Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 9, 2005 C/C Minutes Meridian City Council August 9, 2005 Page 35 of 58 Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, aye; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 21: Public Hearing: AZ 05-024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5 acres to L-O zone for Seventh Day Adventist Church by Hawkins Companies - 1735 North Black Cat Road: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you for bearing with us on that. Item 21 is Public Hearing on AZ 05-024. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, now that the Seventh-Day Adventist Church as been displaced, they need a new home. Their request is for them to be -- they would like to build a new church at -- it's about mid block -- mid mile between Black Cat and Cherry Lane on the west side of the road. It's just south of the existing LDS church. The location is 1735 North Black Cat Road. And this is a request for an annexation and zoning. They are requesting L-O zoning and that would allow the construction of a new church as a principal permitted use. They are only at this time proposing one structure. We do not have a square footage calculation for that. As you can see, there are existing residential subs in the area. And this is now preliminary platted. Yeah. There is a Corey Barton subdivision there. Sorry. It just threw me for a loop for a second to see that empty field. I'm sorry. This is the proposed layout. They would come in off of Black Cat and have an exit onto Black Cat as well, so there is two. The church is fairly centered on the property. The P&Z has recommended approval. No one spoke in opposition at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, although there was quite a bit of discussion and that discussion was relative to these two properties to the west of the -- what will be the two churches. Currently, they share a -- they don't have direct access. They are land locked properties. There is an easement - - 25 feet on the LDS church side and 25 feet on this property, for a total of 50 feet. An easement that comes back to here. There is not an improved private road through Ada County. There is not a street name. It's just an access easement. To further complicate things, when the LDS church constructed their facility, they put a fence, basically, on a portion of that and constructed landscaping and other improvements within that 25 feet that was supposed to be left for access. So, the key issues of discussion, 10 and behold, was the 25 feet of access at the Planning and Zoning Commission and, then, also the fencing along the west property line. We have worked with staff -- really, the only outstanding issue before the Council is that 25-foot easement and, basically, what -- it just occurs to me this is the incorrect site layout, isn't it? Let me get the -- I'm sorry, I didn't notice that when they were preparing the presentation. 1 need to get that one up for you, because it's important. If the applicant has an eight and a half by eleven handy, that would help, but -- Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, sorry about that. This -- the applicant, Mrs. Aguilar, has just informed me that this is -- was done today, so this does reflect the discussions we have had. ACHD would not allow an entrance at the north portion of this site where the existing easement is, because it's so close to the existing driveway for the LDS church. So, they required the applicant to take an access from basically the center of the Meridian City Council August 9, 2005 Page 36 of 58 property that lines up with another street and, then, also they could do one at the south, as long as they agreed to a cross-access -- provide cross-access to the property to the south. So, this will become another easement. They also were concerned with the land locked property and they, basically, said you either need to leave that access in place or provide a different 50 foot access at this location. What we have worked with the applicant to come up with is an agreement that the intent of the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing and -- to address the concerns for the land locked property. Basically, what they have agreed to is to add a condition to the development agreement that says they will sell the 25 feet at the north property line for the development of a street, that they will sell that at fair market value. And there are specifics as to how to determine fair market value and those have been included in your staff report -- or in the findings. So, staff's reasoning is that there is a total of 50 feet available to those property owners at the west. Should they choose to develop, they can free up that 50 feet, because there are two access easements there. It puts the owners -- it puts them on -- it requires these folks to deal with the issue that the LDS church has blocked some of that access. So, if they should choose to put in a public street, they would have to get the full 50-foot if they want to go with a private street or some other form of access, as long as it's a street. They can acquire the property from the Seventh-Day Adventists and construct that street. So, we are -- we do feel fairly confident that this issue can be resolved. I think we expressed to the applicant numerous times how difficult these private roads have been for the City of Meridian and this one is further complicated, because it's not even, really, a private road, it just looks like one and acts like one. But that's -- we do feel fairly confident it's been addressed. With that, I'll answer any other questions. That was, to our knowledge, the major outstanding issue. Let's see. It does -- this would require that the fifth bullet for comment number three be modified and that language is in your cover sheet, but I'll go ahead and read it. It should be modified to read that the applicant agrees to provide reasonable and fair means for the parcel to the west to acquire and improve a street, the 25-foot wide area containing the existing ingress and egress easement. The means for acquisition of the 25-foot wide area are attached as Exhibit E, which should be included in the development agreement. And with that I'll answer any questions that you may have. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Question for Anna. If there is an easement for access, how can we stipulate in an action on the part of this city that the people who have access need to acquire that access? Canning: They could still use it for the purpose that it is now. They'd still have a driveway there. It would just be that if they want to acquire it for future development. Meridian City Council August 9, 2005 Page 37 of 58 Right now it's just a -- it's just a driveway access. The question was if they want to do additional development and have a street there that provides frontage, what would they do. But we are not taking -- no one is taking away their existing access. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions? Is the applicant here? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Just a point for the record. I mean the section that's part of the proposed development agreement may answer the concerns of Council member Rountree, because it requires that the adjacent property owners have to request it, that it has to be approved by the city, that it's based upon a re-subdivision or a platting of that annexation of that real property and that it's for a public road. So, it's for all of those purposes that, then, they would allow them to purchase it at fair market value and, then, there is some determination in this development how that's going to be determined. But I don't if that answers your question, but those are all the little different conditions that are being proposed as part of this development agreement, but, again, it wouldn't affect their current access use. That easement right exists and that continues to exist and if that's all they ever need it for, they didn't have to purchase anything to do that. That already exists. It's just if they want to develop and do something more than that. De Weerd: Okay. If you will, please, restate your name and address. Aguilar: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Jessica Aguilar with Hawkins Companies, 8645 West Franklin Road, Boise. I'd like to ask Anna is there a way we can shift the plan down, so they can see the north boundary? That might be a little more -- there we go. As you can see, there is a dashed line and there is a dark line in the middle of it. That is the current ingress-egress access easement area or that's the current driveway. Twenty-five feet, again, is outside -- is on this property, 25 feet is on the LDS property. That driveway will not go away, it's going to remain in place. So, we are not denying current -- any access to the properties to the west. We are, actually, hoping to propose a little gravel pathway for some storage sheds, but we will present -- officially present this plan, assuming we get approved, with the certificate of zoning compliance, to P&Z. I think the concern is -- this whole access concern is there has been discussion that in the future those two properties in the west, they are about ten plus acres, they are prime land right now for a subdivision -- a potential subdivision. And I think there was some confusion about those property owners. I think they thought that what they had as far as the easement to that property automatically granted them a right to build what I call a public road, as what would typically be required and approved by ACHD and that is not the case. I think the intent of the egress-ingress was to provide a driveway to those homes and we are just -- our concern at the P&Z meeting was when that got into that easement area, just like with any development, if this property owner wishes to do a subdivision in the future, they would need to approach the church at that point time -- or the current property owner of Meridian City Council August 9, 2005 Page 38 of 58 some way of acquiring that property, assuming that ACHD would want that to become a public road. So, that's why all this discussion came in as far as access and I think some confusion at our last meeting. And, again, as Anna mentioned, in the Exhibit E of your packet, we have worked with Mr. Nary, with Anna, and the church officials and came up with some language on how we would make that 25 feet available to those property owners, to be able to purchase that at fair market value and we came up with a formula and as -- I believe as we left it, everybody was in agreement as to the language of that. And, again, that would be in the development agreement. I will be happy to answer any clarifications or questions you might have. De Weerd: Council, any questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Angular: Thank you. Canning: Madam Mayor, may I expand on a point she made there? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Canning: The statement was made that it's prime developable land. I want to point out some of the concerns as to why and when we think this won't develop right away. One is the access issue. But it's further compounded -- they do have a stub street. However, all of this subdivision depends on this one access, until you get up into Trish's Subdivision -- Trish's Crossing, I believe it is. So, it exceeds the number of single-family homes that the fire department will allow to be built with just a single access. The other big issue is that this is, generally, slated to be serviced by the McDermott drain, although they may be able to serve some properties feeding out to Black Cat. It was originally intended that it would service to McDermott. So, although it is immediately adjacent to annexed property, there are other constraints, rather than just this access easement that that will make development of that property difficult. De Weerd: Thank you. We do have one person that is signed up to provide testimony. Yvette Elliott. And I apologize if I said that wrong. Elliott: No, you did great. De Weerd: Okay. If you would state your name and address. Elliott: Madam Mayor and Council, I'm Yvette Elliott. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council August 9, 2005 Page 39 of 58 Elliott: I live at 1923 North Black Cat Road. And if you could put the picture back up of the property. I'm the property directly behind where the proposed Seventh-Day Adventist Church goes. And so what we are -- our concern is that we are rural transitional right now, which means whoever develops that property first has to provide a stub street and sewer to other existing properties. If it's rezoned as L-O, then, they wouldn't be required to do that. So, that's -- that's one of the problems. And, then, the 50 foot easement that we do have currently there, we would not like to have them build anything on that, if that's going to be our existing easement. We do want to sell our property and we did talk to the city works and they said that they would like to require a to and through sewer system to go from the church to our property, because from the subdivision that's currently there, you will see the L shape of the property, that's Wanda Carson's property and we don't have any access of sewer or water that would come to our property, unless we went through Wanda Carson's. Donnell: Can you point to that, please? With that -- well, no, with the pointer. If it will turn on. Elliott: So, right there is sewer and water and this is Wanda Carson's property right here. And so right here is sewer and water that actually is right at the beginning of the opening of the 50-foot easement. We -- I went down to ACHD and talked to them and as far as their being a road there, they are having one access come into that Seventh-Day Adventist Church. If we had an access going and opening up the LDS church and in between the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, that -- they would approve that as one access, as we are using that access. But if it's rezoned we don't have the right for them to put a road through. If it stays rural transitional, which is in our best interest right now, then, they would have to -- whoever develops first would have to put it to and through to our property. When I spoke to Hawkins company and I spoke to the Seventh-Day Adventist Church trying to get a price for -- to buy that 25 foot easement, the quote was 70,000 dollars and -- and, then, they were -- they said that they couldn't-- they were in a contract right now with Seventh-Day Adventist Church, so they couldn't tell me a price -- or they couldn't sell it to me. So when I called the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, they said they don't own it yet, so they couldn't sell it to me. So, I contacted their attorney and he said I can't tell you anything either, so it could be over a year before we even know what's going on. Which I don't think is fair on our part as property owners and taxpayers of Meridian. Thank you. De Weerd: Any questions from Council? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Is there any other testimony on this application? Okay. Would the applicant have any final words? I'm sorry, Mrs. Aguilar. If you will, please, step forward. You have to ask it after you state your name and address. Law: My name is Brent Law. My address is 4888 West Cherry Lane. Meridian City Council August9,2oo5 Page 40 of 58 De Weerd: Thank you. Law: I live right on that piece of property right there, which is on the corner. The church building there. My question is how far back on the property is the church building? Because you can't tell -- I couldn't tell on the drawing, it didn't actually show the back part of the property line. I'm assuming this is the back of the building. What is this over here? Is this some more structures? And is the property line actually back here? Or at what point are they stopping on the property line, do we have any idea? Canning: Madam Mayor, do you want me to answer that? De Weerd: Yes, please. Canning: This is the rear of the property line. So, the whole property is about 400 to 450, I believe. So, it's approximately centered to -- this looks like it would be approximately 250, something like that, from here -- from the back of the property. . Law: So, what would be the use of the back of the property? Is that just going to be weeds or is that going to be grass? Is it going to be maintained? What will the use be behind it? Because my concern -- my irrigation water comes across I believe -- it looks like about right across through here. As long as they are not developing that, I guess I'm not losing my irrigation. But my concern is we have to -- currently it's all in pipe, so it is currently buried, but at this point if they start developing too far back, we will lose that piping, probably. So, my concerns were -- you know, I was just concerned how far back they were going to go and how is that property going to be maintained? I just -- I have no problems whether they go along with it, whether they go ahead and do it or not, I don't care one way or the other, but I just -- I am concerned as far as behind there what's going to be done, because I know it's just like with the Walgreens thing, you say you want to maintain back behind there. I think it would be nice if somehow or another something was -- either we was given some kind of guarantee that it was going to be maintained, it was going to be kept mowed, or something of some nature to keep it from just being a -- I mean I don't know if they are open to even have the access back in the back. There was nothing on the plans, nothing said what they are going to do back there, and it's kind of leaving it wide open to be able to just ignore and act like it's not back there. And I'd rather -- I'd rather not see that happen. De Weerd: Well, it sounds like they did have something proposed for those two little boxes back there. We will ask the applicant to respond. But we do have an ordinance that they have to deliver your water. So, if there is anything put back there, it cannot compromise the delivery of water to your property. Law: Okay. De Weerd: So, our ordinance does protect that right to you. Law: Good. Okay. Meridian City Council August9,2oo5 Page 41 of 58 De Weerd: Okay? Law: That's alii needed. De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any further testimony? RElliott: Hi. My name is Rick Elliott and I reside at 1923 North Black Cat also. And she might be going to address this, I'm just curious what -- what this is going to be right here? It seems to me if this is their storage sheds, what they are proposing charging us 70,000 dollars for a half an acre of land, are they planning on using our easement for free? De Weerd: Okay. Aguilar: Okay. De Weerd: If you will just restate your name. Aguilar: Jessica Aguilar with Hawkins Companies. De Weerd: Thank you. . Aguilar: This area here is going to be hydro-seeded. When we provide an official landscape plan as part of the certificate of zoning compliance, our preliminary landscape plan, which is not part of this submittal packet, we will be providing approximately 70 plus trees on the perimeter of this entire property. Again, this will all be -- hard to see, but there will be grass there. It will be irrigated in some fashion, most likely sprinklered. I wasn't aware of any kind of delivery system as far as water, but we will make sure that our civil engineer becomes aware of that and if we interfere with that in any way, we will make sure we mitigate for that. Let me just restate -- yes, there is a 25 foot easement here -- I think this battery is out. Donnell: I think we will give you a new -- see if that will work. Aguilar: And, I'm sorry, it's not really clear on this plan where the easement line is, but, yes, from this property line down there is a 25 foot easement. We have fee to that property. It's just an easement. All it does is it grants ingress and egress to these properties. They do not own that property. Let me talk about the discussion as far as the sale of that and how this all works. As a part of the Walgreen's project we went into a land exchange agreement with the Seventh-Day Adventist Church at the Ten Mile and Cherry site. In exchange for that piece of property where we propose to develop the Walgreen's, Hawkins Companies is going to exchange this piece of property. At the time of the Planning and Zoning meeting, the Stafford's were the current owner -- the fee owner of this property. On the 29th of July -- or of June, I'm sorry. Or July. I'm sorry. Hawkins Companies became fee owner of this property. In March, when we, Meridian City Council August9,2oo5 Page 42 of 58 hopefully, anticipate to hand the keys of this new church to the Seventh-Day Adventists, that's when we will do the land exchange and that's when they will become the official property owners of this piece. Hawkins Companies didn't feel that it was appropriate for us at this time to negotiate any sale, a portion of a sale, of this property without the Seventh-Day Adventists on board with that. We told them that if they want to enter an agreement with somebody else to sell the 25-foot piece, they could, but that would have to occur after it -- the property was exchanged into their name, which would be sometime in March. So, that's why there is no sale going on in the immediate future. We got a couple players involved and the Seventh-Day Adventists won't be the official owners of the property until that time. Now, it's up to them to -- or, actually, at that time when I believe there was some phone calls and prices discussed, I think the Seventh- Day Adventists came up with some numbers based on some other purchase prices that they were familiar with of some other properties in the area. But since, then, we came up with this Exhibit E, which will go into the development agreement and they were present at the meeting we had with staff and Mr. Nary and they were all supportive and on board with this Exhibit E agreement. So, if the Elliotts want to approach the Seventh-Day Adventists, again, they can, but I don't think anything will be exchanged or can be fully resolved until the property gets into their name. As far as the LDS church and the access, yes, Mrs. Elliott was correct that ACHD would approve the north driveway here, provided that the LDS church, we could get them to agree to close off their access point here and give them access over here somewhere. We approached the LDS church and they replied to us in writing that they were not agreeable to that and did not want to pursue that and we presented that information to staff. So, that's why we were not pursuing the driveway to the north. As far as sewer and water, I don't see how the development of this property has any bearing as far as sewer and water mains as far as bringing those back to these properties back here. I think if and when those properties develop, I mean that should be part -- the burden should be on them to bring those services to their pieces, just like if there weren't any services to our piece here, P&Z and Council would most likely say, hey, you guys need to figure out a way to bring services to make that work. So, I don't see why the burden should be on the Seventh- Day Adventists piece to bring services to this property here. De Weerd: I guess I have a question about that road. You're saying that the LDS church has no interest in vacating their access out onto Black Cat, so that, essentially, makes that easement worthless if they were ever to develop the property behind yours. Aguilar: I think I'd like to ask my attorney to maybe step in at this point. He can maybe address that better than I can. De Weerd: I'm sorry, I never put those very nicely. Just wanted clarity on that. Aguilar: He can talk about the current easement language -- or I'll let him jump in here. That easement was -- it benefits -- it has no benefit to us and it has no benefit to the LDS property, it benefits these other two properties over here. Meridian City Council August9,2oo5 Page 43 of 58 De Weerd: Well, it benefits the properties that you will land lock and that you will inhibit their ability to redevelop, just like you're asking to redevelop this. And I guess that's my only question. Aguilar: But, technically, it's not land locked, because there is an easement in place for access for the current use. It's not land locked. Do they have fee to this property? No, they don't. But they are not land locked. So, we are not inhibiting any future development, it's -- they would have to pursue acquiring any additional property, if they even need it, to do whatever kind of development they mayor may not propose there. De Weerd: So, ma'am, what you're telling me is even if they purchased it, they would never be able to use it for a public use. Aguilar: Oh, it doesn't mean that they don't ask the owner here for 50 feet or whatever they need for a public use. We are just talking specific to the easement in place. Who's to say that they don't need 50 feet down here or 50 feet over here. They can approach the property owner and ask and negotiate for that. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: And I don't know if this is going to make it muddier, but one of the questions that was raised was -- by the Elliott's was the roadway itself. I think we did discuss at Planning and Zoning with the applicant. They will have to pave the portion that's on their property, so -- although I think it's dirt currently. I guess I'm not sure if it's paved, but they will have to pave the portion that's on their property. So, a portion of this easement will -- has to be paved, because it's part of their development. The other question -- the other property to the north, the easement that is on the LDS property, there is no restriction upon that at all. The only thing staff had a concern with, which I think is what Madam Mayor's concern is, is because this application could land lock that property, that's the reason this condition was agreed upon in this discussion with the applicant. The Elliotts weren't part of that, but it was staff's attempt to make sure that at least there was an ability for them to purchase that for a roadway or if the highway district wants to put a roadway in there, that nothing will be built in that. So, the Elliotts can certainly purchase it. If it does become a public roadway, ACHD can purchase it if they wish. But there is no restriction on the northern piece. So, currently it is only an easement on the northern property where the LDS church is located and there is no restriction as to what they sell that for, if they even -- even if they want to sell at some point in the future. The only other thing I wanted to clear up from what Mrs. Aguilar said was the Elliotts concern that they raised in their testimony was having this held up for a fairly lengthy period of time if they choose to develop between now and whenever this transaction culminates with the Walgreens and the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. This development agreement is between the city and the property owner, which is the Hawkins Company. So, the conditions that are in there, if they are satisfied between now and whenever their land agreement with the Seventh-Day Adventist Church is, Meridian City Council August9,20o5 Page 44 of 58 that's not the city's issue. If the enforcement is necessary under the development agreement, it is with the Hawkins company and they would have to satisfy the conditions of the development agreement if it were to occur prior to the Seventh-Day Adventist becoming the owners of this property, that development agreement condition would be applicable to them. So, they couldn't necessarily just hold this all in abeyance until everybody got the right pieces of property they are supposed to own at the end of this, it would apply to them at the time. The other issue -- and, again, we were trying to satisfy some concerns of these land locked parcels, but I guess another thing for you and the Council to consider is that it does make the city a party to this action and there isn't a way around that, if we want to assure there is at least the ability for the rear properties to have some way to develop. The city doesn't have to put that condition in there, it's only to assure that there is some ability to develop at some point in the future at some reasonable way. But, again, there isn't a condition on the -- that I'm aware on the northern piece where the church is located, so I'm not sure if that will satisfy everything, but it's the only piece that we could satisfy at this time. Does that make it muddier or -- we'll let Mr. Vance -- and if two attorneys talk, I'm sure it will clear it all up. Bird: I was going to say, it will be as clear as mud, then. De Weerd: I guess, Mr. Nary, my question is even if they purchased the full 50 feet, a true easement, will they have access to Black Cat if the LDS church says we won't vacate our ability to access Black Cat? Canning: Ma'am, I can answer that. We did discuss that and ACHD can force them to vacate their driveway if there is another public street. So, if a public street is approved by ACHD at that location, they will go and force closure of that drive aisle. De Weerd: Thank you. That was my question. Canning: And, Madam Mayor, if I could ask for clarification. We got that from a former staff member and if it's wrong, Mr. Inselman needs to let us know. De Weerd: We will ask him in a moment. Canning: Could I ask for a brief bit of clarification as to Mrs. Aguilar's testimony? The driveway as shown -- or the existing driveway is shown in a different location than we had seen it in the past, but that wasn't the issue. What -- the question I had was does the Hawkins property have benefit of that easement on the LDS property? I think that -- or is it just a benefit to the property owners at the west? That's what the neighbor was trying to get at. Aguilar: I may let Mr. Vance respond to that. De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address. Meridian City Council August9,2oo5 Page 45 of 58 Vance: Mayor de Weerd, Councilmen -- Councilwoman, Tracy Vance. I'm this project attorney for Hawkins Companies, addressed at 8645 West Franklin, Boise. De Weerd: Thank you. Vance: Anna does raise a good point. That easement agreement that is on the LDS property we do not have the benefit of that, but that does not restrict them from using any of the 25-foot on our portion of the property. So, technically, the way that this site plan is derived where we would actually have the storage units and the turnaround there, we would probably have to increase a little big of the driveway, so we would be able to access that totally from our piece of property. Canning: And, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we have not issued a certificate of zoning compliance to approve this site plan at all. That we would look at those issues with the certificate of zoning compliance and if a driveway is solely on their property and -- it will need to be paved. That issue was raised earlier. So, we will look at that with the CZC application. De Weerd: Tracy, is there any portion of the private access right now on this piece of property? Vance: The private access, the way that it's depicted right now is the way that it is shown on the alta survey, that's the way that it -- the dirt road straddles the property line. The dirt road itself is just, basically, enough for one car to go down, so it's probably only about ten feet wide right now. They do have 50 feet of easement, but the road itself is only -- I would say probably ten, 15 feet at the most. And it is just a gravel road and it does split the property line. So, that was one issue that came up and my recollection was that since we don't have the right to go onto the LDS property, that we wouldn't be paving our portion, because really wouldn't make sense to pave half of a portion and all of a sudden you have got half and gravel base on the other half. It would be more inconvenient than anything else. De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have any questions? Donnell: So -- Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell. Donnell: So, Mr. Vance, you still intend to use that easement to access that turnaround and those storage sheds; is that right? Aguilar: The site plan wasn't intended for a presentation tonight, I just brought it because -- per Anna's request. This is, actually, just a quick concept for the Seventh- Day Adventist, because we are working out a final location of some storage sheds that they have, a Stor-More building, so that was just a proposal that they had. So, that proposed turnaround and location of the shed is not final and most likely will move Meridian City Council August 9, 2005 Page 46 of 58 again. And I just happened to have it in my briefcase, so when she asked for the site plan, the rest of the site plan is more or less final, they are just working out the final details of those storage sheds, so I apologize for the confusion of that. Donnell: Then -- Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Donnell: Then, Anna, I'm not sure what we are being asked to approve. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilwoman Donnell, it's just an annexation and zoning request before you tonight. I don't think they have even submitted a concept plan, other than the one that I originally showed. They have been working on the access issues. The storage sheds are a new issue that's come up and Mrs. Aguilar is correct in that she will have to be relocating those, because I don't think they meet any of our standards right now. So, we can work with her on that. But you don't have elevations and the general concept, I think the most that you're looking at is - - or would be similar to this and we could use this one with the exclusion of the storage sheds and we'd like to -- Aguilar: May I clarify? I believe we did submit color renderings as part of our original packet. Canning: Sure enough. I will put those up for you. They didn't make it on the P&Z presentation, so I didn't know that they existed and I can put those up. Aguilar: And these are concept drawings, but I would say these are very very close to what, hopefully, the final product will be. There shouldn't be a major deviation. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna -- and I could have missed this, but if they are going to use -- if they are going to come off of Black Cat on that existing road, they would have to have a complete -- on their property, if they are going to use that, they'd have to have a -- whatever roadway we would consider as a roadway, a 30, 40 foot roadway, they wouldn't be able to count any of the easement from the LDS church as part of their roadway to gat back to that property, would they? Canning: Correct. Bird: Or would they have to take that through their property or just to the location of that cul-de-sac. Or I call it a cul-de-sac. It's-- Canning: They took that-- Meridian City Council August 9, 2005 Page 47 of 58 Bird: Inverted water tower. Canning: I took that down too quick. I'm sorry. They would have to do -- the only -- the only portion of the development of the property that would be different from what you're used to seeing is just the existing easement and -- but all the rest of the development of the site would be similar to what you're used to seeing, the curb returns, the landscape planters, the driveway cuts, and even the shared access to the property to the south. So, all of that would be standard. We did discuss the pavement of this. I -- at the time we discussed it I thought it was more on the LDS property and only occasionally came down here. Now, it looks like it straddles it. It does pose an interesting challenge, so -- but other than that easement, nothing would change. We would be looking for these storage units to not be accessed from the easement. We would be looking for them to have access from the circulation pattern on the site. Bird: Thank you, Anna. De Weerd: Any further questions for the applicant? Okay. It looks like there is some additional testimony and the applicant does have the final word. If you would like to come forward. Blake: My name is Kent Blake. I live at 4920 West Cherry Lane. De Weerd: Thank you. Blake: And is it possible to get the -- the driveway plan again? Canning: Oh, the driveway? Okay. Hold on. Blake: I just want to clarify what she's saying. My property is just right here and I'm curious, then -- okay. So, this would be my property here, this section. So, they are saying this road would come in here and this is my property line here, I'm assuming, and that I would have access through the road the way that-- De Weerd: You will need to answer that on the public record. Blake: Okay. And so I guess I needed to have them just clarify that. And I guess there is some fencing plan that comes in future -- whatever they do later on. Is that right? De Weerd: Some of those -- yeah. Anna, I guess -- is this going to be required to be platted? Canning: No, ma'am. De Weerd: Because it would be an accepted use. Meridian City Council August9,2oo5 Page 48 of 58 Canning: Yes, ma'am. I'm looking to see if there is a fencing requirement -- that the applicant shall construct a six-foot tall solid fence along the west property line. Said fence shall not be constructed of cedar. I suspect that this gentleman may not have been to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and so they may not have addressed that issue. Blake: I was here, but it went until midnight, so I had to leave. De Weerd: Yeah. They go very long. Canning: But that previous condition I mentioned is part of the development agreement. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: So, that's all we have before us and that would make sense. I'm sorry. So, if Council so chooses, they could add an additional clarification on the fencing plan in the development agreement. De Weerd: Okay. Sir, did that answer your question? Blake: I think it did. So, that means that in the future the fencing plan will still be kind of brought forth later on or is it just on the west boundary is the only line that there will be a fence on? De Weerd: The Council can address the south side as well. And I appreciate your question as far as the access. It seems that that would be an important point. Blake: Right. Yes. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: While we have the property neighbor here, does the condition that the Planning and Zoning director made for the west side of the property line meet your expectations for a fence on the south, on your side? Blake: I would guess I would want it to be consistent with what was already going to be going in. Wardle: Thanks. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Gary, could we call you up here? Rountree: Mayas well. You're here. Meridian City Council August9,2oo5 Page 49 of 58 De Weerd: We do want you to earn your pay. If you will, please, state your name and address. Inselman: Gary Inselman, representing ACHD, 3775 North Adams, Garden City. De Weerd: Thank you. Inselman: I agree with your comments, Mayor, that it would -- unless the LDS church agreed to everything it would be unlikely for a road to be put in there. Obviously, they would have to agree to the sale as part of our approval of a road to go there, we would require that the driveway off of Black Cat, then, access that new road and that would have to be with their willing participation. We couldn't unilaterally make them do any of that without compensation, which is unlikely from the highway district. De Weerd: So, they would have to agree -- they are required to have that easement, but they are not necessarily required to sell it? Inselman: I don't believe the LDS church was a party to an agreement to sell anything. De Weerd: Okay. Boy, now that's an interesting scenario. We appreciate your clarification. Thank you. Okay. I'm sorry -- Bird: It's your call, Mayor. Whatever you want to do. De Weerd: I think there is a lot at stake here. There is limited access. Mrs. Elliott, do you want to ask an additional question? Usually I don't do this, but -- Elliott: I thank you very much. De Weerd: If you will, please, just restate your name. Elliott: Yvette Elliott, 1923 North Black Cat Road, Meridian, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Elliott: I just want to say that before the LDS church came up, we fought with them for that easement to put that fence back over and they didn't -- they went ahead and built their fence where it was. I have talked to them and they said that it could take two or three months before it went through their elders approval, for them to decide what they wanted to do. But back again to the rural transitional. If our property -- if we were to develop our property today as rural transitional, they would require us to put a stub street in to either Blake's property or Kent's property directly behind us. That is what the property is zoned at right now is rural transitional. They are asking for it to be different, to L-O, then, they would not be required to do anything. But as it is right now, to our benefit it's rural transitional and as they state, to their benefit they don't want to put a Meridian City Council August9,2005 Page 50 of 58 road, because it doesn't benefit them. Well, if it goes L-O it doesn't benefit us. So, I think we should meet in the middle somewhere and that's all I have to say. De Weerd: Thank you. Would the applicant have final comments? Vance: Mayor. Council. Tracy Vance with Hawkins Companies. I'd just like to reiterate what the LDS church situation is. Can we pan down the pictures, so we can -- we can see the access road again? When we initially met with the church on their -- the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, their preference would be to have the access point exactly where the easement situation is now. We would prefer to put in a road right there. And -- but the condition from the ACHD was if we had an access point there into our -- into the church -- Seventh-Day Adventist Church facility -- they did a conditional permit, they would either allow us to have that access point or one to the south. If we had the one to the north, we had to get an agreement with the LDS church where they would agree to cut off their access point, we would put in the road, and put in an access point for both properties. And what we proposed to the LDS church -- because they -- they built their fence probably about 11 or 12 feet into the easement area. So, there has probably been 11 or 12 feet that's from their fence line and curb cut to their property line. And we knew that they had this easement situation, but it's not an easement situation that we can control, because, as we talked about earlier today, we are not the beneficiaries of that easement, we don't have the right to drive on that easement, we don't have the right to enforce the rights of that easement. The Elliotts do. The other property owners do. So, we approached the LDS church and said we know the fence is there, we know your curb cut is there, what we are trying to propose is we will take your 11, 12, 13 feet, we will make up the difference, we will put the road in there. The LDS church came back and said we are not interested. So, because of the ACHD requirement, we are forced to put our curb cut on the south side of the property. By doing that we had to shift everything down and we know there is a 25-foot easement there. So, basically, what we are doing is developing based on even setback requirements from that 25-foot to the end of that 25-foot easement area. So, we are basically saying, well, we can't do anything with that property. So, we are taking the burden of -- we cannot develop -- we have actually shrunk quite a bit of the property, because of that 25-foot easement. Now, the Elliotts do talk about bringing utilities. I don't believe our property has the burden to provide other property owners and developers utilities or that -- that is usually a developer's cost if they go out and they want to develop a piece of property, they are responsible for getting sewer, storm water, electrical, gas and that is part of the developer's cost. So, we have done everything we can not to impact the easement area and at the same time we are going over and above that by saying if they want to buy that easement, because we can't develop on it, we can't interfere with their easement rights, where we are given a mechanism, they can buy the fee title to that easement. I don't -- I don't see why we should have to be burdened by agreeing to 50 feet or -- you know, we are already burdened by 25 feet. If they want to enforce their rights on the LDS church, they have that right. They have the right to go and tell the LDS church to remove their curb, remove their landscaping, their trees, their fence. They may not have that right anymore. The statute of limitations might have run. But that's not -- you know, that wasn't something that was our -- you Meridian City Council August9,2oo5 Page 51 of 58 know, we didn't have the right to enforce that easement right. Those property owners to the west, it's their responsibility to enforce that easement If they lose the rights, by law, you know, if you don't protect your property rights you lose them. And, unfortunately, they need to make the LDS church agree to the terms of their easement. I don't have any other -- if you have any questions. De Weerd: I guess just a question. Can you ask for vacation or elimination of the 25 foot easement in the north, transfer it to the south -- I mean it sounds like you're going to sell them the property anyway, so can you not afford to lose 50 feet to the south where you're going to provide the other property owner to the south access, would it make sense to shift that to the south where you could also have access to Black Cat? And I don't know anything about this stuff; it's just a question. Vance: Well, that was an issue that was raised in the Planning Commission and with staff and we discussed that. The easement situation itself -- the road goes all the way here, it actually benefits this property, this property, this property. If you put an easement here it only benefits this property. You don't have any access to try to get over here in any event, so -- giving up 50 feet here would benefit one property owner, but it also would not -- we would still have a 25-foot easement on this side. So, in essence, we would be giving up 50 feet here and 25 feet here and now you're taking on property 75 feet. And I mean -- I think that's a very big burden for a property owner to take. We are talking about -- the other condition, if we move the access point here, ACHD did say -- because they like to consolidate access points, if we have an access here, they wanted us to grant -- I guess it's right here. They wanted us to provide access to the property to the south. Based on -- but it's not a full 25 feet or 50-foot dedicated road, it's just a cross-access on the existing drive aisle that we have. Since we are developing the property that way, that's not more of a burden, because we are putting it in already. We would restrict them to this portion that we already put in and that would -- so, if he develops this as L-O or whatever this gets developed into, then, he would have an access here. So, it's not so close to the intersection. I believe that's probably what ACHD was thinking about. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Just a quick question for Mr. Vance. The property owner to the south had a requirement -- or a request that the fencing be consistent with the fencing to the west. Is that something that you're agreeable to? Vance: At this time we would be agreeable. Now, I'm not sure -- are we doing the -- did we agree all the way from the easement line to the corner? Okay. And the property owner from the south, I'm not sure -- I mean, obviously, this wouldn't be fenced, because this is part of the parking and drive aisle. I'm not sure how far -- how far back that property owner would desire a fence, considering what other uses he may be Meridian City Council August 9, 2005 Page 52 of 58 having on his property that would tie into this access point. We would probably need more -- better clarification on that issue. But we are agreeable to -- Wardle: Fencing type? Vance: Right. Wardle: Thank you. De Weerd: Any further questions from Council? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there is a requirement that the applicant take water and sewer to the -- to and through the property. The only issue would be the road. So, the other ones aren't currently conditions of approval. Aguilar: May I comment on that? I asked for clarification on that specific issue with Craig Hood and Bruce and it was -- Craig pointed out was not the intent of bringing means to the back properties, just bringing services to the subject property. De Weerd: I don't know. I guess I have always heard the to and through. Or through and to or -- so, I have never heard that they wouldn't put it through and stub out to the end of their property. Aguilar: This doesn't have the Public Works comments included with it. Canning: The staff report has a special consideration labeled sanitary sewer and water there. Sanitary sewer currently under construction in Black Cat Road. The applicant shall be responsible to install sewer mains to and through this development. The applicant will need to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Water is readily available in Black Cat Road. The applicant shall be responsibility to install mains to and through this proposed development. Again, the applicant will need to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Aguilar: And I asked for a clarification and I was told that it was to bring to our property, to the subject property, not bring it to the western properties. That's what the intent was. De Weerd: Well, it sounds like the question wasn't understood. That would have been inconsistent with the staff comments. But also inconsistent with our own policy. Aguilar: So, our property would -- associated with developing this property, we would be burdened with providing mains -- sewer and water mains to the property to the west, is that what you're saying, may I ask? Meridian City Council August 9, 2005 Page 53 of 58 De Weerd: Our policy has been that you bring it to and through. That's what it says. Canning: Madam Mayor, it was not -- it's in the staff report, but I don't know how to direct you, because it is in the staff report. However, it's not included in the development agreement. So, it is a general requirement of development throughout the city. Aguilar: Is there any knowledge that the LDS church has already done that? Because I would assume since they have been there before us that they possibly would have done that, if that's a standard procedure. Grady: Sewer and water isn't to and through the LDS church. De Weerd: It is? Grady: It is not. Bird: No. Grady: And as far as to and through on this property, I guess I'd question where it would go to and through. You know, where would our easement be. We typically don't have it just running through the parking lot, so it would probably have to be on the road to the north there and, then, the question is does that easement cover utilities and probably not, so there is -- De Weerd: Another issue. Grady: We do have sewer available to the north of the properties in question. Limited- - it's an eight-inch line, so it's -- it wouldn't be very acceptable for large development. De Weerd: Okay. It sure seems like there is some issues on this application. Okay. Council, I'm going to call for a five-minute recess and we will reconvene at 9:45. (Recess) De Weerd: I will go ahead and call this meeting back to order. Staff? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: Maybe before you get to the other staff, one of the questions that's being addressed is the issues of to and through. It is not common for us to require this property to stub all the way to the rear of the property. That is a common -- common language we use -- Meridian City Council August 9, 2005 Page 54 of 58 De Weerd: In residential. Nary: -- in residential subdivisions that develop the entire parcel to the edge. Here normally we don't. The only thing I could think of that just comes to mind -- and we have addressed it in the last six months -- was the Albertson's property at Ten Mile. When they stubbed it they stubbed it to the edge of their store, not to the edge of their property, because that's all that was required for them to do and they, of course, take up most of their lot and they still were only required to stub it to their store. So, it isn't common. I don't know if that was an oversight in the staff report or it made sense at the time, because they knew it was just going to the building, but it isn't common to have to stub a line all the way to the property to the western boundary of it. De Weerd: Yeah. I remember this in residential. Right. I guess it's never come up in a business application. Nary: And this is not platted and it's -- I mean, you know, there is, obviously, some different complexities, but I just wanted to clear up that particular issue. De Weerd: Okay. Did the applicant have any final remarks? Okay. Council, any discussion? Donnell: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell. Donnell: All I can say at this point right now is that I'm thoroughly confused. I think there is some issues that need to be resolved and I'm not sure that we are the body that should be resolving those issues. I think it needs to be the property owners and the developer. And so from my point of view, I think that this needs to be at least delayed for any action on the part of the Council until some of those issues are resolved. Bird: Is that a motion to continue? Donnell: It wasn't a motion, it was just a comment, so -- I don't know what the other Council members are thinking. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I agree with Councilman Donnell. She's right on. A lot of issues -- the City of Meridian has significant issues as it relates to past actions and activities related to easements and dirt roads to properties and development around them. Some have gone on for years, as a matter of fact. And some are still going on. I also agree that -- I don't believe it's necessarily something that we need to take on by taking an action this Meridian City Council August 9, 2005 Page 55 of 58 evening and solving. This is an issue that the applicant and the adjacent property owners need to work out. They have legal and binding contracts with one another, they need to work those out. If the city were to take action this evening or anytime in the future without those being worked out, I agree with our attorney's advice, we, then, are pulled into it. Having said that, I would move that we continue the Public Hearing and direct the applicant to resolve these stated issues, particularly as it relates to easement and access and that they be in contact back with city staff to where we can reschedule the hearing to a date certain. Donnell: I'll second that motion. Rountree: Or do I need a date certain? De Weerd: We do need a date certain. Nary: I was going to suggest a date certain. Bird: Yeah, you need a date certain. Rountree: I would add a date certain, then, to August 30th. Donnell: Second would agree. Bird: That's our budget public hearing. Rountree: September 6th. Donnell: Okay. Second agrees. De Weerd: Okay. So, there is a motion on the floor to continue this Public Hearing to August -- I'm sorry -- September 6th and to ask that the applicant work with the surrounding property owners. LOS church to the north and the property owners to the west to -- Aguilar: May I make a statement? De Weerd: Not right now. So, all those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Applicant? Aguilar: Jessica Aguilar with Hawkins Companies. I appreciate your concern, but I just want to restate -- and I know the motion has been made, so we can't -- or maybe we can adjust it. We have already negotiated with the LOS church. They don't want to Meridian City Council August9,2oo5 Page 56 of 58 negotiate with us. We are not changing the use of those western properties. We are not changing the access whatsoever. We have totally designed our project around it and made more or less a corridor there for potential development if and when it ever happens. We don't know. I appreciate the city and staff -- planning staff concern that you guys are trying to be proactive and look out in a crystal ball for a potential development down the road, but we don't have that crystal ball. We are not changing anything. I don't see why the burden is on this property to try and make a solution when we are not even a hundred percent sure what the problem mayor may not be. Again, we are not changing access, the current access whatsoever. They have the ability to do a private lane there. They have the ability to go to the LDS church to pursue removing fences, curbs, or whatever. They have the ability to go to them to negotiate property. They have the ability to come to us to negotiate property. And we have made mechanisms, with support from city attorney and planning staff that we can't shut them down, we have mechanism that we can come to an agreement on a purchase price. There is language in there about getting approvals or if we don't see eye to eye on price, getting alternate appraisals and we can agree to a price. So, I don't understand why we should be additionally burdened on this church property to try and fix a problem that we don't even know what it is. De Weerd: I guess, ma'am, if we ignore this problem, we have an even greater one and this Council -- the city has experienced those problems in the past and they don't get smaller, they only get larger. And I think it is a responsibility of property owners to work those out. It's certainly not ours. Where we have left something like this unresolved, it has resulted in a lot of discontent among all the property owners. I think this is proactive and I think there needs to be a strong statement to all of the property owners to find a solution. We can ask that staff at ACHD be present during these discussions and to find something -- and if you'd like me there, I'd certainly would be there as well -- I don't think I can. You're right. It does need to be resolved. Aguilar: I guess I want to know what else we can offer, short of giving a donation of land, which it's not really our land per other agreements to donate. De Weerd: I don't think anyone is asking you to offer that as a donation. I do hear what Council has instructed, is a solution to this access to property that potentially is land locked because of the other lease arrangements, because of a loss of access -- Aguilar: They are not losing any access. De Weerd: Well, from what we heard from the representative from ACHD, they would not have a public access to that if they cannot purchase the land to the north to make it a 50 foot road. And that they would -- Aguilar: And that was the same for us, if we couldn't get the LDS church to cut off their access point on the Black Cat. So, that's why we had to move our access to the south. Bird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council August 9, 2005 Page 57 of 58 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Ma'am, I mean would you be in the development agreement willing to say, hey, we will sell -- we don't expect -- I don't expect you to give anything away to make -- I mean what you do for the back just makes their value go up, so their developers can pay to bring it back. Aguilar: Sure. Bird: But would you -- would you give enough to have a public road there? Would you sell it to them? As it stands right now, it's 25 feet is all. Aguilar: If you read Exhibit E, it clearly states that there is a mechanism in here for that 25 feet. That does not prevent anybody -- the owners to ask for more than 25 feet. This was just specific to target that easement. Bird: Well, yeah, but -- that's true, but we don't disagree on that right now. De Weerd: I guess what I would suggest is that you work with our staff, get some clarity, and come back on the 6th with, hopefully, a possible solution. Nary: Madam Mayor, just so I can clarify, if I understand the Council's direction, you would like our staff, the applicant, the adjoining property owners, including the LOS church -- and, again, if some of them don't want to participate, I certainly can't make them, but to at least attempt to try to resolve some of these issues and, then, report that back to you on the 6th and, then, go forward where ever it's -- De Weerd: And, please, that ACHD is -- Nary: Right. I'm sorry. ACHD as well. Adjoining property owners, city staff, the applicant -- again, we can have this discussion. We may not resolve anything, but we at least want to make that attempt before we come back to you on the 6th. That's your expectation. De Weerd: This is. Nary: We can do that. Aguilar: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, just one final comment. On August 30th, immediately following the budget presentation, because of some of our expansion at a sewer treatment plant and some of the pressures in the south, we would like to meet with Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss the sewer treatment plant Meridian City Council August9,2oo5 Page 58 of 58 and sewer planning. And, certainly, Brad and John Shawcroft are -- we kind of talked about it a little bit today at the directors meeting, so it's very timely that we do that. Nary: Madam Mayor, could I ask one more question? I'm assuming, Mrs. Canning, we would have an address for all of those adjacent property owners to send them a notice to do that. Thank you. Sorry. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor, I move we adjourn. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:58 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR TAMMY DE WEERD / / DATE APPROVED ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK