HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 02-03CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, February 3, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
1. Roll -call Attendance:
X Shaun Wardle X Bill Nary
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
O Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Pledge of Allegiance: Presented
3. Community Invocation by Alex Chamberlain St. Luke's Chaplain:
Presented
4. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve as Amended
5. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of January 13, 2004 City Council Regular
Meeting: Approve
7-B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAC
03-007 Request for a Vacation of three feet of ACHD right of way
on each side of West Pennwood Street for Troutner Business
Park Subdivision No. 2 by Mary Ballantyne — west of South
Meridian Road and south of West Franklin Road: Table to
February 10, 2004 Meeting
7-C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
034 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for a re -plat of Troutner
Park Subdivision Lots 4-5 and 10-15, Block 2; Lots 1-3 and 5-8,
Block 3; Block 4; and Lot 3, Block 5 consisting of 6 commercial
building lots and 1 common lot on 17.26 acres in a C -G zone for
Troutner Business Park No. 2 by Mary Ballantyne — south of
West Franklin Road and west of South Meridian Road: Table to
February 10, 2004 Meeting
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03-
030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.8 acres from R-6 to L-
O and C -G zones for proposed Southern Springs Subdivision
Meridian City Council Agenda—Pabrualy 3, 2004 Page I nl 4
.411 nwtenals presented at Public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyonc desiring accommoda lion Inr disabilities related to documents and/or hearing
please Contact the (it) Cleric's Office at 858-4433 at lea,[ 49 hours prior In the public meeting.
No. 2 by The Land Group, Inc. — south of East Overland Road and
east of South Meridian Road: Approve
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
036 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5 commercial building
lots on 2.8 acres in proposed L -O a nd C -G zones for proposed
Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2 by The Land Group, Inc. —
south of East Overland Road and east of South Meridian Road:
Approve
7-F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-050 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new bank
facility with drive up tellers in an OT zone for Farmers and
Merchants State Bank by CSHQA — 703 North Main Street:
Approve
7-G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR
03-021 Request for a Variance for parking of 46 stalls with 13
diagonal o n -street p arking stalls i n a n O T zone for F armers and
Merchants State Bank by CSHQA — 703 North Main Street:
Approve as Amended
7-H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
029 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 building lots on
2.064 acres in a L -O zone for proposed Cherry Lane Office Park
Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers — 2150 West Cherry Lane:
Table to February 10, 2004 Meeting
7-I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-048 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Development for nursing home care for up to 40 patients and office
use with reduced setbacks and landscaping requirements in an L -O
zone for proposed Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision by
Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. — 2150 West Cherry Lane: Table to
February 10, 2004 Meeting
7-J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03-
031 Request for annexation and zoning of 15.04 acres from RUT
to R-8 zones for p roposed W indsong Subdivision by L andmark
Engineering & Planning, Inc. — west of North Linder Road and north
of West Ustick Road: Table to February 10, 2004 Meeting
7-K. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 66 single-family
building lots and 2 common lots on 15.04 acres in a proposed R-8
zone for proposed Windsong Subdivision by Landmark
Meridian City Council Agenda—February 3, 2004 Page 2 or4
All materials presented at public meetings shall became property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/orhearing
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public mcuting.
Engineering & Planning, Inc. — west of North Linder Road and north
of West Ustick Road: Table to February 10, 2004 Meeting
L. Bear Creek Restroom Project: Request for Extension of
Contract by Haemker General Contracting: Approve
M. Approve Bills: Approve
6. Department Reports:
A. Parks and Recreation Department — Doug Strong
1. Draft Agreement between Adventure Island Playground
Organization and the City of Meridian: Need Approval
by other party
B. City Council Member — Bill Nary:
1. Discussion of City Council Meeting Agenda Format:
Discussed
7. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
8. Public Hearing: PFP 03-005 Request for Preliminary / Final Plat
approval of 2 building lots on 52.84 acres in an I -L zone for Jabil
Subdivision by Jabil Circuit, Inc. — 1303 East Central Way: Attorney to
prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval
9. Public Hearing: CUP 03-061 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
dental office in an L -O zone for Gaudry Dental Office by Dr. Robert
Gaudry — southeast corner of Millenium Way and Gala Street in
Resolution Business Park: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval
10. Public Hearing: PP 03-040 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5
building lots on 3.49 acres in an L -O zone for Financial Plaza
Subdivision by Idaho Central Credit Union — 2225 East Overland Road:
Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
Approval
11. Public Hearing: AZ 03-034 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.31
acres from RUT to R-8 and L -O zones for proposed Razzberry Crossing
by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman — south of East McMillan Road and west of
North Locust Grove Road: Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval
Meridian City Council Agenda — February 3. 2004 I aee 3 oto
All materials presenled at public meetings shall become propertyof the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabi lilies related to documents and/or hearing
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public mcoting-
12. Public Hearing: PP 03-039 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 34
residential building lots, 4 professional office lots and 6 common lots on
11.31 acres in proposed R-8 and L -O zones for proposed Razzberry
Crossing by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman — south of East McMillan Road
and west of North Locust Grove Road: Attorney to prepare Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval
13. Public Hearing: CUP 03-062 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development containing a mix of residential and professional
office uses in proposed R-8 and L -O zones for proposed Razzberry
Crossing by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman — south of East McMillan Road
and west of North Locust Grove Road: Attorney to prepare Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval
14. Water, Sewer, & Trash Delinquencies: Approve
15. Executive Session 67-2345(1)(c): No Decisions
Meridian City Council Agenda—February 3, 2004 Page 4 o[ 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation Cor disabilities related to documents and/or hearing
please contact the City Clerk's Orfice at 888-4433 at leas[ 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian City Council Meeting February 3, 2004
The Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M., on
Tuesday, February 3, 2004, by Council President William Nary.
Members Present: William Nary, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, and Shaun Wardle.
Members Absent: Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Others Present: Bill Nichols, Will Berg, Anna Powell, Brad Watson, Kenny Bowers, Bill
Musser, and Dean Willis.
Item 1. Roll -call Attendance:
X Shaun Wardle X Bill Nary
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
Nary: It looks like it's 7:00 so we can call this meeting to order. Mr. Clerk, if you could
call roll.
Item 2. Pledge of Allegiance:
Nary: Thank you. Item 2 is the pledge of allegiance. If all of you would, please, rise
and join us in the pledge of allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3. Community Invocation by Alex Chamberlain St. Luke's Chaplain
Nary: I'd like to welcome you all to our February 3, 2004, meeting. Our next item on the
agenda is our community invocation by Chaplain Alex Chamberlain of St. Luke's
Hospital, Meridian. Chaplain, if you would join us. Thank you.
Chamberlain: Please join me in prayer. Our God, we ask for the presence of your Spirit
upon all who contribute to tonight's meeting, for the ability to concentrate on the matters
at hand, and to set aside for another time and place anything that would distract us from
this night's demands, for the capacity to speak honestly and listen openly, for vision
when we need to see with your eyes, compassion when we need to respond to those
who are in dismay, and for wisdom when difficult decisions call for action. We thank you
for the rain and the snow that bring joy to the skiers and reassurance to the farmers
about the coming season. We pray that all who come and go here tonight will be able
to breathe a sigh of relief when the meeting is adjourned and go safely home with a
sense that you have, again, made a difference in how this town is governed. We pray in
the name of the Lord, the one who loves best, Amen.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 2 of 45
Item 4. Adoption of the Agenda:
Nary. Chaplain, thank you very much for joining us this evening. The next item is Item
4, adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Mr. President?
Nary: Mr. Bird.
Bird: One addition to the agenda I'd like to add is Item Number 15, which will be an
Executive Session as per 67-2345(1)(c), Idaho Code, and with that I would move that
we approve the revised agenda.
Rountree: Second.
Nary: It's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda with one additional item
added, Item 15, an Executive Session. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of January 13, 2004 City Council Regular
Meeting:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03-
030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.8 acres from R-6 to L-
O and C -G zones for proposed Southern Springs Subdivision
No. 2 by The Land Group, Inc. — south of East Overland Road and
east of South Meridian Road:
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
036 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5 commercial building
lots on 2.8 acres in proposed L -O a nd C -G zones for p roposed
Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2 by The Land Group, Inc. —
south of East Overland Road and east of South Meridian Road:
L. Bear Creek Restroom Project: Request for Extension of
Contract by Haemker General Contracting
M. Approve Bills:
Nary: Okay. Item 5, the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Mr. President?
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 3 of 45
Nary: Mr. Bird.
Bird: The Consent Agenda, we have some items we need to move to the regular
agenda. Items B, C, F, G, H, I, J and K would be moved to 7 B, C, F, G, H, I, J, K, and
the rest of the items would remain on the Consent Agenda and I move we approve the
Consent Agenda.
Rountree: Second.
Nary: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda, which now,
basically, contains Items 5 A, D, E, L and M. All those in favor? Oh, I'm sorry. Roll call.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 6. Department Reports:
A. Parks and Recreation Department — Doug Strong
1. Draft Agreement between Adventure Island Playground
Organization and the City of Meridian:
Nary: Item 6, Department Reports. Mr. Strong.
Strong: Mr. President, Members of the Council, as you recall, this is an item that you
heard earlier in an earlier Council meeting that we are bringing back to you tonight with
some changes to the agreement with Adventure Island Playground and I think I will
pass the explanation of what's been added off to Mr. Nichols for explanation.
Nichols: Mr. President, Members of the Council, I looked at the -- I read through the
minutes again of the last meeting where this was discussed and attempted to address
concerns of the Council in the memorandum. I can -- I apologize that this wasn't a red
lined copy to where you could easily see where those changes were, but just to review
the changes, on page one we have added Mrs. Lindig's name as a -- in the first portion
there, so that it's clearly identified a s coordinated by her. I In ave a Iso referred to the
campaign as an unincorporated volunteer organization. We have added under
conditions on page two, subparagraph D, which requires the maintenance of a trust
account for the receipt of collected cash donations, of which was something that was
identified last time. I recharacterized what had been called indemnification as a
volunteer labor -waiver of claims clause, because that more accurately reflected what it
really was. Those were the primary changes that I made in this agreement. I, again,
looked a t t he d iscussion and I -- t hat w as what I gleaned from it. T here w as s ome
discussion about making the agreement shorter or perhaps taking some things out, but
when I looked at how this was going to work, I couldn't see how we could take those
out, so this is what we came up with.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 4 of 45
Nary: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nichols.
Bird: Mr. President?
Nary: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Has Angela had a chance to read this?
Strong: She has not.
Bird: I have one follow up, please.
Nary: Yes, sir.
Bird: I have one question. Seeing how it's an unincorporated volunteer organization
that we are signing into a contract with, what kind of challenges can this be made if
somebody donates a bunch of money through another organization's 503 and, then,
finds out it's an unincorporated volunteer organization and they decide to pull their
money or come back after or something like that. Is that -- can it be challenged?
Nary: Mr. Nichols?
Nichols: Mr. President, Members of the Council, let me see if I can recast the question
and make sure I understand it. The hypothetical is what happens if someone donates
money to a 501(c)(3) entity, such as the St. AI's Group and, then, for whatever reason,
this project falls through, one, what happens to the money and, two, what about the tax
deductibility of the donation? Are those your questions?
Bird: No.
Nichols: No? Okay.
Bird: I'll see if I can clarify it.
Nary: Go ahead.
Bird: What I mean is if some corporation -- we are signing a contract with an
unincorporated volunteer organization that says that they will build the playground for
us, Adventure Island, but we have a corporation St. AI's, which is using their tax exempt
number and helping raise the money. What if something goes wrong or what if a
company says, well, we give to St. AI's and it's -- and we are, actually, doing it for an
unincorporated volunteer organization, I just want to know can we be challenged? Can
we get --
Nichols: Can the city get in trouble?
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 5 of 45
Bird: Yes. Yes.
Nichols: Mr. President, Members of the Council, I don't believe so.
Bird: Okay
Nichols: 501(c)(3) groups collect money and distribute it to people that are
unincorporated individuals, I mean -- and different status and so I don't think that it
would create any kind of challenge to this agreement or the project or somehow put
some onus on the city. Again, to emphasize, the agreement contemplates they will
have their funds and their in-kind donations and everything lined up before anything
gets bought and the project goes forward.
Nary: I guess, Mr. Nichols, the additional question I think that spurs in my mind from
Mr. Bird's question is to the casual observer here it appears that we are partner with this
unincorporated group, so does that mean we end up being the deep pocket they look at
when their donation somehow goes array? 1 guess that would be the concern that I
think Mr. Bird's question raises in my mind. I don't know that there is really a way to
guard against that, but I just wondered what your thought is.
Nichols: Mr. President, Members of the Council, I don't think that puts us in any kind of
primary liability. The nature of a donation is once you give it, you trust the recipient to
use it for the purposes for which it was intended. If you control strings over it, then, it's
not really a donation for the purposes of tax deductibility and some of these other
things. As far as the partnership side of it, I think that's one of the reasons that we have
incorporated into this agreement the funds and the in-kind donations all have to be there
before it begins, rather than to start it and be halfway into it, it's not finished, and, then,
who is going to pick it up. We wanted to make sure everything was in place, the plans,
the specs everything is there before any material is ordered, so that it will be a
successful project. I should say, too, since this is a process that started, I think, two
years ago, the community build aspect of this thing has been done in other communities
across the country, so -- and Mrs. Lindig went -- 1 think it was Chicago that she went to
a community build on a playground area, so others have done this before. It's been
successful and she's tapped into that group to figure out how to get this done.
Bird: Mr. President?
Nary: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I think, then, that we don't need to -- we can enact upon it, but I think we need to
get this to Angela and her read this over. Make sure she -- and I think Mr. Nichols
ought to do that and make sure she understands that she's basically signing for herself,
nobody -- St. AI's isn't backing her or anybody else backing her. Make sure she
understands that.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 6 of 45
Strong: Mr. President, Members of the Council, I will be seeing Angela tomorrow at a
monthly design meeting that will be held at the foundation office at St. AI's and can take
a copy to her, then, and explain it as I u nderstand it at that point. S he would have
foundation individuals to discuss it with and advise her on that end.
Nary: Council, would that, I guess, be your preference, that if it's satisfactory to the
other parties here, that Mr. Strong bring this back with a resolution before us and -- next
week or the following week? Are we comfortable with the agreement as long as it's
comfortable with the other party?
Rountree: That's good with me. Yes.
Wardle: I am.
Bird: Fine with me.
Nary: Okay. Does that work?
Strong: That will work.
B. City Council Member— Bill Nary:
1. Discussion of City Council Meeting Agenda Format:
Nary: Great. Thank you. Next item is Department Reports, a City Council item. Again,
I just wanted to keep this item before us. We have had a number of discussions about
our meeting agenda. We did ask Mr. Nichols to provide us some further information
and, honestly, I can't recall, Council, if I sent this to you or not. I think Mr. Nichols sent it
to me and I can't remember if I sent this forward to you folks.
Bird: I don't recall seeing it.
Nary: Okay. Then, it's my fault. I thought -- I thought I had forwarded this, but I didn't,
and I meant to. Mr. Nichols did identify the few sections of our city code that would
have to be amended that we can take a look at. I will get those to you tonight, so that
you can look at which ones we would be looking at and what we probably need to do is
have some proposals that we want for the agenda discussion. The Mayor should be
back next week and we can finalize this with the different code sections and, then, Mr.
Nichols can go ahead and get those code sections amended. I think every one of us
has a little different perspective of what we'd like to see meeting's format be and so
that's where 1 think the discussion is. If we come next week with that prepared, I will
give these to you and it's my apologies, I thought I had sent these to you and I,
obviously, m eant t o and forgot. I'm s orrya bout t hat. We w ill have that on o ur p re -
Council for discussion next week and I will have these ordinances to you this evening
before you leave.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page of 45
Item 7. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAC
03-007 Request for a Vacation of three feet of ACHD right of way
on each side of West Pennwood Street for Troutner Business
Park Subdivision No. 2 by Mary Ballantyne — west of South
Meridian Road and south of West Franklin Road:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
034 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for a re -plat of Troutner
Park Subdivision Lots 4-5 and 10-15, Block 2; Lots 1-3 and 5-8,
Block 3; Block 4; and Lot 3, Block 5 consisting of 6 commercial
building lots and 1 common lot on 17.26 acres in a C -G zone for
Troutner Business Park No. 2 by Mary Ballantyne — south of
West Franklin Road and west of South Meridian Road:
Nary: Next, Item 7 is the items we have moved from the Consent Agenda, which are
numerous. Items -- now they are 7 B, C, F, G, H, I, J, and K. Item 7B and C are the
Troutner Business Park No. 2 and is that -- Mrs. Powell.
Powell: Yes. Thank you, President Nary, Councilmen. First of all, I want to apologize
for not joining you for the last couple of weeks, but I'm hail and hardy and back here, so
-- it seems like we are clarifying everything that happened last week, unfortunately, and
I wasn't here. The issue, as you can see from the letter from Mr. Ballantyne, dated
February 3rd I think that they felt that your motions last week gave them more flexibility
regarding the vacation of the portion of the street south of Pennwood. This is the plat
just for reference. This is a blowup of the area. It's solely this stub street to the south
that's in question. In reviewing the minutes for the vacation, I think it was very clear that
the Council still wanted the stub street going to the south. It's the motion on the
preliminary plat where it got a bit confused and I think that, perhaps, some of that is
related to some uncertainty on your part as to how vacations get processed, so I'm just
going to take a moment to explain how roadway vacations get processed. ACHD will
not process a vacation application until you all approve the vacation. The process starts
with us for them to -- for us to specifically say, okay, we vacate this easement or this
right of way dedication that was on this plat and that has to come from you before
ACHD will even act on it. It's -- they don't have wiggle room like they do when they are
processing a plat in giving -- you know, you can do this or this, it's really you decide
what can be vacated, that goes to ACRD, and, then, they go through a lengthy process
to vacate that. Technically, they are the owners of the road. Once that plat is filed they
own the road, but they wait to hear from you before they do anything. If the Council
wants to leave some wiggle room as to where that stub street is to the south, then, we
can work on some -- a condition of approval that reflects that with the Ada County
Highway District. I think they will be a little stymied, because the vacation that you
forward to them is only for the properties going north and a little bit of the -- it was an
extra wide right of way. The narrower right of way on this one. Again, I think that if you
look at your motion for the vacation, it was pretty clear you wanted a stub street. Now, if
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page B of 45
that wasn't the case -- and I know it was a split vote and the tie breaker is not here
tonight, so it may make this discussion even more difficult. We do need to know where
you were trying to go on the plat and that's probably clear as mud and I think that Craig
Hood tried to make it a little clearer and had about the same effect that I'm having now,
so --
Wardle: Mr. President?
Nary: Mr, Wardle.
Wardle: As I recall the discussion -- and it was a split vote -- I think the final action from
the Council in about 10 minutes of discussion was we were vacating to the north, as
Anna stipulated. However, we wanted some sort of a stub street to the south and are
you telling us that to do that we need to apply a condition of approval to the plat, so that
that can go to ACHD? Am I hearing that correctly?
Powell: Well, probably, but if that's what you want to do is give some more flexibility on
the one going to the south, then, probably, what we need to do is to say on the vacation
to go ahead and vacate all the easements that they want to vacate. Then, on the plat to
specifically require a stub street to the south. This may require -- I'm getting a look from
Mr. Nichols over there -- which this may require reconsideration on your part, if that's
what you want to go back and do, but I'm not sure.
Nary: I think my recollection is the same as Councilman Wardle, is that that's what I
thought we intended to do was to vacate the northern requirement, but to locate a
southern stub street -- or to the southern property and it could be anywhere along that
roadway. It didn't have to be in the middle any longer, since the northern street didn't
go through, that it could be -- I think that was our intent. Again, I don't know -- Council,
do you want to take this matter up, since it was a split vote, when the Mayor is present
or do you want to amend the findings tonight? What's your preference?
Rountree: Mr. President, I'd like to get it resolved this evening and I'm trying to put the
pieces together here in the memo.
Nary: Okay
Bird: I concur with Mr. Rountree.
Powell: Given your clarification tonight, I think that we can work with the attorney's staff
to make that -- as long as that's -- I think that will be fine. I think that that does come
through in the minutes, it was just -- again, I think it's just more related to the process
and rigidity in the vacation process, so we just need to go back and make that clear for
the vacation findings, more than the plat findings, then.
Rountree: Mr. President?
Meridian City Counoil Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 5 of 45
Nary: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: My recollection is that the Council wanted to have a stub street there -- not
necessarily, my opinion, but that's my recollection of what happened.
Bird: What's your opinion?
Rountree: And that was reflected in the approval of the Findings of Facts.
Nichols: Mr. President?
Nary: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: If I may interrupt. Anna, it appears that perhaps the problem with the findings
on the preliminary plat is the -- is the conditioning something on ACHD approval,
because, if I understood you correctly, if this Council says there shall be a stub street,
there will be one, and as currently worded, the findings talk about if ACHD concurs with
the Council's action.
Powell: I think that we need to change both of them, actually, because the vacation was
clear that you were not vacating to the south and we, actually, will have to have you
vacate that if they do want move that. You have to vacate what they gave you before
and have them give you something new. We are going to have to change the findings,
actually, on both items. One to clarify that they can vacate everything. Then, on the
plat to clarify that, yes, you absolutely will have a stub street to the south. It's not
ACHD's decision, it's your decision, and you decided. Is that what you were asking, Mr.
Nichols?
Nichols: Of course.
Nary: Good lawyer answer
Rountree: That's kind of where I was going, that the Council voted to vacate all but a
stub street. It was their desire to have a stub street, but they were not site specific.
Can the findings in the plat be approved generically that way in terms of the stub street
to the south off of Pennwood?
Powell: Yes. We can work to revise the findings to accommodate that, if you just could
-- they are not there tonight, obviously, but we can revise them.
Nary: Yes. I think to muddy it up, I think the intention of the discussion around the
highway district approval was where it was, not that it be there, because I think our
direction was it be there, but the highway district could decide where along Pennwood
Street would be the most appropriate location to have it.
Powell: Okay
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 10 of 45
Nary: If that's what I understood. That's when we talked about it could be anywhere
going to the south, but I don't think we intended to say that the Highway District could
decide whether or not to have it, just where to have it.
Powell: Okay.
Wardle: Mr. President?
Nary: Mr. Wardle
Wardle: As I recall for the discussion, the discussion was that -- and the Council's
decision -- and yet, again, not my opinion. The decision was that there be a stub street,
although I d id hear d iscussion that A CHD In ad the u Itimate a uthority to vacate t hese
easements. I believe that was the discussion as to why it might have been unclear, but
as Anna's telling us, it's our -- the decision we made was a final decision for that stub
street; is that correct?
Powell: Councilman Wardle, yes, for the most part. Now, if for some reason, ACHD
finds that they can't vacate that, if there is some utility that they can't get an easement
for otherwise, or if there is something to prevent them from vacating it, then, that might
be an issue, but they won't proceed until they have the approval of the Council to vacate
that. Now, there may be something else holding it up, but --
Nary: Okay. Counsel, are you seeking another week, so that we can have the exact
language for this, so that when we approve it we know exactly what it says? Mr.
Nichols is sort of nodding that would be his preference. I think, since, obviously, it
wasn't all that clear once and now we have had it twice, we probably should make sure
the writing is reflective of what we intended and I think it would be -- make more sense
to continue this matter for a week to get that finalized, if a week is adequate.
Nichols: It is.
Nary: Okay.
Bird: Mr, President?
Nary: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we continue the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval on
VAC 03-007, for the Troutner Business Part Subdivision No. 2 until February 10, 2004.
Rountree: Second.
Nary: I is been moved and seconded to table Item 7B and C to our February 1 0th,
2004, meeting. All those in favor?
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 11 of 45
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-050 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new bank
facility with drive up tellers in an OT zone for Farmers and
Merchants State Bank by CSHQA — 703 North Main Street:
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR
03-021 Request for a Variance for parking of 46 stalls with 13
diagonal on -street parking stalls i in a n OT zone for F armers and
Merchants State Bank by CSHQA — 703 North Main Street:
Nary: Now we are up to Items 7F and G. Mrs. Powell.
Powell: President Nary, Members of the Council, this one was, again, just a clarification
on the -- take care of the easy one first. On the Variance I think it was just a simple
misstatement of 15 parking spaces versus 13 for the Variance and I think that that one
is pretty straight forward. The second one was on the timing of the removal of the
building. I didn't -- I figured most of us, since you drive buy it everyday, would
remember where -- I don't have a picture of the building, but the question was the timing
of that. Would it be left to applicant's choice, as some members came away from -- or
the applicant and staff thought that some flexibility was still given by the Council as to
when that building was removed, that it was still the applicant's choice if they wanted to
get keep it. The exact minutes and the exact wording that ended up in the findings -- it's
not clear if Council actually specifically wanted them to remove the building. We are
just trying to find out if the Council still wanted to leave the option of letting them have
the building or if they wanted it removed.
Bird: Mr. President?
Nary: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We can -- I'll ask the architect in charge of the plan, but as I understood this is
staff wanted the building to stay. The applicant wanted it to go. We went with the
applicant. It goes. The existing building goes.
Powell: That is true that when they came in it was staff that wanted them to and Mr.
Slocum can nod appropriately as he sees fit over there. My understanding was that
Farmers and Merchants was still willing to consider keeping it, but they didn't want to
completely throw it out at -- just yet. That they were still going to consider it, and that's
the way we had brought it forward, but -- and to my knowledge that was still -- Steve
Siddoway did contact Mr. Slocum to make sure that -- what his understanding was and I
believe that the applicant still does want to leave that option open.
Bird: Follow up?
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 12 of 45
Nary: Sure, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Zimmerman, the executive vice-president, I believe, of Farmers and
Merchants, said that he wanted it down when we approached that idea out there, from
within the hearing, that they -- that they were -- the only reason they were open to the
option was because of the staff.
Powell: That isn't my understanding currently, but if that is the case, then, we can go
forward with the findings probably -- probably as is and I don't know if Mr. Slocum can
talk to you or not -- okay.
Bird: Can we have him up, Mr. President?
Nary: Certainly. Mr. Wardle, did you have something before Mr. Slocum?
Wardle: Sure. Mr. President, that was also my recollection, that after some discussion
of how the building was going to stay and some options, that it was their preference --
and I believe speaking from my position on the Council that it was our preference that
the building come down. Now, I don't believe that the date of that building's razing and
occupancy was addressed and so I think maybe that would be a good question.
Nary: Mr. Slocum, can you tell us what you thought we meant? You don't need to be
sworn.
Slocum: No public --
Nary: No.
Slocum: I'm in concurrence with what you're saying. I will tell you that Farmers and
Merchants, based on conversations today with Clarence Jones, their COO, is that that
building that exists today will be taken down once the new building is built. Steve
Siddoway called me after -- as they were -- he was reviewing the findings and
conclusions and it was his understanding that the option was left over. I indicated that I
thought there wasn't an option, that the Council had made it clear that the building was
to come down and that's, basically, where the discussion went and was just looking for
some clarification. From t he bank's standpoint, if t he option is t here, t hat's f ine, but
what I'm hearing from Farmers and Merchants is it will be taken down at some point in
time after the new building is constructed, and as long as there isn't a time specific set,
that's acceptable to them.
Bird: That's the way I understood it
Nary: Mr. Nichols?
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 13 of 45
Nichols: Mr. President, Members of the Council, you run a risk if you don't have a date
specific. I mean right now it says the building will be abandoned when the certificate of
occupancy is -- you know, or close in time, I think, is the way the findings are. I mean if
you don't say it's got to be down within some period of time, the building could be there
for an inordinate amount of time. Not that the bank intends to leave it there, you know,
long or not complete their plaza and so forth, but the building, essentially, has got to
come down in order to comply with the site plan, so --
Nary: So, Mr. Nichols, are you suggesting that we should add an additional requirement
in the findings, then, as to some date certain, whether it's 18 months or 12 months or
whatever, from occupancy of the new building to when the other building would be
removed?
Nichols: I think it's -- Mr. President, Members of the Council, it's prudent to have some
kind of deadline. I don't know what the bank was thinking in terms of -- obviously, they
can't take it down the same day that they move into the new one, that's very apparent,
and it might be a temporary CO on their plan, because they can't build the plaza and
some of the other things until the old build's gone. There should be some sort of a
deadline, I would think, for all of that to be done.
Bird: Mr. President?
Nary: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We could give them, you know, three or four months from CO, certificate of
occupancy. That would be fair, I would think or, you know, I'm just throwing out three or
four months or six months or whatever you wanted to do. Unlike Mr. Nichols, I do
believe we need a time certain. Not that they -- not that they probably won't want it
down in the -- I mean they want to get rid of it, so their office building shows up. I mean
that's going to be the site. If you have got that blocking it, I mean they are going to take
it down as soon as they can.
Wardle: Mr. President?
Nary: Would -- oh, sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Mr. President, I have a question of staff. Just a procedural question. Do they --
does Farmers and Merchants need to complete the plaza to be in compliance with the
Conditional Use?
Powell: Well, the approved -- excuse me, President Nary, Council Member Wardle.
The approved site plan, if -- if you are, indeed, just adopting the approved site plan that
has the building removed, then, they couldn't get a full occupancy, they could get a
temporary occupancy, but they wouldn't be able to get a full occupancy until that is
removed. That might solve the problem there.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 14 of 45
Wardle: And -- Mr. President?
Nary: Yes, sir. Go ahead
Wardle: What is the time line -- if a temporary occupancy is issued, what is the time line
for a permanent occupancy from the building department or from --
Powell: I'm not sure that there is a specific time line. Generally, when we grant the
temporary occupancy, we will put one on, whether it's three months or six months. We -
- I t hink w e j ust c oordinate w ith t he a pplicant on that, b ut -- b ecause I k now I ike f or
Krispy Kremes, I think it was three or four months, something like that, and we just set it
at the time that we issued a temporary occupancy.
Nary: Council, what you may want to consider, if we are going to amend the findings, is
try to give the -- I guess the outside time limits that our expectations are. I mean if --
because I don't know when the building will be completed. We have an extension
tonight on a bathroom, because -- we had to extend it twice because of materials and
weather. If we are looking at a point where they are occupying the new building, you
may -- we may want to have some sort of condition that within six months of that period
of time the current building site is demolished. That within an additional six or 12
months or some time period that the work be completed on the plaza, that's part of the
plat, or something like to that, to give them at least some flexibility of time, but not some
never-ending date, but --
Bird: Mr. President?
Nary: Mr. Bird,
Bird: 1 believe that -- and it's like Anna said, they will not get a certificate of occupancy,
a permanent one, until that building is down and the plaza is up, because of the passing
of it. They can get a temporary certificate of occupancy and, then, at that point they get
so many -- like Anna said, the staff will sit down with the applicant and they will say we
can do it within three or six months or whatever to get that razed and the plaza back up.
You're not just razing -- or taking the building down, you're also putting back a plaza that
has to be on there before they get their permanent occupancy, so --
Nary: True.
Bird: So, I think it can be used that when they get their temporary certificate of
occupancy, at that point I think that the staff and the applicant can determine a deal. I
mean this is something that's just in the rules. I don't see where we have to change the
findings at all on that, because it is part of our conditions of temporary occupancy and
stuff, so I don't think we have to change the findings or anything.
Slocum: Mr. President, Members of the Council, I believe in my conversations with
Steve Siddoway that was kind of the bottom line, if Council felt that the motion to have
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 15 of 45
the building taken down eventually was the motion that you all felt comfortable with, that
the findings, I believe, as they were written were fine. It's just that if you wanted to give
Farmers some option in whether that building came down or not, that there needed to
be some -- some change to the findings and conclusions.
Powell: Mr. President, Council Members, that's what Steve's memo states as well. The
only thing you'd need to do is change the variance findings from 15 to 13.
Nary: Yes. Council, looking at the -- I think what you had just previously stated, Mr.
Bird, is in the findings for the plat, that talks about the -- getting all the improvements
getting completed. The improvements include the plaza, so -- and there is a time period
in which to accomplish that and to get a CO, so -- so, I think we probably -- if that's
everyone's intention, then, we are probably only looking at amending the variance once.
Bird: And that's just the parking from 15 to 13 spaces
Nary: Right.
Bird: Mr. President?
Nary: Anything else? Okay. Mr. Bird
Bird: I would move, then, that we approve the facts -- the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 03-050, the request for a Conditional Use
Permit by Farmers and Merchants State Bank. Also the VAR 03-021, the request for a
variance of 46 parking stalls, with 13 diagonal on -street stalls and change the findings
from 15 to 13. We had 15 in the Findings. With that I would -- and for the President to
sign and the Clerk to attest.
Wardle: Second.
Nary: It's been moved and seconded to approve Items 7 F and 7 G, the Findings of
Facts and Conclusions of Law for CUP 03-050 and VAR 03-021, request for variance
for the Farmer and Merchants State Bank. Mr. Clerk, if you would call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, abstain; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSTAIN
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
029 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 building lots on
2.064 acres in a L -O zone for proposed Cherry Lane Office Park
Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers — 2150 West Cherry Lane:
I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-048 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 16 of 45
Development for nursing home care for up to 40 patients and office
use with reduced setbacks and landscaping requirements in an L -O
zone for proposed Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision by
Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. — 2150 West Cherry Lane:
J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03-
031 Request for annexation and zoning of 15.04 acres from RUT
to R-8 zones for proposed W indsong Subdivision by Landmark
Engineering & Planning, Inc. — west of North Linder Road and north
of West Ustick Road:
K. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 66 single-family
building lots and 2 common lots on 15.04 acres in a proposed R-8
zone for proposed Windsong Subdivision by Landmark
Engineering & Planning, Inc. — west of North Linder Road and north
of West Ustick Road:
Nary: The next item we have is 7 H, I, J and K, Windsong -- oh, I'm sorry. H and I for
the Cherry Lane Office Park. Mrs. Powell.
Powell: President Nary, Members of the Council, this -- we are just asking you to table
this, because we did note some discrepancy in the findings and we just received it at a
late date. I don't believe the applicant has had a chance to review the findings as well.
Same is true of Windsong. It's just --
Nary: Okay. Is the applicant here on these?
Powell: I called Mr. McKinnon and was not able to reach him, so I'm not even sure he
was aware that the findings were on tonight.
Nary: Okay. Okay. Well, Council, we can take -- if that's your pleasure, we can
certainly take up 7 H, I, J and K, if the intent is to table all of them. Is one week or two
weeks more appropriate?
Powell: I believe one week will be sufficient
Nary: One week is sufficient. Okay.
Bird: Mr. President?
Nary: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move we continue PP 03-029, Preliminary Plat request for Cherry Lane
Office Park Subdivision and also CUP 03-048, for Cherry Lane Park -- Cherry Lane
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 17 of 45
Office Park Subdivision and also AZ 03-031, Windsong Subdivision, and also PP 03-
037 for Windsong Subdivision to February 10, 2004.
Rountree: I'll second that if it's a motion to table
Nary: That's what I was going to --
Bird: Continue. Didn't I say continue?
Nary: You did, but it should be to table.
Bird: Oh, that's right. To table. I'm sorry
Nary: And that's what I assumed Mr. Bird meant. The motion before us is to table --
motion has been made and seconded to table Items 7 H, I, J, and K for Cherry Lane
Office Park and Windsong Subdivision to our February 10, 2004, meeting. All those in
favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Nary: Now, we are up to Item 8. Before we begin the Public Hearing, I'm going, I guess
indulge myself as the chair this evening. We have four different Public Hearings before
us tonight. What I'm going to ask each of you is if you intend to testify, at least at this
juncture, or you think you may testify, all of our testimony is to be sworn before we start
any of the Public Hearings. I'm going to have each of you to raise your hand if you
intend to testify, so that you can all the sworn at one time and maybe save us a little
time later one in the evening. If you intend to testify, you don't have to stand if you don't
want to, simply raise your right hand.
Powell: President Nary, do you want staff to swear in?
Nary: Sure. If you would swear or affirm that all the testimony you give to this Council -
- give this evening before this Council will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
(Answers in the affirmative.)
Item 8. Public Hearing: PFP 03-005 Request for Preliminary / Final Plat
approval of 2 building lots on 52.84 acres in an I -L zone for Jabil
Subdivision by Jabil Circuit, Inc. — 1303 East Central Way:
Nary: Before we start the Public Hearings for each of the Public Hearings, just so you
know, the applicant for the hearing will have 15 minutes to make their presentation. If
you can make it in less than 15 minutes, more power to you, we will commend you for
that. The staff will make a report before that. The applicant will have 15 minutes. Each
of the people that testifies will have three minutes to testify. At the end the applicant
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 18 of 45
always get the last word, so they will have some rebuttal time. We generally won't time
that, but, again, brevity will be rewarded more than taking a long time. The first item
that we have -- and also, just for your own note, before you testify, when you state your
name, please, spell your last for the person taking our minutes and I will ask you always
to also affirm that you have already previously been sworn. We can start with Item 8,
Public Hearing, is PFP 03-005, for Jabil Subdivision. Mrs. Powell.
Powell: President Nary, Members of the Council, this is the Jabil property, which at the
end of Locust Grove right before the freeway, and the purpose of the subdivision is to
divide the currently developed portion of the site and allow that to be sold as its own lot,
while the remainder lot will be available for sale also. We have delayed the construction
of -- the Comprehensive Plan does ask for a pathway on this lot. We have delayed the
construction of that pathway until some time as this lot comes in for development.
These items you see In ere o n soccer f ields t hat -- the site is currently used f or PAL
soccer, I believe. At the Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing, they did
recommend approval of the subdivision to you. T he applicant's representative Dean
Briggs did testify in favor of the application. That was the only testimony at that hearing.
There were no key changes to staff recommendations. As you will note on the
summary sheet, though, there were a couple of issues that weren't addressed, one of
those being the special recommendations from the ACHD staff report. Mr. Siddoway
did include those in the recommendations that are before you. He did coordinate with
the applicant and they were okay with those special recommendations that ACHD was
suggesting, so those have been included in the findings that are -- or recommendations
that are before you tonight. The other item that didn't get discussed at the Planning and
Zoning Commission has to do with ITD and their noise abatement language. I think
some of you may recall -- two of you may recall, we kind of went about on this on
Stokesberry where on these commercial developments ITD is still requiring a letter that
says that the owners of the property forego any right to ever ask for any noise
abatement. We did table Stokesberry to try and get a clarification from ITD. Their
clarification was even more confusing and just for reference on Stokesberry you did just
drop the ITD requirement completely. There is some question tonight as to what you
want the applicant to do as far as the ITD requirement for noise abatement. And the
only other small changes that were done was we did ask the applicant to reflect the
future right of way for Locust Grove on the plat and that's, really, the only other issue of
note. With that, I will answer any questions you might have.
Nary: Council, any questions? Thank you. Mr. Brown.
Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, Brown, and I have been sworn at tonight, so -- I did
swear. We are in agreement with the conditions. We would ask for the waiver of that
ITD requirement, as was explained to me by Mr. Siddoway, they would ask us to do a
study. Then, upon finding that there is noise on the interstate, then, possibility we might
have to build a retaining wall or sound barrier wall or sign a document that we will never
go against them for traffic noise or whatever else. We would ask that you waive that
requirement from us. As you look at the site, there are existing two parcels already
there. The Jabil site is built, for the most part, on one of the parcels. For the -- my
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 19 of 45
clients, Jabil, to sell, the entire parking lot would need to move the property line and
because the City of Meridian does not have a property line adjustment procedure, they
have a lot line adjustment procedure, we are forced to do this horrendous task of doing
a subdivision for two legal parcels of record that the city recognizes. The parcel line is
in the wrong location so, be nice to us for going through all of this effort. Jabil would like
to get someone into that site and would also like to sell the other site. I'll stand for any
questions.
Nary: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
Nary: Good brevity, Mr. Brown. Thank you. Is there anyone else here to testify on this
item? Council, do you have any other questions of staff or the applicant? Seeing none,
do we wish to close the Public Hearing?
Rountree: Mr. President?
Nary: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move we close the Public Hearing on Item Number 8, PFP 03-005.
Bird: Second.
Nary: Excuse me. It's been moved and seconded to close Item 8, PFP 03-005, request
for Preliminary and Final Plat for Jabil Subdivision. All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Nary: Council, what's your pleasure on this item? Discussion or motion?
Bird: I have none.
Wardle: Mr. President?
Nary: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we approve PFP 03-005, request for Preliminary and Final Plat
approval of two building lots on 52.84 acres in an I -L zone for Jabil Subdivision by Jabil
Circuit, 1303 Central Way, and to remove the ITD requirement from the plat.
Bird: Second.
Nary: It's been moved and seconded to approve PFP 03-005.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 20 of 45
Powell: Mr. President?
Nary: Yes.
Powell: Just for clarification,
Commission, it was just -- it was
but --
Nary: Okay.
because it was missed at the Planning and Zoning
, actually, not on there yet, so we are just not adding It,
Powell: Just for the record is all --
Wardle: Mr. President?
Nary: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move to amend my motion to not include the ITD requirement on the plat.
Bird: And second agrees.
Nary: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the finding -- or approve for
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law PFP 03-005, request for Preliminary and Final
Plat approval for Jabil Subdivision, as recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Mr. Clerk, would you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 03-061 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
dental office in an L -O zone for Gaudry Dental Office by Dr. Robert
Gaudry — southeast corner of Millenium Way and Gala Street in
Resolution Business Park:
Nary: Next we have Item 9, CUP 03-061, request for Conditional Use Permit for a
dental office in an L -O zone for Gaudry Dental Office by Dr. Robert Gaudry at the
southeast corner of Millennium Way and Gala Street in Resolution Business Park. Mrs,
Powell.
Powell: President Nary, Members of the Council, this is in Resolution Business Park.
You have seen this site several times. We had a Conditional Use come in for a dental
office and, then, a Preliminary Plat in those boundaries you see there. This dentist
office is also -- is, actually, on a smaller portion. That Preliminary Plat you approved is
not final yet. This is, actually, just in this area here. You have seen the site layout
before when this one came in. They have always shown all three. The Planning and
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 21 of 45
Zoning Commission did recommend approval with conditions. The owner's
representative Larry Knopp testified in favor of the application. There was no other
testimony. There were no key issues of discussion by the Commission and no
significant changes to the staffs original recommendation. There are no outstanding
issues before this City Council. With that, I will end staffs testimony.
Nary: Thank you, Mrs. Powell. Is the applicant here?
Knopp: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Larry Knopp, 355 South 3rd Street. I'm
the architect representing the owner here today. We reviewed all the conditions from
the staff report and we are in agreement with it. I will answer any questions that you
might have regarding this project.
Nary: And, Mr. Knopp, for the record, you were previously sworn?
Knopp: Yes.
Nary: Thank you. Council, do you have any questions? Thank you, sir.
Knopp: Thank you.
Nary: Council, do you have any other questions for staff?
Bird: Is there anybody else to testify?
Nary: Oh, I'm sorry. Is there anyone else here to testify on this item? Any other
questions for staff or anyone else?
Bird: I have none.
Wardle: Mr. President?
Nary: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we close Public Hearing CUP 03-061.
Bird: Second.
Nary: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 03-061 for
Gaudry Dental Office. All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Nary: Motion approved. Council, the matter is before you. Discussion or motion?
Rountree: Mr. President?
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 22 of 45
Nary: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the request CUP 03-061 for Conditional Use Permit
for a dental office in an L -O zone for Gaudry Dental Office, to include all staff comments
and instruct the City Attorney to prepare appropriate Findings of Facts and Conclusions
of Law and Decisions.
Bird: Second.
Nary: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded for approval of Item 9, CUP 03-061,
and for counsel to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Gaudry Dental
Office, pursuant to all staff comments. Mr. Clerk, if you would call the roll.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 10. Public Hearing: PP 03-040 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5
building lots on 3.49 acres in an L -O zone for Financial Plaza
Subdivision by Idaho Central Credit Union — 2225 East Overland Road:
Nary: Approved. Thank you. Item 10. PP 03-040, request for Preliminary Plat
approval of five building lots on 3.49 acres in an L -O zone for Financial Plaza
Subdivision by Idaho Central Credit Union at 2225 East Overland Road and we will
begin with staff comments. Mrs. Powell.
Powell: President Nary, Members of the Council, we go a tad bit north in our vicinity
map here and this is also one property that you have seen before. They are coming in
now with a five lot subdivision and just to refresh your memory, because I always
remember the site plans. This was the Idaho Central Credit Union site plan that they
came into Council with the associated drive-thru facility, so they have that conditional
use approved, as you will see it sits on the largest lot in their proposed subdivision here.
They would propose four additional lots. With the combined access, there is one down
here on the approved conditional use. They'd also have a shared access here that
would -- I think -- I believe we have required a cross -access easement on all the
property. On the site plan for the -- for the bank, we did require cross -access from this
drive aisle here as well. The Planning Commission has forwarded this with a
recommendation for approval. There was no testimony in opposition to the project or
support of the project. It was forwarded to you without any significant changes from
staff's initial recommendation, so there are no outstanding issues that we know of
before the City Council. I will end staffs presentation.
Nary: Council, questions?
Rountree: I have none.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 23 of 45
Bird: I have none.
Nary. Mrs. Powell, just so I understand, the top piece that, I guess, abuts Overland
Road, there is no access from Overland into that piece, it's all a cross -access internally,
correct?
Powell: Correct. There is a significant landscape -- required landscape buffer here and
they would all just take access from one another in this area. We have required cross -
access at that point. The plat -- it's a little difficult to see, but the plat shows a shared
access straddled -- that straddles this property line here.
Nary: Yes. I didn't see any driveway access. I just wanted to be sure that I was reading
it properly, so thank you. Is the applicant here? I guess they must have liked it. Oh,
there.
Anderson: Mr. President, Council Members, my name is Gordon Anderson. If you had
a group swearing, I guess I must have missed it or something, so --
Nary: That's fine, Mr. Anderson. If you could raise your right hand. Do you swear or
affirm the testimony you give this Council is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
Anderson: Absolutely.
Nary: Thank you.
Anderson: I'm representing the owner. If you have questions. I can answer it for them, I
guess.
Nary: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Mr. President?
Nary: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Mr. Anderson, have you read the conditions --
Anderson: Yes. I have.
Rountree: -- submitted by staff and are you in agreement with all of --
Anderson: We are in agreement with the staff.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 24 of 45
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
Nary: Thank you. Is there anyone else here to testify on this item? Seeing none,
Council, do you have any further questions for staff or the applicant? Okay.
Wardle: Mr. President?
Nary: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move we close Public Hearing PP 03-040,
Nary: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 10, the
Financial Plaza Subdivision. All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Nary: Council, discussion? Motion?
Bird: Mr. President?
Nary: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'd move that we approve PP 03-040, the request for preliminary plat approval of
five building lots on 3.49 acres in an L-0 zone for Financial Plaza Subdivision by Idaho
Central Credit Union, 2225 East Overland Road. To incorporate all staff and applicant
comments and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law
and Decision of Order.
Rountree: Second
Nary: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 10, PP 03-040, the Financial
Plaza Subdivision and for counsel to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law,
Decision and Order. Mr. Berg, would you call the roll.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 11. Public Hearing: AZ 03-034 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.31
acres from RUT to R-8 and L -O zones for proposed Razzberry Crossing
by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman — south of East McMillan Road and west of
North Locust Grove Road:
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 25 of 45
Item 12. Public Hearing: PP 03-039 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 34
residential building lots, 4 professional office lots and 6 common lots on
11.31 acres in proposed R-8 and L-0 zones for proposed Razzberry
Crossing by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman — south of East McMillan Road
and west of North Locust Grove Road:
Item 13. Public Hearing: CUP 03-062 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development containing a mix of residential and professional
office uses in proposed R-8 and L-0 zones for proposed Razzberry
Crossing by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman — south of East McMillan Road
and west of North Locust Grove Road:
Nary: Council, if there is no objection, Items 11, 12 and 13 all relate to the same
project. I would open all three Public Hearings at the same time for testimony, AZ 03-
034, request for annexation and zoning of 11.31 acres from RUT to R-8 and L-0 zones
for proposed Razzberry Crossing by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman, south of East McMillan
Road, west of North Locust Grove. Public Hearing PP 03-039, request for preliminary
plat approval of 34 residential building lots, four professional office lots, and six common
lots on 11.31 acres in a proposed R-8 and L-0 zones for proposed Razzberry Crossing.
Finally, CUP 03-062, request for Conditional Use Permit for a planned developed,
containing a mix of residential and professional office uses in proposed R-8 and L -O
zones for the proposed Razzberry Crossing. We can begin with staff comments. Mrs.
Powell.
Powell: President Nary, Members of the Council, this is located south of McMillan and,
then, west of Locust Grove Road. As you can see, it's a very long, narrow piece of
property. There is an Ada County sub that are primarily one acre lots or close to it in
this area. As you will see down here, Heritage Commons is in this location. The
Comprehensive Plan does show a neighborhood center that kind of arcs basically like
this or in this area. The Comp Plan does hit a corner of this property as far as being a
neighborhood center, mixed-use area. Havasu Creek comes and surrounds the
property and that's the light yellow you see here. These properties remain
undeveloped. This applicant that owns these two properties has agreed to a combined
access on the property and I will show you that. You will see here that this is the
combined access that it comes partially onto this property to the south. The property is
a light office development. There is one, two, three, four pads. This is out parcel, it's
not included as part of the subdivision. There are four light office pads here at the front
where the neighborhood center concept kind of clips this property. The remainder of
the property has single-family residential lots. There is an open space in this area. It's
show up a little better in the landscape plan -- that connects to the Havasu Creek open
space on this site. There is also an open space, primarily drainage lot, over here. They
have put a fair amount of trees in that and that, again, backs up to Havasu Creek on
that side as well. The applicant had several stubs coming into the property, one here,
and one here. He's continued those to the south and, again, part of the idea around
those neighborhood centers is to have a fairly tight connection of streets where there is
a lot of interconnectedness near those areas and so they have complied with that. This
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 26 of 45
is kind of a stub coming to this property that shares the access. This project has come
forward to you with a recommendation for approval from the Planning and Zoning
Commission. The applicant's representative Wayne Forrey of Pathway Planners
Consulting testified in favor of the application. There were five members of the public
that testified expressing concerns regarding the density of the proposed development.
The Planning Commission did not make any significant additions or modifications to
staff's recommendations. Staff did have some errors in there regarding flood plain
issues and those have been corrected. I did want to point out that you also have an
inter -office memo from -- well, it's from -- it's from Wendy Kirkpatrick. Her name is not
on it, though. It adds two conditions of approval. We noticed that some of the -- that we
were lacking a condition of approval or -- that stated that the office needed to come in
for detailed conditional use approval. So -- and that's just a standard that we have with
the planned developments, that they do need to come back in, but we wanted to clarify
that and add that as a condition of approval. That's the first item. Then, just for the
record, for Mr. Forrey, we did notice that some of the parking lot dimensions were not
sufficient on that, so we will work with the applicant to make sure that they come in with
something that meets the parking design standards. The other issue was the roadways.
The primary roadway does have a 50 foot right of way. The plat also shows a 42 foot
right of way, but, really, that's just a commercial drive, so we are just concentrating on
the 50 foot right of way. I is 2 9 feet back of curb to back of curb, which, f or A CHID,
generally, they would allow parking on one side of the street and that was the
applicant's intent was just to have parking on one side of the street. The Meridian Fire
Department, however, does not allow parking on one side of the street and so they had
a condition of approval that it be red curbed and no parking, so there would be no on -
street parking, basically, anywhere in the subdivision and the applicant and staff agreed
that that was inappropriate. We have asked to add a condition of approval and that's
the s econd bulleted i tem and, basically, w hat i t s ays i s t hat t hey -- t hey n eed to g et
approval from the Fire Department for parking on at least one side of the street. That
you all understand that that may require a different street section than the one that's
shown on the preliminary plat and that would occur from this point going west. The
commercial properties, because they all take access from internal drives, could maintain
with the no parking and the -- on either side and, then, the street section that they have
shown. That is the intent of those two conditions of -- added conditions of approval. I
did want to point out one other of thing. On the -- ACHD provided a special
recommendation to the City of Meridian asking that you require that the applicant put
curb, gutter, sidewalk on this out parcel. They are not able to require that, neither are
you. At this point we just wanted to have it on the record that this parcel was not part of
the annexation request and is not a part of the plat request either. It will remain a
county property until such time that they want to develop.
Nary: It's a great idea if you can do that.
Powell: Yes.
Nary: Doesn't usually work that way.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 27 of 45
Powell: And with that I will end staffs presentation.
Nary: Council, questions for Mrs. Powell?
1:7 R: M117.URTATOTiT-3
Nary: Mrs. Powell, I have noticed that part of the discussion here at the other level was
the prior application for this parcel, but I didn't -- I couldn't remember what it looked like
and I didn't notice in here what was changed or what was different and I don't know if
you have that --
Powell: I don't have it with me, but I can describe. It was called Blooming Meadows.
Nary: I remembered that.
Powell: It was -- let me get my arrow up here. I lost it. They had used this section here
for a park. There was no street. Blooming Meadows suffered from a change of
ownership midway through the application and some disagreement -- or some
misunderstanding with Mr. Johnson to the south here as to whether they would be
agreeable to a combined entry. They did not show one -- Mr. Johnson showed up at the
hearing and said, well, I would have gone for it. Nobody ever called me. That was -- it
wasn't really the applicant's fault, it was the previous owner that had caused the
misunderstanding. Then, from about -- from here over to here was a multi -family
complex, basically townhouses. They were kind of stripped out this way and, then, two
back to back in the center and one over here. It was kind of a very formal, I guess
almost H pattern or something like that with the street coming in there. They were
served not by a public street, but by just kind of internal access and, then, the remainder
of it was single family lots. It wasn't laid out this way, but they were basically the same,
they were just single family detached lots, a similar size to Havasu Creek, perhaps a
little smaller, and the applicant may be able to give you a better idea on the numbers. I
don't remember the exact square footage but it was comparable.
Nary: Comparable in density?
Powell: Well, the single family was comparable in density. The multi family was much
higher density and they switched -- based on a lot of what they heard, they switched to
the L -O. The Planning Commission felt that the applicant really did address the
concerns that the neighborhood originally expressed about Blooming Meadows. That
that was part of their discussion about why they were recommending approval without
any changes to staffs recommendations, because they did feel that the applicant
addressed those concerns that were originally put forth when Blooming Meadows was
before you.
Nary: Thank you. All right. Mr. Forrey
Forrey: Thank you.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 28 of 45
Nary: And, Mr. Forrey, as I said previously, you have 15 minutes to present your thing.
Forrey: Thank you. Mr. President, Members of the Council. My name is Wayne Forrey.
The spelling of my last name is Forrey. I was previously sworn in and I will be concise.
I'm the owner of Pathway Planners Consulting and my client is Carl and Bonnie
Reiterman, who are here tonight, and I do have a very concise presentation, if we could
just go to the screen and we will clip right through that. By the way, I was not affiliated
with the former project that Anna Powell described, the Blooming Meadows, so I'm not
real familiar with it, but it had about double the density of this project. Razzberry is a key
in -fill community and I will walk you through this. A little site history. Next. In March of
last year there was a pre -application with your planning staff and, then, in April an
application was submitted to the city. Then, unfortunately, the property owners had
several engineering changes throughout the project. Then, in June of 2003 there was a
hearing at the Planning and Zoning Commission level and the Commissioners denied
all three applications, the annexation, the Preliminary Plat, and the Conditional Use. It
was, as Anna described, it had R-15 zoning and some R-8 zoning and it was, actually, a
very poorly designed project and I could see why citizens were upset and the Planning
and Zoning Commission was upset. Then, in July it came forward to the City Council
and I understand that about halfway through that meeting the representative of the
property stood up and said we are going to withdraw this application. I think he
understood this project was dying fast and I did not read the City Council minutes, but I
was told that the Council had some very serious concerns about this project. The
applicant did withdraw those applications. Then, when the -- Carl and Bonnie Reiterman
came to me and said what do we do with this piece of property, I asked for the P&Z
minutes, to go through and get a sense of the history of this. I noted that there were six
occasions when the P&Z Commissioners and citizens asked for a neighborhood
meeting and there hadn't been any neighborhood meetings. The Star Lane was a major
issue here, because the former project did not make a connection to Locust Grove
Road and there were five instances of testimony from the P&Z Commissioners and
citizens about you need better connectivity. The neighborhood center came up with the
staff, citizens, and zoning commissioners and there were five references to that. There
were t hree items of testimony o n I ight office, rather than the higher d ensity attached
residential. Citizens in three comments wanted more sidewalks and that the townhomes
were too dense and that came, again, from zoning commissioners and citizens. In
summary, from reading the minutes, I could see that the Planning and Zoning
Commission wanted R-8, they wanted better access, a mix of lot sizes, and they were
acceptable with the office uses, because of the neighborhood center concept. Next. We
went back to the drawing board. We started over. We conducted some staff meetings
here with your staff. The Reitermans hired an experienced engineering and planning
team that would stay with them throughout the project. We held two neighborhood
meetings. We met with the highway district and irrigation district. We met with
adjoining property owners and we incorporated all that prior testimony into creating this
new project. Next. Whenever I start a project I like to look at transportation
connections. Some people start with a layout first and, then, figure if they are going to
connect to their neighbors. I like to just see all the connections that we can make and,
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 29 of 45
then, do a layout. Anna, if you could click again. This, of course, was our major
accomplishment. We needed to connect to Star Lane. Next. Here is our second point
of access, getting a public street into this property owner here, which is owned by Loni
and Brett Johnson. Next. Then we knew that we needed a public street connection
here, because up in Havasu Creek there is a public street that is coming south toward
this property. Now, there is a property in between here, but some day that connectivity
will happen. Next. This is an existing street into the Havasu development. Next.
Another stub street coming out of Havasu. Next, again. Then, here is an existing stub
street into the back end of Havasu Creek and one more. Then, we -- this is a new stub
street coming into another five acre parcel that's here that's owned by Loni and Brett
Johnson. So, here we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven public street
connections and that's why this is in -full, to just connect all of this area together. And,
then, one more click. There is a park right here in the Havasu Creek and so I knew we
needed a micropath connection here to facilitate movement of pedestrians between
these neighborhoods. Of course, in the Comprehensive Plan, this is your urban
residential designation and here is that neighborhood center. That w as t he b asis t o
start. Next and here is our application. Looking at neighborhood in -fill in this growing
area of Meridian, our density here on the residential portion, R-8 zoning here, is 4.19
homes to the acre, with the parks and the connectivity. Two parks. An open space
park here centrally located and, then, one back in this area and the office out here to
buffer. Next let's look at the office for a moment. In the neighborhood meeting and in
the minutes of the Planning and Zoning, it was apparent no one wanted attached multi-
family housing in this area. There was some testimony at the P&Z Commission Meeting
from the Commissioners and citizens, that office would be a good use. Me personally,
as an urban planner, I'm always trying to steer my clients into using professional office
when there is conflicts in a neighborhood or when there is arterial or transitional pieces
of property, because they make such good neighbors. I have had that experience. I
have developed offices myself and lived next to professional offices. Here is our
concept with four office pads and with a Conditional Use Permit and the design process
that can be a very good neighbor and it complies with your Comprehensive Plan. Next.
Here are the types of offices, single story, a residential look, that we would envision on
this project. These are the -- these are offices that I have taken photographs of that are
next to existing subdivisions. They blend in. They are quiet on the weekend. Typically,
you know, 7:00 in the morning until 6:00 at night and they are just wonderful neighbors.
Next photo. This is on Locust Grove Road. This is the Walnut Grove project and there
is a professional office out front. I think Tahoe Construction is in here and I think a
mortgage company and maybe a medical office in there. These are the homes right
here. Next. And this is the neighbor I spoke to and he owns this home and here is the
back of that office building and I asked him how do you like your neighbor and he said,
well, I couldn't have a better neighbor. That's, typically, the response I get when I visit
with folks that live next to these offices in these subdivisions, that they do make very
good n eighbors. N ext. I n terms the residential component, we took a P UD a pproach
with a large buffer here to separate the professional office from this area, so you know
you have left the small office area and you're now at home. All single family detached. A
variety of lot sizes. Our smaller lots are right in here around the park. They are 5,000
square feet. Then, we have lots over 6,000 square feet and some almost 8,000 -- well,
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 30 of 45
actually, over 8,000 square feet in this area here. It's compatible with the neighborhood.
You have good variety. Any of these homes that we show here -- and these are the
homes that we showed in our application as well, all of these homes can be built in
Razzberry Crossing. Rick McGraw, the owner broker of the Real Estate Group, is going
to be marketing this project and these are the home plans that he is envisioning that will
be placed. These are definitely a move up market in this neighborhood and we think it's
just going to be a very nice addition to the neighborhood. Next. If you could just slowly
-- okay. Here are some of the development features. We have got traffic linkages for
good in -fill development. We have buffered the residential from Locust Grove with
using the office and landscape. Our park is centrally located. We have got a separate
drainage area and an open space park. Your ordinance requires ten percent open
space. We are at 12.5 percent. We have got tree lined landscape to beautify the
neighborhood, with parking on one side, and on Locust Grove Road, at the
neighborhood meeting, the neighbors specifically asked us if we would put a sidewalk in
front of the out parcel. Is there a way to show that map again, Anna?
Powell: It will take me a moment, but of course.
Forrey: Okay. I'd like to show the Council -- it's not property that Carl and Bonnie
Reiterman own, but out of the neighborhood meeting they specifically said we need
more sidewalks in our neighborhood. They said it would be really nice if you could put a
sidewalk in front of this piece of property and we have agreed to do that. We met with
the Highway District, they it brought up and we said we agree with that. That's, actually,
a recommendation that the Highway District has made to the City of Meridian, special
condition, and, as we stated at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing,
we have agreed to do that. While Anna has the slide, we are going to have very strong
covenants and architectural requirements for design elements. Our minimum home size
is 1,400 square feet. The price that these homes will start at will be between 140 to 160
thousand dollars. The professional offices will be one story. We applied for a conceptual
planned development on the office portion, so it does have to come back to you, which
we wanted to do with a Development Agreement Conditional Use Permit and your
design review. Thirty-two percent of our lots a re less than 6,000, but 68 percent a re
greater than 6,000 square feet and a fourth of them are over 7,000. The former project
didn't have anything like this. They were just all small lots with the attached multi -family.
This out parcel right here, this one acre lot, is owned by Mr. Grasmick, he's not part of
the development, but that new public street will come right at the back of his property
and see how it ties into this street right here. There is a stub street to the south coming
out of the Havasu project. We are going to be placing sidewalk right here on Locust
Grove in front of Mr. Grasmick's property, so that sidewalk will go through the portion of
the -- Carl and Bonnie's property and Mr. Grasmick's property. When this property
develops, then, we will have that last link and so we will have a nice sidewalk through
here. As these properties develop, you know, we will get more sidewalk. The other nice
thing is with these internal streets coming south and north, we will be able to access up
and down, north and south through these neighborhoods without getting out on Locust
Grove Road, using local streets, public local streets. Okay. If you can find your way
back. I'll just quickly summarize. We do agree with the staff report. We accept the staff
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 31 of 45
report, the recommendations, and even the two conditions that were brought forward
tonight. We were aware of those in talking with your planning staff this afternoon. We
request a 47 and a half foot frontage for street frontage, not 40 feet. Our application did
state 40 feet, but we were not sure how Meridian measured lot frontages and our corner
lots have a straight tangent of 40 feet and, then, there is a curve. In talking with the
staff, they measure the curve, as well as the tangent, and so we just need -- we can
change that to 47 and a half feet. The Fire Department has asked that we remove the
landscape island in the center of the street to give them better access for fire trucks and
we agree to do that.
Powell: Excuse me, President Nary, Members of the Council. Where is that landscape
island, Mr. Forrey?
Forrey: It's right in here. Right there. Right in here. It's a very narrow landscape island
and the fire department asked that that come out and we are fine with that. If you go to
the last -- one more. Next. Okay. We resubmitted the application as the Planning and
Zoning suggested we do and the Council, I think, asked the applicant to do. We have
come back with all single family detached homes starting at 140 to 160,000. We have
got a nice mix of lots. We have 4.19 dwelling units per acre to fit in with the
neighborhood. The Havasu Creek has lots that are the same size as these and so it's
very compatible in the neighborhood. We have taken away the rental housing. We have
solved the access by getting a road from Star Lane out to Locust Grove. We are putting
in extra sidewalks, extensive landscaping, development agreement and Conditional Use
Permit review on those professional offices, separated sidewalk, tree -lined landscape,
and very nice home sites at a compatible density in the neighborhood. We hope we are
on the right track and, hopefully, that's less than 15 minutes.
Nary: Just barely.
Forrey: Be happy to answer questions.
Nary: Council, questions for Mr. Forrey?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: Mr. President?
Nary: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Mr. Forrey, you talked about the one park site and I believe it was Anna that
indicated it would tie into an existing park in Havasu.
Forrey: Yes. To the north.
Rountree: So, there will be a meshing of those two. Is there some difficulty or has that
been resolved with the existing homeowners association?
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 32 of 45
Forrey: We have not -- we have the permission of the developer and the builder, but I
have not talked to the homeowners association. I think the developer still controls the
majority and we are showing a gate and an opening in the fence here and we are
proposing a sidewalk that would come -- actually, it loops through this -- our park and it
comes right to that point there. That would be the connection between the two parks
and their park sits right in here.
Rountree: Thank you.
Forrey: Yes.
Nary: I guess to follow up to that, Mr. Forrey, have you discussed with your client
whether or not a condition of some sort of -- like we do a shared parking agreement. I
mean it seems like the same idea if you're trying to make some connection between
Havasu Creek and this property, you're going to probably need something more
concrete than an opening in the fence. Otherwise, it seems like you're going to have a
property dispute constantly. I mean have your clients considered if we were to put a
condition requiring that they file some sort of shared usage agreement of some sort with
us.
Forrey: I think we should have that agreement or a condition, because I think that's best
for the neighborhood to formalize that. Absolutely.
Nary: Council, any other questions for Mr. Forrey?
Bird: I have none.
Nary: All right. Mr. Forrey, thank you very much. That was just under 15 minutes. That
was great.
Powell: Mr. President?
Nary: Mrs. Powell.
Powell: I was wondering if Mr. Nichols could clarify on -- if the applicant is volunteering
to build a sidewalk on an out parcel, can we make that a condition of approval? There
have been other instances where developers have volunteered to do off-site
improvements -- and I'm not trying to imply that this group would do that. It's just we
have run into this concern before, that the project gets sold or goes into bankruptcy or
unforeseen circumstances occur. Because they are not conditions of approval, even
though it was the understanding of the Council that that would occur, they haven't
gotten done and I forget the name of the subdivision where it's currently happening, but
we were wondering if that could be made a condition of approval or if it should remain
off.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 33 of 45
Nary: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. President, Members of the Council. Typically, these conditions the
difficulty with them is that they don't have the owner consent, and as long as it -- you
know, the owner's consent is obtained, then, they can build it. I mean it's a permissive
activity. It probably improves the value of that neighbor's property and does, in this
case, solve issues in terms of pedestrian safety along Locust Grove that's a concern for
people in the area. If you could make a condition, the condition would be contingent
upon receiving approval from that neighbor. If the neighbor said no, then, there is the
frustration of that condition and the developer doesn't have to do it in order to get his
final approvals.
Nary: Mr. Nichols, I guess in that vein, would it be appropriate if this Council felt that
was significant reason to approve this project. Again, I don't know if that's the case, but
if they were, that they require the developer provide a written authorization or some
other type of agreement as part of this project, so that we don't run into that problem
later where it may change owners or something else. There is some agreement that
can be recorded that's part of this approval, so that we know it will happen, whether it's
this developer or some other future owner, if that were to occur. Is that something that's
feasible to do?
Nichols: Mr. President, Members of the Council, I think it could be included as a
condition of the plat approval, that before submitting the Final Plat that they have the
requisite easements or other written evidence of permission to install the sidewalk, curb,
and gutter.
Nary: Thank you.
Powell: President Nary, Members of the Council?
Nary: Yes.
Powell: Also, for the benefit of the public that's here, we recently had an application
come into the Planning and Zoning Commission and had a Public Hearing on the
property just north of Heritage Subdivision and at that we heard similar testimony about
the needs for sidewalks, given that there is an elementary school in this location here.
After that hearing one of my staff members did ask permission to spend some time to
work with the property owners to gain transportation enhancement funds to build that
sidewalk -- or neighborhood enhancement funds from ACHD to build that sidewalk on
there. I just wanted to let the neighbors know that the -- that you did spark some
interest in trying to g et t hat s idewalk t here and we will -- somebody probably will be
contacting them at some point in the future to try and work on that.
Nary: Thank you, Mrs. Powell. We will take the testimony of people that are in favor of
the -- unless you want to answer just this one thing, Mr. Forrey. You have 30 seconds
left, so if you want to answer this one thing before we get the rest of them.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 34 of 45
Forrey: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. There is no need for
easement or owner permission, it's within right of way. That's in the staff report from
ACHD that there is sufficient right of way in front of that property to put in the sidewalk.
No additional fee simple property required. It's part of the recommendation from ACHD
to the City of Meridian as a special condition and we agreed to that special condition.
Nary: Thank you, Mr. Forrey. We will take testimony from those that are in favor of the
application first. The next one on this is Carl Reiterman. Okay. Bonnie Reiterman. All
right. Also listed on here Rick McGraw. I can't read the name below that. Is that you,
ma'am? Okay. There is a Brent Clayborne. Okay. Any of you wish to testify at this
time? All right. Now, we will take testimony from those that are against -- is there
anyone else that is in favor of this application? All right. Now, we have those that are
listed as against -- opposed to this application. The first person on our sign-up list is
Gerald Clark. Mr. Clark. I'm sorry, sir. Did you wish to come testify? Okay. Next one
listed is Mike Ingram.
Ingram: He's going to let me go first.
Nary: Okay. That's certainly fine. You must be Terri Ingram
Ingram: I am.
Nary: All right.
Ingram: Occasionally, he can be such a gentleman. Good evening. As stated, I am
here against this development. I -- this has been badly planned.
Nary: Name and address, please.
Ingram: Oh, I'm sorry. Terri Ingram.
Nary: Thank you.
Ingram: I have been sworn in. My address is 4320 North Locust Grove. I live directly
across the street from the entrance to this subdivision on the corner of Star Lane and
Locust Grove.
Nary: Thank you.
Ingram: And as stated, I am against this development as it is proposed to you tonight. A
couple of items that I really wanted to bring up, because little things like this will make
me nuts. Previous ownership did not change. What changed in the first application was
engineering. The other item was stated that in the first Council meeting the applicant
stood up and volunteered to withdraw the application. I was there that night. The
applicant was required to withdraw the application. Like I said, little facts like that make
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 35 of 45
me crazy. From that meeting I would quote Council President Nary in -- on July 1,
2003. He said -- and I quote: You need to listen to these people. That's why we have a
neighborhood meeting process, so you listen to people, not for you to just tell them what
you want to do, but you listen to them and what they'd like to have. Compromise and
communication is what we are talking about. End quote. Well, every so-called
compromise this developer makes compounds the problem and, if I remember my
schooling correctly, communication requires a sender and a receiver. We keep sending
the message, but the receiver is either not listening or turned off. My feeling really is that
the developers of this property are just trying to wait us out and wait until we get tired of
arguing and I will be honest and tell you that that's probably a good plan. However, my
husband argues louder than I do, so I have learned to argue longer. I'm here tonight to
address my five essential areas of concern. The first one is the access at Star Lane. Mr.
Forrey stated earlier that the neighbors requested the street connection at Star Lane
and there were five instances of comment at the P&Z meeting. I have read those notes.
Four o f t hose i nstances of comment w ere f rom t he P &Z staff and o ne w as f rom t he
property owner to the south. Actually, if you could go back one. That would be this
property right here. He requested -- he also wanted that entrance at Star Lane. We just
got notification in the mail this week that he is developing his property also and he just
announced his intention to develop that property. That neighboring property also -- I'm
sorry. It's a late night and I'm nervous -- already has access to Star Lane at this line
here. There is a street there, I believe the name of it is Heron Crossing. Thirty-second
warning? Oh. Excuse me. I would ask that if they need -- ACHD requests Star Lane
connection, at the mid block would be preferable, which would be Heron Crossing. That
would also be open to future traffic signaling where they could possibly put in a light and
a crosswalk for the children. The crosswalk that has been offered is to the north -- the
schools that we are concerned about are right here. We'd like access for the kids to get
to the schools and across Locust Grove there. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
Nary: Thank you. Mr. Ingram
M. Ingram: Mr. President, Members of the Council, for the record my name is Mike
Ingram. I also live at 4320 North Locust Grove. I am here also to speak against this
project. I still have a lot of concerns with this project. One of the things that we have
tried to address with them in the neighborhood meetings was the property values. They
have stated that they are 140 to 160,000 dollar range. I took it upon myself, after the
P&Z meeting -- if you could go back to this slide, please? Home styles on this --
Powell: I will, sir. It will take me a moment to get there, so you might want to continue
with your testimony.
M. Ingram: Okay. He has compared them and made the parallels to Heritage
Commons, which is the development to the south. While I still don't agree with the
density, because it doesn't fit with the existing area, Havasu Creek is an R-4, we are at
R-1 and the developments around it, while Heritage Commons is at an R-8, I'd still like
to see these rural areas developed at a little lesser density. Let's see here. I went and
found the addresses. This one here is at 1013 Legacy View and the value on that one,
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 36 of 45
which has sold -- no. Excuse me. It's still currently for sale -- is 229,400 dollars. This
one, the red one in the center, is at 3642 Hollymount, which has sold, I believe, and sold
for 255,900. The other one that I draw your attention to is this one, which is also on
Hollymount, the address is 3940 Hollymount, which sold for 229,900 dollars. I would like
to see, if it's going to be developed in the current figuration, I would like to see the
property values comparable with Heritage Commons, as he has used that has his
comparables. I would also like to reiterate there already is a connection -- can I go back
to that map, please? As my wife already stated, at Heron Crossing and since it is under
contract now through Wardle and Associates. I don't know if that's related --
Nary: Different Wardle.
M. Ingram: Different Wardle? Wardle and Associates to develop that property. That is
at the half mile park, which would, then, be able to be signaled and other things. It
would take the traffic off of Star Lane and Paradise and offer a little better connectivity --
I was hoping that the two property owners, that now that it's under contract, could work
together to provide that connectivity, rather than at Star Lane. We have -- we live on a
50 mile an hour two lane road with no sidewalks. Thank you.
Nary: Council, questions for Mr. Ingram?
Bird: I have none.
Nary: Mr. Ingram, if I could be just a little clearer to what your concern is. You don't
want -- basically, you want the road that -- the entranceway to this property to be offset
from Star Lane, so that there is no through way connection?
M. Ingram: Correct.
Nary: Is that right?
M. Ingram: If you look at the thing -- it does not come straight in there anyway, it curves
into this property with a stub right here. The entrance to it is right here and ACHD has
testified that they will not signal or put any kind of traffic control devices, stop signs,
otherwise, unless they are closer to the mid block. This connection right here is exactly
at a half mile and it would take the traffic flow off of here and here.
Nary: Okay. Thank you.
M. Ingram: Thank you.
Nary: Wyoma Ham. Did I say that even close to correct?
Ham: I wasn't sworn in. I was missing in action.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 37 of 45
Nary: Oh, that's all right. Would you, please, raise your right hand. Is the testimony you
give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Ham: Yes.
Nary: Thank you. Could you state your name and spell your last for the record,
please?
Ham: My name is Wyoma Ham, and I live at 4415 North Locust Grove Road on the
north side of this home -- I don't know how to work this thing. I will try to. Our property is
this piece of property right here. There is a road that comes here and there is a road
that comes here, but if it went in my backyard, it would separate my house from my
shop. At this point in time we have no intention of ever selling or developing that, so it's
not going to be something that's going to be available for an out -crossing or crossing for
the subdivision. I mean it's a nice idea, but it's still blue sky right now, because I
checked before I came down here in my safe and still have my deeded property that it's
paid for and so far there is no intent to do that. That's all I have to say. You know, it's
not something that's going to happen, not in anytime soon, I'm sure. That's all I have to
say. Thank you.
Nary: Council, any questions for Mrs. Ham?
Nary: Okay. Matt Brown. Matt Brown? No? Okay. Is there anyone else that wishes
to testify in opposition to this project? Sir, would you step forward.
Thorne: My name is Mary Thorne and I have been sworn.
Nary: Have you been sworn? Okay.
Thorne: Last name is Thorne. Get the little light here. I live -- let's see, where is
Paradise Lane? Is this it here? Right here. I live about right there. I have lived there
since 1981 and, of course, a lot of the area has developed since 1981. We like the way
the zoning is right now. That's why we moved there. That's why a lot of the people are
out there. I really don't care for the mixed use idea. That might be somebody's -- might
enjoy that, but -- and I wonder how that has really worked in the -- around the City of
Meridian, how you guys -- have you been happy with that. I don't like the higher density.
I don't think that brings any assets to the properties there, to me, or to anybody else. Or
to the city. It does to the developer, but not to us. I'm definitely against the increased
density and the mixed use. I know your little arc is at the corner, but, to me, that doesn't
give, you know, open rights to come in with professional offices a nd the mixed u se.
That's your decision, but it is our -- your city. I'm on the edge of it. Any questions?
Nary: Council, any questions for Mr. Thorne? Thank you, sir. Does anyone else wish to
testify? Sir.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 38 of 45
McGraw: My name is Rick McGraw, at 3090 Gentry Way. The photographs that Wayne
showed in our presentation, he made the comment there that all of the homes that were
shown in those photographs would fit on those size of lots. That was the point we were
trying to make. As far as the prices go, based on the cost of the cost development and
the cost of the land and the build out of the homes starting at a minimum of 1,400
square feet. The prices starting between 140 and 160 are exactly where we would have
to b e, b y t he t ime we g et t hat k ind of a price of t he I ot under u s, t hat much s quare
footage on the ground in a style that we plan with our ACC and our CC&Rs, our prices -
- there is just no way to get under 140 to 160. 1 just wanted to make the comment that
those prices are consistent with the market and what we intend to do. Okay?
Powell: Mr. Nary, I believe Mr. McGraw did not get sworn in.
Nary: Oh.
McGraw: Sorry. I was here, but I didn't raise my hand.
Nary: Oh.
McGraw: Good call, Anna.
Nary: Well, thank you. Mr. McGraw, is the testimony that you have given the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
McGraw: Yes, sir.
Nary: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mrs. Powell. Anyone else wish to testify on
this project?
Powell: Mr. President, I did wish to apologize to the Reitermans about the former
owners. I sometimes get applicants and owners confused, so I'm sorry about that. I
didn't mean to imply that they had done wrong previously, so I apologize.
Nary: Mr. Forrey, can you sum up your rebuttal in three minutes?
Forrey: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. For the record,
again, Wayne Forrey. Let me just address some of the comments that were provided by
some of the property owners nearby. Mrs. Ingram's comment. We did listen to
neighbors, read through the minutes, understood what the citizens and the P&Z was
saying. Star Lane. There were two citizens that testified that they wanted Star Lane to
make the connection. Plus ACHD, city staff, and Planning and Zoning Commission
members. Professional office was testified that that would be better than the
apartments, which we made that change. The neighbors asked us to lower the density
from that first project. We cut it more half. We are 4.19 units to the acre. Havasu Creek
has lots the same size. They are a planned unit development also. I think they have R-4
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 39 of 45
zoning, but they developed to an R-8 type standard. It's very compatible with the
projects to the north and the south. The sidewalk -- the neighbors did ask specifically for
the sidewalk in front of the Grasmick property, because of the L-shaped -- of the
Reitermans wraps around that and they don't have a lot of frontage on Locust Grove,
which we agreed to do. To Mr. Ingram's comment, Mr. McGraw, Rick McGraw did talk
about the pricing of this product and it would go up from those numbers that I gave you.
Again, I would just reiterate that the highway district and the city, as well as property
owners, wanted Star Lane to make the connection and that's why we incorporated that
into this new plan. Regarding Mrs. Ham's comment, it's just good planning to have
those stub streets and I realize we are not dictating that that road would go through her
property, that would be her decision if. When they develop or change the use, then,
that would be an opportunity to get that road to connect, but it's only good planning to
do that, to make those stub connections. Again, ACHD asked us to do that in those
initial meetings that we conducted with them. To Mr. Thorne's comments, when I
moved to Boise in 1978, 1 bought a similar piece of property, because that was the
standard 25 years ago was an acre lot with a well and a septic system and we were way
out in the country, but Meridian is growing now. Here we are 25 years later and the
standards are different. This is an urbanizing area in your Comprehensive Plan. I do
sympathize with folks. I have been in that same situation and -- but this is an urbanizing
area, it's a neighborhood in transition, and we are trying really hard to blend in and
comply with your Comprehensive Plan. Be happy to answer any other questions.
Nary: Council, any other questions for Mr. Forrey?
Rountree: I have none.
Nary: Mr. Forrey, I guess I was a little curious and I agree partly with what you said on
the planning issue, but it appears from what was -- the testimony from Mrs. Ham, both
of these stub streets enter her current -- enter her property? Is that what I understood?
Forrey: This one is in Havasu Creek.
Nary: Oh.
Forrey: And it exists today.
Nary: Just that one.
Forrey: Her property is here and it's this one stub street here.
Nary: Okay.
Forrey: So, she has a current stub street coming in on her north side and we are
proposing to come through here on her south.
Nary: I got it. Okay. That was just my confusion, then. Thank you.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 40 of 45
Wardle: Mr. President?
Nary: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Mr. Forrey, I also have a question. You will be building the sidewalk here in
the right of way. T hat, effectively, removes any access of this property f rom Locust
Grove, so they would access from this new stub street; is that correct?
Forrey: He would still have his curb cut right here into this rental house. Right there.
Wardle: Okay.
Nary: I think that's all the questions, Mr. Forrey.
Forrey: Thank you.
Nary: Council, do you have any other questions for staff before we close the Public
Hearing? Okay. Is there any other information you would be seeking or did you want to
close these Public Hearings on all three items or --
Rountree: Mr. President?
Nary: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we close the Public Hearings for Items 11, 12, and 13, AZ 03-
034, PP 03-039, and CUP 03-062.
Bird: Second.
Nary: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on Items 11, 12 and
13. All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Nary: Council, discussion or motion? What's your preference?
Bird: Mr. President?
Nary: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Before I make a motion, I agree with some of the against testimony, that I believe
that we are getting way too much R-8 and R-15 back in there. I don't like -- when we
were just all R -4's, I like the variety, but -- and I understand why everybody wants R -8's,
I mean if I can get an extra lot out of every acre or two, I would be there, too, as a
developer, because it costs a lot to develop -- to develop the land. I'm quite familiar with
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 41 of 45
the -- with the subdivision across the road there on Star Lane and stuff. I have had
quite a few friends that live out there and those one acre lots are nice. I think with the L-
O office that this is kind of making a buffer zone to them, but I don't know if we are
getting a buffer zone to Havasu and some of those R-4 subdivisions around there.
Evidently, they didn't have anybody in here complaining about that, so with that I would
make a motion that we approve AZ 03-034. The request for annexation and zoning of
11.31 acres from RUT to R-8 and L -O zones for proposed Razzberry Crossing by Carl
and Bonnie Reiterman. South of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove
Road, incorporate Planning and Zoning, staff, Commission, applicant testimonies, public
testimonies, for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law
and Decision of Order.
Wardle: Second.
Nary: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 11, AZ 03-034, the request for
annexation and zoning of 11.31 acres for Razzberry Crossing. Is there further
discussion?
Rountree: I have none.
Nary: Mr. Clerk, would you, please, call the roll.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Nary: Item 12.
Bird: Mr. President?
Nary: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve PP 03-039, the request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 34 residential building lots and four professional office lots and six common
lots on 11.31 acres in proposed R-8 and L -O zones for the proposed Razzberry
Crossing b y C arl a nd B onnie R eiterman. South of East M cMillan R oad and west of
North Locust Grove Road -- and this is where we need to incorporate agreement on that
opening between the -- between the two parks, between Havasu. Also, the removal of
the island as per Fire Department and this also is where -- the Preliminary Plat, I
believe, is where we would have the sidewalks, which, I guess, we don't have to put
them in, because they are already in the right of way on the other deal, so --
Rountree: Including the special provisions of ACHD.
Bird: What?
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 42 of 45
Rountree: Including the special provisions of ACHD
Bird: Including the special provisions of ACHD and to incorporate Planning and Zoning
Commission, Planning and Zoning staff, applicant testimonies, and for the attorney to
draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Rountree: Second.
Powell: Mr. President, did the maker of the motion also wish to include the reduced
frontage from -- instead of 40 feet, at 47 and a half feet?
Bird: Yes. Yes. I'm sorry. I didn't have -- that's right.
Powell: And also did the maker of the motion also wish to include the one regarding the
parking on one side of the street?
Bird: That's Fire Department comments, isn't it? The requirements of --
Powell: No. The one that I handed you on the memo regarding -- right now they are
saying no parking at all.
Bird: Oh. Yes. Okay. Yes. I agree with that, with the memo.
Powell: Thank you, sir.
Nary: The second agree?
Rountree: I agree with that.
Nary: Okay. It's been moved and seconded for approval of PP 03-039, the request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 34 residential building lots, four professional offices, six
common lots for proposed Razzberry Crossing, to include all staff comments, including
the additional conditions as stated by the motion. Is there further discussion? I will take
a moment to -- I agree with Mr. Bird as to what he said at the initial outset of Razzberry
Crossing. I think this is an improvement. There is always going to be some
disagreement and there is always a rub when you're talking about this transition that
you're having from rural to a more dense type of development, but I think overall this is
still a very positive project and there is a lot more enhancement that's existent now than
we ever saw in the past. I would concur with that. If there is no other comments, Mr.
Berg, would you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Nary: Finally, Item 13
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 43 of 45
Bird: Mr. President?
Nary: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I'd move that we approve CUP 03-062, the request for a Conditional Use Permit
for a planned development containing a mixed residential and professional office uses
in proposed R-8 and L -O zones for the proposed Razzberry Crossing by Carl and
Bonnie Reiterman. South of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road
and this one we need to add a condition for the approval of site specific comment
Number 5, stating light office development will require detailed conditional use approval
to the findings. To incorporated Planning and Zoning Commission, Planning and
Zoning staff, and applicant and public hearing comments, and for the attorney to draw
up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order.
Rountree: Second.
Nary: It's been moved and seconded for the approval of CUP 03-062, the request for
Conditional Use Permit for the planned development for Razzberry Crossing, including
the additional condition as stated by the maker of the motion. Is there any further
discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg, would you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 14. Water, Sewer, & Trash Delinquencies:
Nary: Now, Item 14, our current water, sewer, trash delinquencies. This is to inform all
of you in writing that if you so choose you have the right to a pre -termination hearing at
7:30 p.m., Tuesday, February 3`d, or thereafter, it's approximately 9:00 p.m., before the
Mayor and the City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and to defend
the claim made by the city that your water, sewer, and trash bill is delinquent. You may
retain counsel. Your service will be discontinued on or about February 4, 2004, unless
payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her
water, sewer, and trash delinquency? Hearing none, it says that you are hereby
informed that you may appeal and have the decision of the city reviewed by the Fourth
Judicial District Court pursuant to the Idaho State Code. Even though there is an
appeal, the water will be still shut off. The amount of the turn-off on this list is
$23,120.22. This is our schedule for February 4, 2004, cycle two. Council, you have the
list before you. Mr. Bird?
Bird: Mr. President, I move that we approve the turn off on water and sewer and trash
delinquency. The turn off will be on February 4, 2004, unless payment is received in
full. The sum of the delinquency is $23,120.22.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3. 2004
Page 44 of 45
Rountree: Second.
Nary: It's been moved and seconded to approve the turn-off list for February 4, 2004. 1
can't remember, Mr. Berg, do we do this by roll? All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 15. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
Nary: And we are now on Item 15.
Bird: Mr. President?
Nary: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(c).
Rountree: Second.
Nary: It's been moved and seconded to go into Executive Session pursuant to Idaho
Code 67-2345, subsection (1)(c). Mr. Berg, would you, please, call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
(Enter into Executive Session)
(Return from Executive Session)
Nary: We're back on the record. I guess we need a motion to leave Executive Session.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Nary: It's been moved and seconded to leave Executive Session. All those in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Nary: And we can now have a motion to adjourn. No decisions were made in
Executive Session.
Wardle: Mr. President.
Nary: Mr. Wardle.
Meridian City Council Meeting
February 3, 2004
Page 45 of 45
Wardle: I move that we adjourn.
Rountree: Second.
Nary: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn this meeting. All those in favor. We
adjourned at 9:44.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:44 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
2 / 247
TAMMY E ERD, MAYOR DATE
``�`t�twuunrrrrrr
r�r
.0�y OF ME�,Diq'
ATTESTED: ,Gcccc--- $EAL
WILLIAM G. BERG, JW, C Ylf�L f� ��
'.��Q �T1SZ•�
+++++e+em nn���y%0