard in there to provide some professionalism, if you will, about the sign. And I'm still concerned about that with the limited duration. I think we have it handled with all the other signs. I mean we have font sizes and colors and sizes and backgrounds, but this limited duration thing -- I mean it still could be your A frame tipped up pallets with something hand written stuck on it. De Weerd: Well -- and just to add to that, I know that code enforcement went out on a sign today that was blocking the vision to oncoming traffic pulling out of a strip mall area and they had it not in the vision triangle, but right up against the sidewalk, so you could not see the oncoming traffic at a certain distance. If your car was low enough you could look under it, but if it was at a certain level, you couldn't look under it or over it. It was right there in your face. And so you had to nose out into the traffic to see if people were coming. So, there has to be something that we give code enforcement to add reason to these things, so they don't cause a hazard and it is Charlie's favorite sign, too, black with fluorescent lettering, which has already blinded the driver, but now they really blind the driver. Rountree: And I'm not saying this to stop this. I think we need to move forward with this, but I think that's an area that we need to put a finer point on. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we can add it on our list of -- we have identified two further research areas and we can add it to that one as well. It is difficult with these signs. Part of the reason we have switched the name from temporary to limited duration is because previously temporary signs had to be flimsy, they had to be of a temporary nature, and that was one of the reasons I wanted to get away from that terminology, to just say, hey, you can build a nice sign, but you can just only have it up for a little while and, then, you can bring it back. So, we could consider some additional standards for that. Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 47 of 52 Vigil: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, Councilman Rountree, within the amendment to when we come back for this we could propose a minimum font size within the limited duration signs, so they are not posing a hazard and, then, also within this section, if it's not already there -- I'm doing a quick scan and I see the safety repair and potential hazards, but we could also add that signs may not cause a safety hazard to vehicle or pedestrian traffic as well. Canning: We could even add that one now if you wanted to. That's pretty standard. Rountree: My final comment -- and this is for Kristi. She did an outstanding job of keeping us in line and keep us going and rewriting this to begin with and she and Anna collaborated and I think she took the lead to get it done and keep it on time to get it to us this evening. I think her goal was to have it done by the 1st of the year and I very much want to see that happen and it's a small reward, but a reward nonetheless that you accomplished your goal and I want to thank you for sticking to it. Vigil: Well, thank you. Rountree: And your sense of wit about you at some of those meetings. Vigil: Oh, I have wit. Canning: Emily Kane was invaluable as well. She always thinks of the side of the argument that we never see coming. So, we have tried to address all those as well. Hoaglun: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: She's good at that arguing. Hoaglun: One last question for planning folks. On the changeable copy sign, does that take care of the issue for churches and schools and that -- that having to change their zoning just to get that type of sign? Canning: That's the Peter Friedman Act. No more zoning for signs. Hoaglun: That's wonderful. This is has been well worth it. Vigil: I have about six sign companies that are waiting for this to be adopted to bring in electronic reader boards to us to get approved for schools and churches. A lot of schools are wanting to get this out and so they are very appreciative. And just one comment. I have included with your -- with your item tonight -- there is a list of people that I notified by a-mail and by telephone to let them know and a lot of them were sign companies and I have received so many compliments on what the committee did and this proposed sign code and us being progressive and going in this direction. They are very pleased with the way it's written and what the committee did. Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 48 of 52 De Weerd: You know -- and I just want to reiterate what Charlie said and Anna had also commented on. I have heard nothing but positive feedback from those that were on the -- involved with the process, but also those that you made presentations to, they are very appreciative of your efforts to communicate and to -- in some cases negotiate and collaborate and I would add my voice of appreciation to what Charlie's already adequately conveyed. We appreciate the work and attention to detail that you have made on this. Vigil: Thank you. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: One additional question if I may. Somewhere else in the UDC -- I may not be phrasing this correctly, but as I recall commercial developments of a certain size are required to do a sign plan for the whole property, which I believe is intended to refer to permanent signs. Can we add to that, that they also have a plan for limited duration signs on the larger properties? Vigil: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Zaremba, the planned signed program doesn't exist with this -- with this draft. Zaremba: All right. Vigil: Because it's a content neutral code, so we are not looking at what the signs say anymore, we are looking at design and location. So, if Kohl's wants to put somebody else on their sign, they can, but they can't have an additional sign. One of the major reasons for the planned sign program was because people might have lots behind another lot and would need their signage out on Eagle Road and they wouldn't be able to get their signage on Eagle Road, because it was off premise. That off premise provision has gone away with this draft code. Zaremba: Okay. Vigil: So -- but we -- we could -- with the -- to answer your question about the limited duration, I am going to redo the checklist for limited duration signs and I'm going to require a site plan. We do not require a site plan now for temporary signs and I'm going to require a site plan, because we are going to need to check setbacks on all of those signs and the locations of the sign, which we are not doing now. So, that will help with a lot of the clutter and signs being on top of signs as well. Zaremba: Good idea. Vigil: And the spacing requirement on that is 50 feet, so -- Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 49 of 52 Canning: From any other sign. So, it could be a limited duration sign, it could be a permanent sign, but they have to be spaced now. So, that should get rid of quite a bit of the clutter. Vigil: Yes. De Weerd: Anything further? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Just one moment. Chief, did you have anything you wanted to add? Lavey: Madam Mayor and Council, I have faith in all the staff members that participated in this. I wish them luck. I know that there is going to be some things that we didn't see that we will have to address. That's the way it always is. But I think it's much better than what we did have and, hopefully, it won't take too many improvements. De Weerd: That was positive. I think. Canning: No. It is. This is a good structure. It's a good structure for any necessary improvements we need to do. Lavey: Madam Mayor, that was just reality. De Weerd: Thank you, chief. We can always count on you. Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Madam Mayor, if there is no more comment or testimony, I move that we -- I guess did you ask if anybody in the public -- we have one public left. De Weerd: Yes. Is there arty member of the public who would like to provide testimony on this item? You always surprise me. Thomason: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I'm Frank Thomason with Valley Times. I also commend the city and the planning staff for the hard work and the committee members who sat on this project. I would -- if this is going to be adopted tonight or when it's adopted I would suggest that the city have this -- and the staff produce a -- an understandable document for public distribution to all media and even something that might be posted in various places around the city, to inform all businesses and people who work in Meridian about the result of this hard work. I think that would be -- help the public to understand what -- what the city has done and I think it's a great contribution to our increasingly complex city, if you will. And I also am really happy to see the attention focused on some of the more problem areas of the signs that have been mentioned tonight. Meridian is a vastly improved community from when I was a child in this city and I credit the city for -- for the progress in this particular area. But I would like to see something -- when it's adopted some kind of effort to inform, in Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 50 of 52 plain language, members of the public -- and it may or may not be the actual language of the -- of the improved ordinance itself. De Weerd: And, you know, I do think that some of the comments have been that it is a lot easier to understand and it is illustrated and in the spirit of thinking green, Frank, we are trying to drive people to our website and where they can find the information easily to help guide them through that. Thomason: And I take that to mean it will be posted on the website at the appropriate time. Thank you. Appreciate that. De Weerd: Thank you. Anything further? Anything from staff? Vigil: I just would like to go on record of thanking the committee. I thanked them at our last meeting, but I would really like to thank them for their participation and making this a very pleasant process for me, as my first code rewrite. Maybe last. No. But, yes, thank you and thank you, Madam Mayor and Council. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council? What's your pleasure? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we close the public hearing on Item 8-E. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on this item. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the text amendment for the sign code, Item 8-E, ZOA 09-004. Bird: Second. . De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve this, move it forward with the appropriate documentation from legal. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yeah, we will put it in the final format of an ordinance and bring it back to you. De Weerd: Okay. Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 51 of 52 Hoaglun: And, Madam Mayor, just to clarify the motion. Was that going to include the safety requirements we talked about and -- on the -- on the vision, that you can incorporate those into that? Is that -- Rountree: My understanding -- and I would like to handle those things as a separate amendment. Get all of the little pieces, parts, that have to -- that have to be fine tuned and bring an amendment forward at some future time. Hoaglun: Okay. Great. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you very much, Kristi. Vigil: Thank you. De Weerd: Congratulations. Okay. Council, we have one more item on our agenda. I would entertain a motion. Rountree: We have two. Item 9: Ordinances. A. Ordinance No. :Disorderly Premises De Weerd: Oh. I'm sorry. Item 9. Madam Clerk, will you, please, read ordinance 9A, 09-1435, by title only. Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 09-1435, an ordinance of the City of Meridian replacing Title 6, Chapter 3, Section 3, of the Meridian City Code relating to disorderly premises, providing for definitions, prohibiting disorderly premises, and providing for criminal penalty. De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard this read by the only and since I didn't ask our audience if they had any testimony, I will ask if our audience would like to hear this read in its entirety, since he's ignoring me I don't think he does. So, Council? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 52 of 52 Bird: I move we approve Ordinance No. 09-1435 with suspension of rules. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 9-A. If there is no discussion, Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Other Items. A. Executive Session As Per Idaho State Code 67-2345 (1) (b) - To Consider the Evaluation, Dismissal or Disciplining of, or to Hear Complaints or Charges Brought Against, a Public Officer, Employee, Staff Member or Individual Agent, or Public School Student and (f) to Consider and Advise its Legal Representatives in Pending Litigation De Weerd: Item 10-A is an Executive Session. Do I have a motion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(b) and (1)(~• Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Roll call, please. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (Into 9:33 p.m. and out of 10:31 p.m.) De Weerd: Okay. I'd entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session. Bird: So moved. Meridian City Council December 8, 2009 Page 53 of 52 Rountree: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: And we are at the end of our agenda. Bird: I move we adjourn. Hoaglun: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:31 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) Gc;L ~ ~ j'Z-f-. (off- / ~- / o~-`-~-~ ~ DATE APPROVED ``\\\``\y ~of~ ~~ r~~~ ~~~''o'' ~\ ~~.~'o~~r~° ~~TJAYCEE . HOLMAN CITY CLERK SEAL ~ q~~O` iii' ..~0®~(/S~.'r~, ~( Pa- a`v~~ i~ ~ "7 ®® ~~