Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 08-09 Meridian City Council Meetina AuQust 9. 2005. The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:55 P.M., Tuesday, August 9,2005, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Shaun Wardle, Charlie Rountree, and Christine Donnell. Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Ann Canning, Bill Musser, Joe Silva, Len Grady, Doug Strong, Stacy Kilchenmann and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X Shaun Wardle X Charlie Rountree X X Christine Donnell X Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: Good evening. I will go ahead and call the City Council meeting to order. It is Tuesday, August 9th. It's five after 7:00 and we'd like to welcome you all here. We will start with roll call attendance. Mr. Berg. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: De Weerd: Thank you. Item No.2 is the pledge of allegiance. Tonight we will be led by Officer Stokes. If you will all rise. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Burton Roberts, with Meridian Gospel Tabernacle: De Weerd: Item No.3 is our community invocation. Tonight we are joined by Pastor Burton Roberts. If you will all join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of silence. Pastor. Roberts: Let us pray. Most gracious and kind Heavenly Father, we pause tonight to thank you, first of all, for the privileges that we have as citizens of this great land and citizens of Meridian. We ask, Father, tonight that your wisdom and your guidance will be a part of these proceedings. Cause us, Father, to realize that we can rely on you when we need these times of decisions to be made. So, bless this time together tonight and cause our minds to truly want that which is best for our community. We ask these things in Jesus' mighty name, amen. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: Meridian City Council August9,2005 Page 2 of 58 De Weerd: Thank you, Pastor. Item No.4 is adoption of the agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve the agenda -- not a revised agenda, by the way. Rountree: Second. Bird: As published. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as presented. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of May 3, 2005 City Council Special Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of July 12, 2005 Pre-Council Meeting: C. Approve Minutes of July 12, 2005 City Council Regular Meeting: D. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement Agreement for Strada Bellissima: E. Water Service Easement for Metro Car Wash bv EP Crossing. LLC: F. Water Service Easement for Metro Car Wash bv ABC2. LLC: G. License Agreement with Nampa and Meridian IrriQation District for Strada Bellissima. LLC: H. Black Cat Trunk Sewer and Lift Station Project Addendum No. 4 with JUB Engineers: I. Permanent and Temporary Easement Contract for the Black Cat Sewer Project. J. ChanQe Order No.1 for the Franklin Road Waterline Extension. K. Approve Transfer of Beer License for Baja Taco for Michael Eddv -1725 West Franklin Road, Suite 120: Meridian City Council August9,2005 Page 3 of 58 L. Approve liQuor License Transfer from Eddv's to Baja Taco for Michael Eddy -1725 West Franklin Road, Suite 120: M. Water Main Easement for Albertson's Stub Street North portionl.;. N. Water Main Easement for Albertson's Stub Street South Portion: o. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement for Lot 5. Block 2 Medimont Subdivision with Falash and Ross: P. Award oLBid for West Ustick Water & Sewer Project to Paul Construction: De Weerd: Item 5 is the Consent Agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda as published and for the Mayor to sign and the clerk to attest on all proper papers. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Is there any discussion? If not, Mr. Berg? Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Department Reports: A. Finance Department - Stacy Kilchenmann 1. Finance Report: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 6 from Department Reports, we will start with our finance department. Stacy. Kilchenmann: Good evening, Mayor, Members of the Council. I gave this report this morning to our finance -- or to our directors and their eyes just glazed over. So, I'm not going to spend very much time on it. We are down to a month and a half left of the Meridian City Council August 9. 2005 Page 4 of 58 year, although this report is for the first nine months of the year. We are just rapidly cascading down to the finish of another fiscal year, which is hard for us to believe. But nothing is over budget on the expenditure side, other than the amendments and we are going to discuss those in detail next week. I think you have seen all of those, but as far as the rest of our operating expenditure, the personnel expenditures, there is nothing over budget. The Enterprise Fund sales and sewer revenue are almost exactly as we budgeted, just maybe a percentage point off from what we had predicted. The assessment revenue is a great deal higher. If you look at your reports and look at the budget to actual and that's partly by raising the rates through the -- part way through the year and also just the addition -- number of homes that are being connected to the utility lines is just, as you know, astronomical. I don't know if you have seen this already, but I believe it is July set a new record for building permits at over 300. So, that's -- if we look at the comparison on the report of prior years, each month just continues to be a new record breaking month. Then, the General Fund revenue, every quarter I project an end of the year and the projection has remained pretty consistent with the quarter prior to that. It looks like we will be about 950,000 dollars ahead of budget and, again, it's still those same reasons, comparing the property tax number that we initially got from the county when we budgeted is about 500 -- 400,000 dollars less than the number we got from them in October of the current year. And, then, the state revenue sharing was higher than the state originally projected. And as I explained to the department directors this morning, that initial state revenue sharing is projected off the economic forecast that the state does for their session, their legislative session, which starts in January. So, it's earlier than ours. And, then, they go -- they go back and give you another number during the summer and, then -- like they say, it's an estimate what the final number is. So, I guess better to be low than over. So, that money we will appropriate back to our General Fund this year. So, that's -- investments are about the same. Nothing's really changed in the rates. We did open an account with our investment advisor for the park impact fees and because they are coming in more than we spend, we are trying to be a little more aggressive about seeing if we can get a higher interest rate for them. And just continuing to watch the cash flow, trying to push as much money as we can into the state bond fund and a little bit longer term investments. So, that's really alii have, unless there is any questions. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Stacy, I guess I want to make sure -- we did meet with ACHD on the purchase of right of way easements with Locust Grove. I'm assuming that that was -- Okay. You will put it cared for-- Kilchenmann: It's already in there. De Weerd: Okay. Also for notation to Council, the 31,000 in cared for work for special services, that is the economic development efforts that -- for projects that we raise funds for this year. If there Is no further questions, thank you, Stacy. I will need a motion. Meridian City Council August 9. 2005 Page 5 of 58 Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we accept this '06 proposed budget and have -- and distribute it -- or get it out for public notice; is that not right? Or do we have to do that in the motion? Oh, we have to accept it, then? No.? Rountree: It's just a finance report. Bird: Okay. We don't need a motion, then. So, I withdrawal it. De Weerd: Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. I'm already on Item 8. I did want a motion on Item 8. Yeah. B. Parks and Recreation Department - Doug Strong 1. Proposal for Heroes Park Construction: De Weerd: Okay. Item B is the Parks Department. Doug. Strong: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Before you tonight is a request for approval for construction of the first phase of the green up for Heroes Park, next to the Lochsa Falls development, and just as kind of a recap of what's happened there, we put this project out for bid in May and closed the bids on June 24th with no bids submitted. So, we went back to the contracting companies that expressed interest in the project and talked to each of them to see if they put together a proposal to do the work at the park and we discovered that the reason that they didn't submit the bits was that they are so busy with other work that they just didn't have time to finish them. So, we did get a positive response from C&A Paving and we have been working on this project with Stanley Consultants to get some final numbers of what we could look -- what we would be looking at for completion of the green up of that park, which we have discussed just a couple of weeks ago and we are looking at the expenditure of the additional impact fee dollars. So, the numbers that were presented then was based on this bid that I have before you tonight from C&A Paving to do the work. So, with the money that we currently have in the budget, plus the additional dollars that you approved a couple of weeks ago to do the project that totals the amount that's proposed in this bid. So, with that I would answer any questions and request your approval of this request. De Weerd: Thank you, Doug. Council, any discussion? Questions? Thank you. Donnell: Do we need a motion on this one? De Weerd: Yes. Meridian City Council August 9, 2005 Page 6 of 58 Donnell: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell. Donnell: I'd like to make a motion that we approve the proposal for Heroes Park construction, accept the bid, to complete the greening of the park. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 6-B. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. c. Police Department - Chief Musser 1. Update on the K-9 Building with Matt Schultz and Gary Scheihing: 2. Introduction of Blitz - new MPD K.9 puppy: De Weerd: Thank you. The Police Department, Chief Musser. Musser: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this evening I would like to introduce Matt Schultz and Officer Gary Scheihing to you. They have been instrumental in working on our community project in terms of our Kg building located down at the police department site. And with that I'm going to turn over the floor to Matt and Gary. De Weerd: Thank you for joining us this evening. Schultz: Thank you, Mayor and Council. My name is Matt Schultz, I'm vice-president of land development for Hubble Homes and it's been a while ago and Mr. Bird was giving me grief about how long it's been since we started looking at this project. I think it was last fall before -- explain how we had just been approached by Mr. Scheihing and we are pretty easy when he flashes his badge and his guns to cooperate, to help out with a really worthwhile effort to get a K9 training facility. We had a sketch from our architect that we kind of picked up and ran with and asked, you know, can you help, I says, well, do you know what you want, yeah, kind of. So, I started out with let's get you some plans, let's get the location, let's get some build-able documents that we can take out and see how many donations we can really get from everybody that really works on one of these buildings, which is a lot of different subcontractors, engineers, surveyors, and really let this thing out to the community to participate in more of a community participation effort, let's see how it ends up. And I think it's been about nine months ago Meridian City Council August9,2005 Page 7 of 58 that we started this and we are now asking for donations on engineering and things like that. It comes, it just is a little slower and we did get it and what we have today -- I believe I was just told that we did submit to the building department for a permit on a facility that as it stands today is -- from what we can tell, about a 300,000 dollar facility. I just put the little sketch up where it's located. It's located just on the southwest corner of -- kind of the back parking lot of the Meridian police facility on some vacant land that the city purchased five or six years ago for the new -- I call it new, it's relatively -- it's getting older now, but the police station. The concept being that we do a facility -- if you could flip to the next page, please. A facility that's about 3,800 square feet. It's a little bigger than what we first started with, but by the time everybody got their wants and needs in there, there is two garages, if you will -- I think one's a training room and one is an -- one is a -- see what they call it. Yeah, an evidence room, so where they can pull in vehicles in inclement weather and do their searches of vehicles and things like that. The other room could be a training room. All air-conditioned. There is the kennel facility over there on the left that I think about 14 kennels will be in there. In between there is an office, a dog wash area, a restroom. Then, up in the corner there is another restroom that's only accessible from the outside and that's going to be connected to an outside long-term off-leash agility park and training area, so the public can still access that and still be secure. So, we -- it took awhile to kind of get all those things down on paper and get the architect and the engineers and everybody up on board, but I think we are pretty confident that this is the facility that needs to be built. We -- if I could pass out a summary sheet of the people that have participated to date and kind of where we think we are financially and pass it around here. One for me. Sorry. I will give it to you after. As I said, we think it's about total cost to put this out as a city project on the street to have a surveyor, an engineer, all the mechanical, electrical engineers do the design and, then, get it all the way down to -- it's about 17,000 dollars to date that we have found and contributed in-kind work from the list of architects, Houston and Bugatsch, the surveyor was Idaho Survey Group, civil engineer was Stanley Consultant, which we just heard was working on one of your parks. Structural engineer is Briggs Engineering. Elk Horn Engineering. Electrical engineering DC Engineers. Then, Falash and Ross, Bob Ross, was very instrumental in helping to just kind of see this thing through. You know, we are homebuilders, this is more of a commercial facility, and I thought of him first as a guy that would be really good at this and his office is right around the corner from this location. And, then, of course, Gary Scheihing has just been a dynamo in going out and contacting everybody and their brother about helping out on this and has just been really good about getting it -- just pushing it forward and alii have done is kind of just sit back and just kind of push things different directions and get everybody together. We think we have got about 17,000 worth of effort into it right now. We really think Officer Scheihing and some our subs have come up with about 108,000 dollars worth of donations, looking forward, which is -- as I think about that, the number is quite significant, hope we are right on that. But we have asked and double-checked and triple-checked and we think we are real solid on that number. It still leaves approximately 120,000 dollars, which is a pretty good number for that type of facility. At Hubble Homes one of our core values is to give back in the communities we serve in or we live -- I live in Meridian, our office is in Meridian. And we set aside our money that otherwise we would profit to give back to the communities we work in and Meridian is Meridian City Council August9,2005 Page 8 of 58 definitely one that we want to do that for. So, we have stepped up and said, hey, let's split that, that 120, and that would go to pay -- you know, one of the contractors said, hey, look, we will give you 20 percent off, you know, so that still leaves 80 percent needs to be covered. And there is just some people -- and we understand that, you know, they have got to cover their bills and pay their gas and we don't expect everybody to be able to contribute a hundred percent. So, we just appreciate all the support and the opportunity to participate and it's taken awhile, we do need to get going on it. One last thing of business, though, we have -- it's kind of a unique project in that there is a lot of different players in it, giving different amounts of time and work and money and I probably need to sit down with your attorney Mr. Nary and make sure we are all on the up and up on insurance and, you know, procedure for how we see this thing starting and finishing, just to protect all of our best interests in doing this job. I guess with that, we are just here to ask for your support as a Council. I know budgets are tight and things are probably already allocated, but if there is any way the city could come up with -- what we are saying today is about 60,000 dollars, I think we can have ourself a nice facility, if not late this fall, early next spring or over the winter. Our goal is to get a roof on it before it gets cold and, then, let the inside get done over the winter, but we will see if we can pull that off still. De Weerd: Well, before I broke the suspense, we wanted to hear the pitch, before we told you it is in the proposed budget for -- starting October. So, Council did fund that and after our Public Hearing, if it -- if there is no one that comes and says you can't do that, it should have the green light to go forward. And, Officer Scheihing, I know the effort you have put into this facility. Very much appreciated. You're -- I know I have heard you have been having fun with it. If you can come to the -- Scheihing: The neat thing about it is the police department's come up with some real friends through the contacts that I have made, we have been talking to companies and people like that and it's just great now -- you know, we talk about community policing and I know that the chief really hits about that, but we have got some real partners out there in the community now that want to support us on this big time. The other thing that, you know, that's worst case scenario. We are not going to quit raising money and we are not going to quit going after people. We are going to do that right up to the end. In fact, this week alone we tied up the people to do all the landscaping for us, which when we talked with Elroy Huff and that's going to get done at no cost to the city or to -- I mean they are going to take care of that for us. But if anybody wants to buy us a tree, we do need some more trees, so -- but the rest of it's all going to get taken care of. But thank you. De Weerd: No. Thank you. We know we need to keep you busy with these projects to keep your mind off of, you know, any other opportunity. Scheihing: My last one. De Weerd: No. We will find another one, Gary. Meridian City Council August9,2005 Page 9 of 58 Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I just want to say I was giving Matt a bad time about getting it done, but I appreciate all the work Matt and Gary has done out there, you know. This is -- this is what makes us the community that we are is by doing stuff like this and I certainly as a taxpayer appreciate all the businesses that have stepped forward to donate their time, their product, and everything and I certainly appreciate you guys' time that you have spent on it. I appreciate it very much. And I know Matt's got other work to do, but I appreciate the time you have taken, Matt. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I'd echo what Councilman Bird said. Thank you both very much and express our appreciation to the rest of the folks you work with and not to steal your thunder or your stage, but I want to see that new pup. De Weerd: This is my agenda. Donnell: Special thanks to Hubble Homes. Bird: There is little Tiko. Rountree: Is this Tiko's pup? (Various comments regarding the pup.) Bird: Madam Mayor, could I ask Gary one question before he gets done? De Weerd: Yes. Mr. Bird. Bird: On this facility are we going to have some training grounds for these dogs? Scheihing: The very front part of the first one -- can you go back to that first -- the first slide. North of the building, that whole field out there between the ditch and the fence, is going to be a training ground and that's where we have talked to Green City Landscaping -- right north of the building there is a ditch comes off to the side like this and, then, the fence goes straight. That whole area we are going to landscape and Blue Diamond Turf has give us the turf and everything, so that's all going to be a training field out there. Bird: That is -- we are going to have a training field. Meridian City Council August9,2005 Page 10 of 58 Scheihing: And, then, you know, the Shitzu clubs and all that have contacted me about using that. They use the city parks now, which kind of worries me and now getting over there to that and they are willing to help us put the field together and make -- so, yeah, it's going to be pretty neat. Bird: Great. Fantastic. Scheihing: Thank you. Bird: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, Officer Scheihing. Thank you, chief. Musser: You're welcome, ma'am. D. Planning and Zoning Department - Anna Canning 1. Discussion of Ada County Application for Cell Tower along Highway 69: De Weerd: Okay. Item D is the Planning and Zoning Department report from Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I am bringing something before you today, not for consideration as to whether or not you want to approve it, but whether or not you want it to be processed in the City of Meridian or processed through Ada County. The property is located where the veterinary clinic is at the corner of Edmonds and Meridian Road and what they want to do is put a cell tower site in the northeast corner of the property. You recently approved the property to the north for annexation. And also the property across the street is a part of the city. So, it is contiguous to the city limits and could be annexed. The way your agreement with the area -- the area of city impact agreement with the Ada County states is that in order to do this type of development for a Conditional Use Permit, they need to be denied annexation. So, the question tonight is if you want a 65 foot mono pole to be processed through City of Meridian or through Ada County. They will be required to annex the property, the whole site, to be processed through the City of Meridian. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Donnell: Yes, Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mrs. Donnell. Donnell: So, Anna, what are the pros and cons of whether it's processed through the city or through Ada County? Meridian City Council August 9, 2005 Page 11 of 58 Canning: Ada County has fairly extensive requirements for their communications facilities. I haven't compared them exactly. It is lengthy, though. I have worked with them before. I don't think they have quite as much for the stealth requirements, but this isn't going to be a stealth facility anyway. So, the benefits would be it would be part of the city, the rest of the site, we would probably have to be do some sort of development agreement on or figure out how you wanted to treat the rest of the property, because they are not ready to bring it forward at this time. But we can give you authority to review that and if you didn't like it there, to not approve it. It's just a -- strictly a control issue, ma'am. Donnell: Yeah. I love control. De Weerd: Any other questions? Donnell: No. Just a comment, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Donnell: It doesn't seem like it is any really huge issue. I think it probably ought to be into the city's control. Once, again, I like control, but just as an aside, we were taking a drive out toward Kuna last evening and it's amazing to me the number of cell towers that you see, if, in fact, you see them at all. They have become such a part of our environment that I think often they are not even noticed. So, that's just a comment on cell towers. So, Cingular -- and one more question. So, Anna, Cingular Wireless are requesting that it be handled by the city, rather than the county? Canning: The whole story is they brought in this -- it won't take me very long, I promise. They did bring in the conditional use application, staff looked it and said, well, this is fine, except for one problem, you're not in the city, so we need an annexation request. They came back and said, well, the property owner is not quite ready to annex, so we are going to take it to Ada County and I said, whoa, wait a minute, you've got to get that approved first if you want go to Ada County. Well, you need to get permission from City Council to take it to Ada County. De Weerd: Okay. Any further comments or discussion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Maybe I missed it, but, Anna, what are we talking about annexing, just that little piece there? As I went through your statement -- Canning: Well, typically, we would ask for the whole property to come in. Bird: That's what I'm saying. Meridian City Council August 9, 2005 Page 12 of 58 Canning: The one to the north, I don't think they have submitted their -- I don't think we have done the ordinance yet, so I'm not sure that they could just annex that little corner. That might -- that would be a possibility once this property is annexed, you could just annex that little corner, but typically we would ask the whole property to come in. Bird: Follow-up, Mayor? Well, Anna, you just got through telling us that the owners of the property, regardless of what Cingular wants or doesn't want, don't want to come in the city right now; is that right? Canning: They have consulted us about -- through pre-apps and so they are very close. I think it was just the exact right now question and this may now -- this may be enough incentive that they want to come in now. We have done at least two pre-apps with them on subdivision of the property. Bird: And they would be the ones that would have to come forward for a request for annexation, Wireless Cingular. Canning: It would have to have their consent, yes. Donnell: It's their property. Canning: I guess, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess if you wanted to provide direction on whether you wanted the whole property to come in or just the lease site to come in, we could probably work with just the lease site once the property to the north got annexed, if that's what you want. Bird: I, for one, right now, without hearing anymore, would not be in favor of that. Canning: Okay. Bird: I want the whole property or nothing. Canning: Just let me know. I probably will need a vote of some sort, so let me know. De Weerd: Well, certainly, it sounds like Council would like the whole property in and that would be the preference, but, then, I wouldn't want them going forward to the county to build it regardless. We don't want to create an enclave and so there needs to be something tied to that, that if they -- if they cannot get that whole piece to move forward, that there would be a statement from the city that we would not support a facility unless it was annexed. Canning: Okay. If that's -- if that's the way -- if you could make that clear in the motion before you, take a vote, that would be great. De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further discussion? Do I have a motion? Meridian City Council August 9, 2005 Page 13 of 58 Donnell: Well, Madam Mayor, I'll attempt this. I'd like to make a motion that we direct staff to indicate to Cingular Wireless or however, that the City Council would prefer that -- or would request that the property -- the entire parcel be annexed to the city or that they proceed with those -- oh, this is going to be a really good motion. Okedoke. Don't you record this now. Let's start over. Strike out -- okay. That we direct staff to inform Cingular Wireless that the entire parcel would need to be annexed and that we would not accept just the parcel of which the tower would sit on as being controlled by Ada County. Oh, my word. See, I should never have tried that. Bird: You did fine, Christine. Rountree: Are you done? Donnell: I think so. Rountree: I second that. Donnell: Oh, thanks. De Weerd: It sounds like the motion would be that the City Council would consider an application if the entire site were annexed and would be opposed to supporting it at the county level without that condition. Donnell: I second that. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Second agrees. Donnell: Make sure that that's the way it comes out in the written report. De Weerd: Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: De Weerd: Thank you. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda. Item 8: Approve 2006 Fiscal Year Tentative Budget: De Weerd: So, Item No.8, I have already talked about, so I would entertain a motion. Meridian City CounCil August9,2005 Page 14 of 58 Bird: I'll make a motion. Madam Mayor, I move that we approve the proposed 2006 fiscal year tentative budget and publish it for Public Hearing. De Weerd: Do I have a second? Donnell: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Discussion? Okay. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Item 10: Item 11: Item 12: Item 13: TE 05~008 Request for approval of a one-year time extension to file the final plat for Bridaetower Crossing Subdivision No.9 with the Ada County Recorder by Engineering Solutions, LLP - south of West McMillan Road between North Ten Mile Road and North Linder Road: FP 05-046 Request for Final Plat approval of 6 commercial office building lots on 4.65 acres in an L-O zone for Verona Subdivision No.3 by Primeland Development, LLP - northeast corner of McMillan Road and West Milano Drive: FP 05-047 Request for Final Plat approval of 16 building lots and 4 common lots on 34.603 acres in L-O, I-L, and C-G zones for McNelis Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC - northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Ustick Road: FP 05-048 Request for Final Plat approval for 8 commercial building lots and 3 common area lots on 4.63 acres in an L-O zone for Wvndstone Place Subdivision by B&F Enterprises - southwest corner of Wells Street and Wells Circle: FP 05-049 Request for Final Plat approval of 10 single-family residential building lots and 2 common lots on 2.48 acres in an R-8 zone for Paramount Subdivision No.8 by Paramount Development, Inc. - south of Chinden Boulevard and west of Meridian Road: De Weerd: Thank you. And thank you, Stacy, again, to your staff for such a seamless process on this. We appreciate all your work. Okay. Items 9, 10 -- Anna, I believe Item 11 has questions to it; is that correct? Canning: No, Madam Mayor. It does not. We got those resolved. De Weerd: Okay. So, Items 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, I would consider a motion by Council to approve these items. Meridian City Council August9,2005 Page 15 of 58 Rountree: So moved. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Council has moved to approve Items 9 through 13. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary, I have a procedural question on Items 14 through 17, staff has all the information needed for the vacation. If I -- should I open these items for the Public Hearing, accept any comment, and do those all at once? Nary: Madam Mayor, I think -- since I don't anticipate anybody else to be here in opposition, you could certainly open all the public hearings. If someone is here offer testimony, we could, then, take them separately, if that's - Item 14: Item 15: Item 16: Item 17: Public Hearing: VAC 05-006 Request for a Vacation of a private road known as E. Herons Crossing Lane and Meridian City sanitary sewer easement for Quenzer Commons Subdivision No.9 by Brighton Investments, LLC - west of North Locust Grove Road and north of East Ustick Road: Public Hearing: VAC 05-007 Request for a Vacation of a portion of the 10-foot wide easement centered on the interior common lot line of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Olson and Bush Industrial Park Subdivision by Dennis Kelley & Walter Sigmont - 3131 East Lanark Street: Public Hearing: VAC 05-008 Request for a Vacation of platted utility easements of Lots 16, 17,21-27, Block 2 of Honor Park Subdivision No. ~ by Franklin I Stratford Investments, LLC - south of East Franklin Road and west of Stratford Drive: Public Hearing: VAC 05-009 Request for a Vacation of the public utility easement on Lot 8, Block 20 of Paramount Subdivision No.4 by Paramount Development, Inc. - south of Chinden and west of Meridian Road: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. I will open up the public hearings on Items 14, 15,16 and 17 on VAC 05-006, VAC 05-007, VAC 05-008, and VAC 05-009. I will open these public hearings and start with the staff comments. Meridian City Council August9,2005 Page 16 of 58 Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, staff has satisfied themselves that they have all the required relinquishments for these vacations and is recommending approval. De Weerd: Okay. Is there anyone here tonight who would like to provide testimony on any of these applications? Okay. Hearing none -- Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close public hearings 14, 15, 16, and 17. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the public hearings on Items 14 through 17. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve and bring forward resolutions on VAC 05-006, VAC 05- 007, VAC 05-008, and VAC 05-009. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Items 14 through 17. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 18: Public Hearing: AZ 05-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.3 acres to L-O zone for Ashtvn Park by David Price - SWC of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road: De Weerd: Well, now that we have gone through our housekeeping, Public Hearing on Item 18 is AZ 05-020. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: I have to catch up. Sorry. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the item before you tonight for Ashtyn Park is a reconsideration of their request for annexation and zoning. The property is -- to refresh your memory, is located at the corner of Ustick Meridian City Council August 9, 2005 Page 17 of 58 and Meridian on the southwest corner. It's 2.9 acres in size and they are requesting L- 0 zoning. It's currently designated as partly residential and partly public, quasi-public on the Comprehensive Plan. Staff did feel it was consistent with the allowance to let it go to light office for that public, quasi-public designation. Also, the question came up -- they had a couple different site plans that were included as options in the development agreement. They totaled about 28,500 square feet, with up to six buildings. Each of them had six buildings. The Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval at the June 2nd hearing. At your hearing the key issues of the discussion were vehicular access and cross-access with the church to the west, the alignment with the -- at the entrance with the existing street on the east side of Meridian Road, and future uses, specifically office and clinic uses only. And that there was one other exception and was for possibly for a child care facility, with conditional use approval. The hours of operation, as recommended by the Commission, are limited from -- from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Again, this is a matter for reconsideration. There was a lot of confusion at the first hearing. I think the applicant now is confident that he is in agreement with the conditions of approval as put forth by the Planning and Zoning Commission. He was asking for some exceptions and I think that that caused a great deal of confusion that night, but he now is -- understands the process a little better and wants to move forward with the conditions of approval as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. De Weerd: Okay. Any further comment from staff? Canning: No. Other Mr. Price doesn't seem to be here. I don't know if -- De Weerd: Okay. Do you have questions for staff at this time? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Anna, did we get any elevations, any indication of what this might look like? Canning: No. We have not received anything -- additional information since your last hearing. Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: I guess, Anna, some of the concerns were the elevations, the access to Meridian Road, and if it was too close to the corner. There were fencing questions or testimony had, items brought up on the fencing, so none of those items have been addressed? Canning: Madam Mayor, the access point is that as decided by ACHD, because it does line up with the street across -- the one across the street. So, I don't think that that was an outstanding issue for ACHD or staff. Meridian City Council August9,2005 Page 18 of 58 De Weerd: No. It wasn't for staff or ACHD, it was a concern for Council, because it was so close to an extremely busy intersection and anyone wanting to turn left out of there, especially with a left-hand stop sign turn, it -- it was discussed at that time it just appeared to be a disaster waiting to happen. Canning: And there is a -- ACHD has reserved the right to make that a right-in, right-out only and that's where the cross-access with the church to the west became so important, because they would only be able to -- if ACHD makes that requirement due to safety concerns, then, they will have to be able to go out through the church property. There wasn't an option from ACHD to move this driveway. So, if there is -- if the Council doesn't want -- if you don't want that driveway there, then -- I don't know. Maybe the first -- maybe the reconsideration isn't necessary, I guess, if that was your major concern, but the applicant has not come back with anything. He's basically said I agree with what P&Z -- Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of. He has not come back with elevations. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, I agree with the Mayor and I go one step farther. That is so close that anybody making -- going into the turn lane to the left coming north on Meridian is going to be right in the same place you're going to turn in on this deal. I could buy a right-in, right-out, but that wasn't one of the conditions, as I recall, was it? Canning: It was an option that ACHD reserved the right to enforce in the future. If Mr. Inselman is still here, I think that -- I think that you are able to make that a condition of approval and they will work with that. Bird: Yeah. Not only that, but other stuff. But that would be the only way I would definitely be an affirmative vote is if that was right-in and right-out and, then, I have also got some questions of left crossing -- you're not far away from -- Ustick Road from the section that -- the church entry and exit and you throw some more cars over there, you're -- I don't know. It -- the traffic worries me to a degree. Canning: The cross-access agreement, it was intended that it would work with the access that the church currently has. I think you can see it there. Bird: I'd almost make you a bet that there isn't much difference between the access on Meridian Road and what there is from the corner on the church. It's on the very east side of the church, the access? Canning: Yeah. It's right there. De Weerd: Any further questions from Council at this point? Meridian City Council August9,2005 Page 19 of 58 Donnell: Uh-huh. De Weerd: Yes, Mrs. Donnell. Donnell: Madam Mayor, I'm still trying to resolve in my mind why this is any different in terms of a conceptual plan being presented to the Council without elevations, than what we approved a week or two ago on the church at Ten Mile and Franklin. They brought no elevations forward. It was strictly a conceptual plan. So, help me understand what the difference is between this request and that request. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there is not-- Donnell: There is no difference. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Council, I guess we have two options. You can choose to close the Public Hearing and consider a motion at this time or you can continue this to the end of our agenda in the hopes that the applicant would join us. Donnell: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell. Donnell: I'm sure that the applicant felt like everything that he needed to say he said in the letter that was submitted, which I'm sure that we have read. De Weerd: Okay. Well, I would look for your direction and how you want to proceed. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'd go along with Christine, that I think he isn't here, because he felt the letter was the deal and I'm for going ahead and either passing it on or denying it. So, I would move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-020. Donnell: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the Public Hearing on Item 18. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Discussion or do I have a motion? Meridian City Council August 9,2005 Page 20 of 58 Donnell: Well, Madam Mayor, I'll make the motion that we approve the request for annexation and zoning to an L-O for Ashtyn Park on the southwest corner of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road. De Weerd: Do I have a second? Bird: If the motion maker would add the right-in and right-out on Meridian Road, I would second it. Donnell: The motion maker will add the right-in and right-out on Meridian Road. Bird: As a condition of approval. Donnell: As a condition of approval. Bird: I will second it. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve. I believe there are a couple of outstanding issues as well in terms of hours of operation, should a child care facility be allowed. Donnell: And lighting. De Weerd: The lighting. Cross-access. So-- Wardle: Are we in the discussion phase? De Weerd: Yes. Wardle: Madam Mayor, discussion about approving the reconsideration. My recollection of this project was that the end of the discussion it became very procedural with the applicant, assuming that there was a zoning for the property and requesting that and being very adamant about, when the procedure of that was not available to the applicant and didn't spend any time, apparently, in the past several weeks addressing my issues, which were things such as what is the project going to look like, we still have a conceptual plan, we don't have a fencing plan. I don't see that there was another neighborhood meeting to resolve any of those issues. And there is still too many questions in my mind for -- for this reconsideration. De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further discussion? Donnell: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mrs. Donnell. Meridian City Council August 9, 2005 Page 21 of 58 Donnell: Once again, I ask that same question. We did not see any of those same kinds of issues addressed for the conceptual plan with the church on Franklin and Meridian Road. So, I'm again asking what the difference would be. I mean they all have to go through a process of meeting whatever requirements are laid out by staff; is that right, Anna? I mean either way, they have to meet all requirements that come forward by staff. Canning: Yes, ma'am. And the -- just to clarify, the only difference would be on the Ten Mile and Franklin church we anticipated that that would come in for a certificate of zoning compliance approval and, then -- because they weren't looking at additional lots. This one we are anticipating additional lots to be consistent with that concept plan, they'll have to come in with a preliminary plat. You can address the fencing issues at that time and the hours of operation, though, if you want to limit the hours of operation, this is the opportunity to do that, because under the new code many of those uses will be principally allowed in that zone. But the current conditions of approval do limit the hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The fencing issues could be addressed later, as well as they will have to meet all the new standards for lighting in the UDC. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, wasn't there a condition in the Planning and Zoning on hours; right? Canning: Yes. That was the 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Bird: And Councilwoman Donnell, I wish that church on Ten Mile and Franklin was the only ones that we have never seen elevations on, but I hate to tell you we have passed a lot of them without. Donnell: Exactly. So, we seem to pick and choose. Bird: What? Donnell: We seem to pick and choose. Bird: We have been known to do that. De Weerd: Having not been a participant in the discussion on the church, since I abstained from that, I think there is very notable difference and that is we had public testimony on this. There was concern about what it would look like by the neighbors and those issues were raised and they were points of discussion. And because of the proximity of homes and the possible impact to them, on this item, it does, to me, separate it, then, at the church that would be surrounded by conditional or commercial and industrial uses and a storage facility and that sort of thing. It is -- it is different. We Meridian City Council August9,2005 Page 22 of 58 did not get any public testimony in opposition or in question of it as well. So, I guess that would be my editorial comment for the night. Is there any further discussion? Rountree: I think it's all been said. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, nay; Wardle, nay; Donnell, yea. Berg: There is a tie, so Mayor de Weerd. De Weerd: Nay. MOTION FAILED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS. MAYOR NAY. De Weerd: And, again, it would be for the information that was requested, as Councilman Wardle had indicated, that it was the lack of that information that determined my vote. Berg: Madam Mayor, that motion did not pass, so I guess we are entertaining another motion. De Weerd: Yeah. We do need another motion. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: If can ask Mr. Nary a question procedurally. Do we need specific reasons to deny are-consideration? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Wardle, actually, what you -- you have before you is you have already granted reconsideration, so what -- by setting it for this hearing. So, if you wish to deny this project, you do not have to give reasons under Idaho Code to not grant an annexation. The only requirement that's required in the code is that it not be in the interest of the city at this time. If you want to add other reasons, you're certainly welcome to do that, but the order you will see will only say it's not in the interest of the city at this time. If you want to add that to the record, you certainly can. Does that answer your question? Wardle: It does. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the applicant is now here. Rountree: So, what's the second motion? Meridian City Council August9.2Q05 Page 23 of 58 Nary: You do need to have a motion. You don't have any -- any conclusive action. So, if you're going to deny it, you would have to have a motion to deny it. All you have had is a motion to approve it and that was denied. De Weerd: No. We do not need a motion. Nary: If you wish to deny the project, which your prior vote indicated -- unless Councilman Rountree has got -- Rountree: I think I have figured out where you're going. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we deny the request for annexation for Item No. 18. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny the request on Item 18. Is there any discussion? Canning: Would that include directing staff to prepare new findings? Rountree: Yes. Canning: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, nay. Berg: And, Madam de Weerd, tie-breaker. De Weerd: Yea. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS. MAYOR AYE. Item 19: Public Hearing: RZ 05-008 Request for a Rezone of 2.61 acres from R-4 to C-G zone for Walareens by Hawkins Companies - 3150 West Cherry Lane: Item 20: Public Hearing: CUP 05-029 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 14,490 square foot retail pad with dual drive thru for the pharmacy on 2.61 acres in a proposed C-G zone for Walareens by Hawkins Companies - 3150 West Cherry Lane: Meridian City Council August9,2005 Page 24 of 58 De Weerd: Okay. Items 19 and 20 are public hearings on RZ 05-008 and CUP 05-029. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this first project is Walgreens. I call it the first project. I'm sorry. It is tied to the item agenda following it is what I meant, but this request is for a rezone of 2.61 acres from R-4 to R -- to C-G. I'm sorry. It's located at 3150 West Cherry Lane, which is at the northeast corner of Ten Mile and Cherry Lane and it's the current site of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. Here is the church facility, as you can see. And this is the proposed site for the Walgreens. This is a rezone and a Conditional Use Permit request. The rezone I explained before. The Conditional Use Permit is for two -- a dual drive-thru facility for the pharmacy associated with Walgreens and the Walgreens structure would be 14,490 square foot retail. The Conditional Use Permit is just for the drive-thru facilities. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is public, quasi-public, recognizing the fact that there was a church on the property. However, the text amendment done with Resolution 04-454, addressed the redevelopment of these properties and it says in considering the redevelopment of properties such as this, it should be guided by the intensity of the existing use, which is a church; the underlying zone designation, which is currently R-4; the surrounding land uses -- there are all R-4 all on the north side of Cherry. On the south side of Cherry you have L-O and neighborhood commercial. And, then, the location of the property, that would seem to be the driving factor on this one. It is at the intersection of two arterial streets, those being Ten Mile and Cherry Lane. And, then, the transportation issues associated with the proposed development, I think ACHD has adequately addressed those. So, this is the site. There is an entrance off of West Cherry and, then, a shared entrance off of Ten Mile Road that did become the major topic of discussion. I want to show you the elevations first. These are the elevations. This would be facing Ten Mile, I believe, and this is facing Cherry. And, then, this is -- along the side there is the drive-thru window and, then, that would be the view from the properties to the north. The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval with the conditions. The key issues of discussion were the proposed driveway, the shared driveway along Ten Mile, and the applicant needed to obtain consent from the two property owners they were sharing the driveway with. That was Mr. White and Mr. Vance. The hours of operation were again a discussion. The Planning and Zoning Commission decided to limit those hours from 6:00 to 11 :00 p.m. And, then, the other issue was the screening and fencing of adjacent properties, particularly those to the north were the most concerned. Mr. White wanted a four-foot -- or he wanted a six-foot painted fence. Mr. Vance wanted a four-foot CMU wall, which has been incorporated into this landscape. As I have alluded to, the outstanding issue before the Council tonight was -- which we think we have got resolved, but it was regarding this shared access. They have met with those two property owners and they did have a cross- access easement that goes to about this location here. So, they would improve this first part of the driveway, leaving the rest of it unimproved to discourage people from going back to the Vance property and the White property. There is also a city well lot located at the rear here. And the other things they negotiated were the fence and, then, the concrete block wall and they did submit a new site plan to us and you can see kind of how that line is heavier there. That's where the wall would be and you can see the kind Meridian City Council August9,2005 Page 25 of 58 of little heavier one here, that's where the fence would be. The owner seemed to be in agreement with this, but it is not what's in the P&Z recommendation. So, if Council wants to approve this, you need mention the new site plan, which I need to look at the date. I'm sorry. I'll have that for you in a moment. The other item that needs to be changed is that condition number three currently says a 16-foot wide buffer. It would need to be changed to nine-foot wide buffer. And that's this buffer right here. And, then, needs to be amended to reflect the new site plan date and I will look that up, but -- Bird: 7/26. Canning: Thank you. With that I'll answer any other questions you have. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions at this time? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Hearing none, is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Aguilar: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Jessica Aguilar with Hawkins Companies, 8645 West Franklin Road, Boise, Idaho. I think Anna did an excellent presentation of the issues that were brought up at the P&Z meeting and I will just restate them quickly. We've added the six-foot fence to the north adjacent to the White property. Per Mr. Vance's request we've asked for a reduction in the landscape buffer there to the north. He was concerned about access to his driveway, vehicles being able to back in and out. So, we reduced that buffer, so we have plenty of room. Our original intent was to pave that entire driveway to the city well lot, but Mr. Vance asked us if we could just pave approximately to -- to about right there. His concern was if we paved it the entire way it would encourage traffic to potentially go back there and see what's going on, so he asked us not to pave that. Also that wasn't mentioned is we could put in a six foot CMU fence along here as well. There is currently a wood fence there and we will take that down and put in a block fence there as well. I will be happy to -- oh, let me make -- let me add that this is actually a flag lot right here for Ed Vance and -- maybe this pointer needs new batteries or something. That's a flag lot there to the Vance property. Technically, we are not encroaching on the White property, so we did get an easement -- cross-access agreement with Mr. Vance there and we have that in place. It's actually an escrow, so once we have technically acquired the property, it will be in place. I will be happy to answer any question that you have. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council August 9. 2005 Page 26 of 58 De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: What's the intent of the future pad? Aguilar: We don't have any idea. We have not approached anyone, nor has anyone approached us. It will just be undeveloped until someone approaches -- actually, Walgreens will buy the entire piece and they may elect not to do anything with it or they might pursue another retail or some type of commercial development, but we have no knowledge of any -- of that information at this time, so that's why we are leaving it undeveloped. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just to expand on. The staff report makes it clear that the city is in no way approving a commercial site at that location at this time. It would require a new lot or a planned development for multiple buildings on the same site. De Weerd: So, what is the condition if it would be left in? Is that grass right now? Parking lot? Aguilar: I think -- it's not a parking lot, it's probably -- I think when it's all said and done, it will be -- when it's all done it will be grass and if there is any existing trees that are located within that envelope, those trees will remain. But it will not be a dirt patch and it will not be asphalt. De Weerd: So, you will grass it until a use is determined? Aguilar: Yes. I think most of that area is currently grass anyway, so we will probably just be expanding the cut areas that we can. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions from Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: How open is the Walgreen corporation to some other design consideration, other than their rubber stamp Walgreens stores that we see on every corner of ever city? Aguilar: I'm not a representative .- direct representative of Walgreens, so I can't honestly answer that question. But I will say from past experience with Walgreens, this is -- yes, it is their proto-typical building. It is a brick building. It's not efface. I think it's a really nice building, considering other national retailers that are coming in with their prototypes. It's part of their corporate branding. It's their national image. It's something that most Walgreens customers, whether you're in Boise or Meridian or Salt Lake City, Meridian City Council August9,2005 Page 27 of 58 it's an easily recognizable building, so I would say at this juncture they will not be -- they would not look forward to any design changes. De Weerd: Have they done design in the past to better blend into a neighborhood? Aguilar: Honestly, I don't know. I have not worked on a Walgreens project where they have done that. I have always -- my personal experience has the proto-typical store. I assume that they have, depending on the environment. They might do -- they might do different designs in a more urban environment, downtown Seattle versus more of this residential area. But, again, we do have to -- if I'm correct, we do have to submit for the certificate of zoning compliance prior to permitting this and at that time I will be happy to provide color renderings that might better display what this building looks like. De Weerd: Okay. Donnell: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell. Donnell: Does it look any different than the one that's on Fairview? Aguilar: Fairview and Milwaukee? Rountree: Fairview and Locust Grove. Aguilar: And Locust Grove. I'm sorry. I'm not familiar with that store. I know the store on Fairview and Milwaukee, I believe, is an efface building, a stucco building. I don't recall that it's brick. But this is all brick. Donnell: I doubt you need to come with any kind of color board or any mark-up, since I think we are all very familiar with what Walgreens looks like on just about every corner. De Weerd: Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Seeing none. Okay, Council, do you need any further information from the applicant or from staff? Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I guess hearing no more public testimony; I move we close Items RZ 05-008 and CUP 05-029. Rountree: Second. Meridian City Council August9,2005 Page 28 of 58 De Weerd: Okay. Motion to close the public hearings Items 19 and 20. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Discussion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I made my comments about the design of this particular building, because my recollection -- and it's bad to have those, but when the clinic across the street on the northwest corner of Ten Mile and Cherry Lane was built, they had pretty significant design comments about that building to blend in with the neighborhood and it is quite well done, in my opinion. In fact, if you didn't know it, it could very well become a residence if somebody actually would want to live on that corner. The savings and loan kitty-corner from that is done in a like manner, with a hips type of roof and its neighbor to the east is an award winning architectural feature that I think is an enhancement to the neighborhood. This is a neighborhood. I can't speak much about Albertson's, you know, things happen. But I'm concerned about yet another proto -- non-prototype -- the typical example of a retail chain in a neighborhood setting. In a commercial setting, in a box store setting, when you're -- that's one thing, but just kind of popping this in the neighborhood setting it is, I have some issues. I don't have issues with Walgreens. I mean a pharmacy is probably a legitimate use, but I would want some consideration given to design change. I know major chains have difficulty doing that, because these things are somewhat typical drawings, but I know major chains do make exception if they have got a location they want to locate into, to accommodate their surroundings. So, I'm a little -- I'm not terribly supportive of this particular application because of that. De Weerd: Any other comments by Council? Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Just a question, Madam Mayor, for Councilman Rountree. Is there any specific design changes that he has in mind? I'm trying to envision, probably like we all are, what a different Walgreens would look like. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: If I had that equation I probably would be working for Wal-Mart, but I don't. But having worked with the original developers of the Cherry Lane clinic, the idea was to try to provide a structure there that was representative of a residential building, as opposed to something that Wal-Mart creates, which is, essentially, a single story building, but appears to be multiple stories and has a very high roof line and high Meridian City Council August9,2005 Page 29 of 58 visibility. So, you have got -- end up with a hip roof kind of a situation on two of the corners over there. It just seems to me to be architecturally out of place. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Not that I disagree with Councilman Rountree a whole lot, but I do -- Walgreens is a lot on the line of the St. Alphonsus, which is down on the deal. The savings and loan that he talked about across the street is a cracker box that they deal with all over, whether they are in a commercial or whatever, they are at industrial or anything, it's the same design. I did about five of them. So, I have no problem. I like the brick. Brick is much more durable, looks better. Efface and stuff can stain if you don't keep up on it. It isn't the easiest stuff to take care of. I'm like Mr. Rountree, I don't like the single story to have that kind of height myself. De Weerd: Mr. Nary, I guess I would ask, since there are design concerns, but seems to be support for the concept itself, is there an option where the applicant can come back with a design proposal? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I recall the discussion that Councilmember Rountree has talked about in regards to the St. AI's facility across the street and I think Councilmember Rountree's recollection is correct, I think what that particular project did was -- because there were concerns about the blending in with the neighborhood, they brought that forward, that was what was expressed to them, I think -- and the reason is I was on the Planning and Zoning Commission at the time. And so they brought those forward to ease the concerns of the Council and the Commission as to how this building would be compatible with the neighborhood and blend in. I didn't sit through the prior hearing at Planning and Zoning, so I don't know if that was expressed by the neighbors, but certainly if the Council is in agreement that the project itself is okay, but there is concerns about how this is going to look, the problem is trying to fashion a development now is a little bit complicated to do, it's -- you know, if your desire is, really, that they bring back to you more of the renderings of what they are going to build there before you would consent to a rezone of that corner, that probably would be better and I don't know if Mrs. Canning has a different opinion of that, but that would probably make more sense than trying to fashion some design standard into a development agreement that may be much more problematic to enforce. De Weerd: Mrs. Canning, do you have anything to add? Canning: No. I would agree with that. Yeah, if you wanted to go toward a development agreement, I would just suggest that you make it a -- that they come before you as a conditional use to review the -- to review the design aspects, rather than trying to direct staff, because what we find on those is that we don't have much enforcement mechanism once you have approved it with just specific design considerations, so -- Meridian City Council August9,2005 Page 30 of 58 Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Let's get some more confusion. The church there that's going down, it's -- if I remember right, I don't know if it's a second story, so it's got a humungous -- probably as tall entryway with glass as this does. The front entryway is probably as tall -- and I can't -- I think it's wood construction, though, if I remember right, isn't it? I have only drove by it a million times. But I did put the glass in the front, so I know it is -- I know it is tall. So, I know that Walgreens probably -- their front, even with their false thing that they put up above their entryway, is -- isn't probably any taller than what the existing building is right now as far as entryways. But they are brick, instead of wood and I'm a brick person, so -- Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: I'm not going to touch that one. Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: If I can just make some comments. I agree with Mr. Bird in the sense that the - - I agree with the design of the building, I agree with the fact a national retailer wants to move into a -- what I consider a hard commercial corner, with either commercial or office on all four corners. I agree with Mr. Rountree in the sense that we need to continue to look at our design standards, but one of the things that I can say is we are not hearing lot of public testimony from the neighborhoods and I think one of the reasons is that many people know what a Walgreens looks like and can drive down the street in many communities and see there aren't any windows in the rear of that facility, other than the drive-thru, as I can recall from the elevations, and so I think it's probably a proper place and the neighborhood is not here to speak in opposition for that fact. Donnell: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell. Donnell: I was really hoping for a McDonald's, but since that hasn't come forward -- that's only because I want it closer to my own home. But I would probably be totally opposed to this if it weren't for the fact that kitty-corner is Albertson's. And so while I agree with Councilman Rountree's comments about it, it still just seems like, as Councilman Wardle said, it's commercial development on all four corners, Albertson's is across the way, it seems like if the neighbors aren't upset about it being there, than we ought to probably be okay with it. De Weerd: They are not upset until that second story lighted sign shows up on the side of the building, so -- Donnell: I still like McDonald's. Meridian City Council August 9, 2005 Page 31 of 58 De Weerd: Okay. Any further comments? Discussion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve RZ 05-008, include, then, the -- let's see, so we -- yeah. And include the testimony from staff and applicant and to approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: I am assuming that that includes the site plan of 7/26? Bird: It includes the site plan as 7/26, stated in the public testimony by our Planning and Zoning director. De Weerd: Okay. Also, the change to condition number three from six to nine. Bird: As stated. Yeah. De Weerd: Okay. Just checking. Bird: I said all public testimony. De Weerd: Is there any further discussion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: We heard testimony that there would be a non-paved drive -- there is a non- paved drive there. I believe that's inconsistent with city ordinances. In my opinion, the drive ought to be paved back to the well house and reinforce the comment that the site designated as a future pad would be landscaped at a minimum with a grassed area. So, if the maker of the motion would include that. Bird: I would agree to that. She stated in her public testimony that that would be grass, there would be no dirt, but -- and I would agree to take that -- to pave that back. De Weerd: Second? Wardle: The second will agree. Is that -- Anna, Councilman Rountree's statement correct, that that's outside the scope of our city ordinance to have an unpaved driveway? Meridian City Council August 9, 2005 Page 32 of 58 Canning: Generally we do require a paved surface. Only a portion of that is on this actual property. If the maker of the motion could clarify how much they want paved and -- Bird: Well, I think -- I think what was stated is to go back to our well lot and our well lot stops right there. Canning: So, you want off-site improvement? Donnell: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird, Anna mentioned that half of that is on this application, the other half would be an off-site improvement request. Bird: Okay. They've made an agreement, it isn't vacation of right of way or anything, right? With that owner? Canning: Correct. It's just a cross-access. Bird: Okay. So, let's just -- the maker of the motion says let's go back to what they control, to where they control, and that's just back to their property; is that right? Show me where they control. Canning: They control this dash -- dot dashed line is their control. The cross-access agreement has paving up to about this location right now. Mr. Vance didn't want it paved all the way, because he was concerned about probably people mistaking that for a different -- another access. Bird: And that's been gravel and been traveled on for years. Canning: Yes. Bird: Okay. So, the maker of the motion would just like to leave it as you stated it, okay? If the second agrees. If not, we will have another motion. Wardle: Second agrees. De Weerd: Okay. Mrs. Donnell? Donnell: Clarification. Is it going to be paved or is it not going to be paved? Bird: It's going to be paved back -- show her where it's going to be paved to. Donnell: Not to the city well line? Bird: No. Meridian City Council August9,2005 Page 33 of 58 Canning: It will be paved to there and I understood the last clarification to say that this would also be paved or was I incorrect? Bird: No. It's-- Donnell: He withdrew that. Bird: I withdrew. Yeah. Canning: Okay. De Weerd: Are you tracking this? Canning: I think so. De Weerd: Is there any further discussion? Okay. Mr. Berg, would you call roll. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just have a clarification. How does this compare with the Findings that are already before us and how much of an amendment or do we need to prepare new ones? Canning: Madam Mayor, the only change that needs to be made is to change a nine -- a 16 to a nine on condition number three. And, then, add one that the site of the future pad will be grass. I don't know if you want to do -- if you need new Findings for that, we can. De Weerd: Well -- and just reference the site plan. Canning: Okay. Berg: So, an amendment to the Findings that are prepared? Canning: We will prepare new findings. Bird: You'll have to prepare new Findings, because we have changed some staff. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: But I thought that we could -- they don't have to come back before us if they are changed. I mean we are passing on it now and we know we are passing on it, we have it on recording, why do we have to bring it back? I thought that's what we eliminated. De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Bird: Am I wrong? Meridian City Council August 9, 2005 Page 34 of 58 Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, no, you're not wrong. They can make amendments to the Findings. If you are satisfied that those amendments are minor enough that you don't need to see them again, then, that's fine. It appears from what Mrs. Canning said they are fairly minor and can be amended without you seeing them again. If you were to prepare brand new Findings if there were significant changes, then, you would probably want to see them again. You can direct the staff to make those amendments as you have stated them in your motion and on the record and, then, those can be prepared and forwarded. Bird: I agree. De Weerd: Mr. Berg. Berg: I'm sorry I brought up the question. I wanted to make sure these were minor amendments. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, no; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. De Weerd: Okay. So, the motion carries. Item 20. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: With all the previous conditions stated publicly by applicant, by staff, by public, I move that we approve RZ 05-008. And also the Findings with the small changes. De Weerd: With the small changes. Wardle: Mr. Bird, just as a clarification, is that Item No. 20, CUP 05-029? Bird: Yes. Wardle: Okay. Second. De Weerd: Okay. Any -- I'm afraid to ask if there is any discussion. Bird: Oh, I'm sorry. Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Meridian City Council August9,2005 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 Dav 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. I 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 August9,2005 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 August9,2005 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 August9,2005 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 August 9. 2005 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 August9,2005 Page 41 of 58 De Weerd: Okay? Law: That's all I 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 August9,2005 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 August9,2005 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 August9,2005 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 August9,2005 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 August9,2005 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 get 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 August9,2005 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 August 9, 2005 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 August 9, 2005 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 alii 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 August9,2005 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 August9,200S 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. LDS 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 LDS church. They don't want to Meridian City Council August9,2005 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 August9,2005 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 LDS 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 August 9, 2005 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) ~~ ~1AH "EERÐ 'fI I vv Sl).a~ tU~d4..1 Clf; COh.-h.c:e- f"'e.JI'de~