Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 02-21 Meridian City Council Meetina February 21, 2006 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:16 P.M., Tuesday, February 21,2006, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Shaun Wardle, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree and Joe Borton. Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Len Grady, Bill Musser, Kenny Bowers, Brad Watson, Rick Clinton, Bill Johnson, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X Shaun Wardle X Charlie Rountree X X Joe Borton X Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: I will go ahead and call the City Council regular meeting to order. Thank you for joining us this evening. It is 7:15 or 7:20. I didn't -- I don't have my glasses on. I won't tell my joke. We will start with the roll call attendance. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: De Weerd: Item No.2 is the pledge of allegiance. Tonight we will be led by Alex Blasic and he is with Troop 462. If you will all rise. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Fred Thompson with Meridian Assembly of God: De Weerd: Thank you. Alex. And I would like to present a pin to you. This is for leading us tonight in the pledge. Thank you. Okay. Item No.3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Pastor Fred Thompson with the Meridian Assembly of God. If you will all join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of silence. Pastor. Thompson: Let's bow in prayer. Heavenly Father, we come before you tonight to ask that you honor this time by granting our Council members the wisdom to deliberate and decide how best to respond to issues before them. We pray that you would grant them each clarity of thought, knowledge and insight as they do the work of this great city. Thank you for the people you have placed on this Council to lead us. May their eye be single and their heart true. Let integrity reign. May personal agendas be set aside and the best interest of the citizens of Meridian be paramount, for we know that this is pleasing to you and will receive your blessing. In Jesus name we pray, amen. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 2 of 69 Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: Pastor, thank you for joining us tonight and we appreciate your first time here. I'd like to also present a pin to you. Hope to see you back. Okay. Item No.4 is adoption of the agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: We do have a couple of items, which are on the regular agenda, which we will get to when we come to them, but Item 9, FP 06-003, has been asked to be tabled and Item No. 16, V AR 05-027, has asked to be -- it's a Public Hearing that needs to be continued to March 7th, which we will do. And also Item No. 25 an Executive Session has per 67- 2345(1 )(c) has been taken care of in the early session, so we will delete that from the agenda. And with that, Mayor, I would move that we approve the revised agenda. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve the adoption of the agenda with the changes as stated. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of February 7, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: B. Approve New Beer License for Pier 49 Pizza by MD Pizza, L.L.C. at 3665 E. Overland Road: C. Approve New Beer License Jacksons Food Stores No. 105 by Jacksons Food Stores at 3291 E. Pine Avenue: D. Addendum to Development Agreement: MI 04-016 Request for a Miscellaneous Application approval to amend the Development Agreement of April 19, 1999 for Waltman Court Subdivision by Buffalo Hump, LLC - 420 Waltman Court: E. ChanQe Order No.2 for the Centrate Tank Construction: F. Chanae Order No.1 for the ExDansion of Well 20: Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 3 of 69 G. Award of Bid to Iron Creek, LLC DBA Metcalf Landscape Contractors for Landscape Maintenance Services: De Weerd: Okay. Item No.5. Consent Agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda and for the Mayor to sign and the clerk to attest on all proper papers. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve the Consent Agenda. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Department Reports: A. Public Works Department - Brad Watson 1. Water Division Buildina Project UDdate: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Under department reports we have a report from our Public Works Department. Brad. Watson: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I don't want to take a whole lot of your time, but we thought it might be a good idea to update you on the status of this project and show you what we have got. We have been working with BRF Architects over the last four to six months to get a design done. You authorized that contract in October of last fall. Our superintendent Rick Clinton is also here and he's been much more involved in the design of this than I have, so if there is any technical questions, he might be able to jump in and help me out. Just to let you know, we did have a neighborhood meeting on January 9th right here in these chambers. We had one person show up at the direction of his father and he was just concerned about one fairly minor issue. Other than that, we have nobody show up or subsequently call that I know of. In your packet there should be copies of a site plan, some elevations, and a landscape plan. The main benefit of what we have eventually landed on is that there won't be any relocation of the water staff during the construction of this. It's built just north of the existing building and they can continue to operate out of that until the new building is functional. We anticipate submitting the application for certificate of zoning compliance this week, advertise tor bids in March, and begin construction in late April or Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 4 of 69 early May, if what you see here is in line with what you think this project would turn out to be. So, again, I don't want to belabor it, but I thought I would bring this to you and let you have a look before we get going. De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions for staff? Bird: It looks like what we approved. Go for it. De Weerd: It looks good. Rountree: Do we need a motion to -- it's part of the budget? Watson: Yes, it is. All right. We will get going, then. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Brad, do you want to update us on -- are you going to talk about some budget adjustments for Well 17 in terms of that line item in the budget? Watson: Sure. I could give you a little brief update on that. The e-mail that we got from our hydro geologist was about four or five pages long, so trying to distill that into a very brief update is a little difficult. Long story short, Well 17 located on Locust Grove Road about a half mile south of Overland, experienced some problems in December that we had never seen before. I was just telling Councilman Rountree the bentonite seal was coming up out of the floor in the pump house. We finally got the final analysis today, this morning, and the well is just shot, basically. It has a lot of issues. The casing is corroded. The screen at the very bottom is corroded and it's breached. It's a bad thing. We have some money for well rehabilitation, but I will be coming to you next week for a line item transfer to pay for that rehabilitation of that well. Is that in line with -- there is so much more to it, but -- Rountree: We have to rehab a well significantly and it needs to come online for spring - - demands. So, we have to act fairly readily because of limited supplies and special orders that will have to be placed for it, so -- Watson: Right. It is a bit of a rush project just to get it up and running for the summer. It's going to be a very expensive rehab. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Do you want to -- I guess a question for Council. Do you want to wait until next week for a line item adjustment? The line item in the budget is for 100,000 dollars Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 5 of 69 for well rehabilitation. However, in the budget it wasn't generic, it was specifically identified for Bear Creek well and what they want to do is just make the rehabilitation item in the budget generic be applicable for this particular well rehab, which will consume pretty much all of what's in the budget for well rehabilitation this year. Watson: And it's even beyond that, Councilmember Rountree. The total rehab costs are about 160,000 estimated right now. We have a hundred in that particular line item. I think we have identified another line item that we can transfer to, but I don't have anything in writing. I don't have the code numbers right in front of me tonight, but I guess if you agree in principle to that, then, I will get a very detailed request to you for next Tuesday. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Question for Councilman Rountree or Brad. The pipe that we are going to sleeve it with, is that a long lead item? Do we need to get that ordered right away? Watson: Yes. I need to get it ordered right away or the contractor does. There is a short supply of this particular size and type. I can't remember what state it's coming out of, but yes. Bird: If Councilman Rountree -- a follow up, Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Bird: If Councilman Rountree is comfortable with it, I would -- here is one person that I'd like to see it get ordered, so it's here, because we don't want the well down any longer than we need to have it. Watson: Okay, Thank you. De Weerd: Council, I guess what we could ask is that you go ahead and make the 100,000 dollars generic. He can do any emergency -- anything that needs to be done immediately out of that and come back with all of the numbers that you will need for anything over and above that. ' Rountree: That would be my preference. De Weerd: Okay. Then I would need a motion for the 100,000. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we adjust the Public Works budget to identify the well rehab line item to go towards rehabilitation of Well No. 17. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 6 of 69 De Weerd: Okay. The motion is as stated. Is there any discussion? Okay. Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda. Item 8: Reauest by Idaho Youth Ranch to Waive Fees for a LandscaDe Ordinance Variance Reauest: De Weerd: We will move to Item No.8. Anna, is this an item that you want to introduce? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is -- I will let the applicant, who is now coming up, explain more of it, but, basically, it's a request to waive the fees for a variance application. This is the result of an enforcement issue and it is for the Idaho Youth Ranch. De Weerd: Okay. Sir, if you will state your name and address for the record. Beamguard: Jeff Beamguard, 4075 East Driftwood. Meridian, Idaho. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Beamguard: I guess this is just a request for a waiver for fees on a landscape ordinance that was unbeknownst to me or the Idaho Youth Ranch due to a removal of some tanks, some underground fuel tanks that were removed last summer, which no permit was required and there was no expansion of the parking lot, no -- from what my understanding is that this somehow triggered a need for a landscape buffer and I don't see how that would trigger a landscape buffer, because the only thing, really, that disappeared was an awning and the underground fuel tanks at 231 Main Street at the thrift store location here in Meridian. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, I mean the letter is before you with the request, if you want them to include -- all they are asking for right now is just a waiver. So, discussion of the underlying facts are not appropriate, because you're not here in front of them for the waiver itself -- or for the variance itself. You're just here to ask as to why -- the basis they should grant you a waiver of the fee. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 7 of 69 Beamguard: I wasn't aware that that -- that the other hadn't been taken care of either. I was under the assumption that it had. Nary: Yeah. All that's in front of the Council tonight is the consideration of waiving the fee to apply for the variance. Beamguard: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, I'm sure this is just as clear as day for all of you. Beamguard: If you have got any questions let me know. I don't know what else to say. The whole thing was kind of a surprise and would be a burden. There was considerable out-of-pocket fees for the removal of those tanks, which just removing the source of those things was a good thing for the City of Meridian, I can tell you. We had some leaks there. When we inherited that -- when we bought that building we inherited the tanks and they were leaking for a long time. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Bird: May I -- Anna, what are we talking about in dollars? Canning: Six hundred and forty-five, I think. Bird: I will give you -- Madam Mayor, if I could? De Weerd: Yes, Keith. Bird: The Idaho Youth Ranch is -- does a lot of very nice things for the community and, especially, the youth. This is just a very small part of it, the Meridian one. They have stores all over and they also -- if I remember, I think it's Jerome where they have the ranch. Beamguard: Rupert. Bird: Rupert. Have the youth ranch. I feel deeply about it. If we don't -- if we don't waive it, I would personally pay for it myself, so -- I think that -- I think that it's well worth the effort to -- and it was a surprise to them, so that's my view. Beamguard: Thank you, Councilman Bird. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 8 of 69 Borton: The materials provided talk about the expense of the buffer itself and complying with the landscape ordinance and it makes reference to dipping into reserves to pay the fee of 650? 645? 650. Is that the figure you're making reference to is being difficult to dip into the reserves to -- Beamguard: When I was first made aware of this -- made aware of it, it was the cost of the buffer and I ran some simple numbers on what it would take to, you know, dig up all the asphalt, all the sprinkling system, and the landscape involved. That was considerable as well. This is just a part of that, from what I understand. It's just -- this came to me after the fact, the waiver, as a part of a bigger picture. Bird: Madam Mayor? Let me be clear. What are you asking to waive, 650? Beamguard: Tonight is just for the waiver, sir. Bird: If it was the whole thing, I might have -- De Weerd: We have you on public record with a certain statement. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: Just to clarify, Council. All that's in front of you tonight is the request to waive the fee. If you -- only the Council can grant that direction to the staff and grant that waiver. If you do that, you will see this again in the actual request for the variance itself. The staff will prepare a report, there will be a hearing, a noticed up hearing for that. So, you will see this again. All we are here on is just the fee itself. Bird: Okay. Thanks, Bill. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Beings that we are going to see this again and in light of the letter and the expense and it sounds like the analysis is done on the cost to actually comply with the ordinance, from my perspective I'm not -- I wouldn't be willing at this point, from what I have seen, to waive this fee, which is much less than what I think they expected to talk about today. Knowing good and well there is going to be a much greater discussion in detail, perhaps, when we revisit the issue about the actual expense to comply with the ordinance and a variance request at this point, so there is time and expense to staff to review these, that I would decline to waive the fee itself. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any other questions for the applicant or further information needed from the applicant or staff? Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 9 of 69 Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Thank you, sir. Rountree: Do we need to make a motion? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move that we deny the request by the Idaho Youth Ranch to waive fees for the landscape ordinance variance request. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny the request on Item No.8. Any discussion? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Before voting on the issue, I guess my statement would be for myself and we look at our city ordinances and we look at the fees put in place and we have a group asking for relief from that fee, my question would be would we consider that waiver for other groups of similar type and people that do similar things in our community and so that's what I'm really considering in this motion and respect Mr. Bird's offer and certainly his sentiment. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Borton, yea. De Weerd: Well, Mr. Bird, I think you have a great offer and it looks like you might have to get your checkbook out. I will break the tie in support of the motion, because it's a precedence that I can't see that there can be a separation from one to the next and we have to have that fair and equity and so with that I vote with the motion. Aye. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS. MAYOR AYE. Item 9: FP 06-003 Request for Final Plat approval for 45 single-family residential building lots and 1 common lot on 14.75 acres in a R-8 zone for Paramount Subdivision No. 12 by Paramount Development, Inc. - east of North Linder Road and north of McMillan Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item No.9 has been requested to be continued. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 10 of 69 Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we table FP 06-003 to March 7th, 2006. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to continue Item 9 to March 7th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: MFP 06-001 Request to modify the approved fencing and to remove gravel edge along North Ten Mile Road to allow for landscaping for Silverleaf Subdivision No.1 & 2 by Liberty Development, Inc. - 6040 North Ten Mile Road: De Weerd: Item 10 is MFP 06-001. I will start with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a modification to an approved final plat before you tonight. I don't know that we have worded them this way before. What this is is the Silverleaf Subdivision Nos. 1 and 2, the final plats have already come to you, they had a landscape plan associated with them, and now the developer is asking to have that landscape plan that was approved with the final plat modified. This is the first one. You can see the color coding. Everything that they have proposed is consistent with the provisions of the UDC, it's just that it's not what was exactly shown on their approved landscape plan. The pink areas they are proposing a six foot cedar instead of a five foot solid vinyl. The yellow area they are proposing a four foot solid vinyl, instead of a five foot solid. The blue areas, which are -- the blue area they are proposing a four foot solid vinyl, instead of a four foot iron. And the brown is a six foot solid vinyl, instead of a five foot solid vinyl. So, that's one of the subdivisions. Here is the other one. They want to make use of the existing solid cedar fence placed by the Lochsa Falls development, instead of replacing it with a different fence or putting a dual fence. So, staff is recommending approval. It just needs to come before Council, because it's not exactly what was approved with the previous final plats. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Any questions for staff? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant have any additional comments? Council, what would you like to do on Item No.1 O? Borton: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 11 of 69 De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we approve MFP 06-001, request to modify the approved fencing in Silverleaf Subdivision 1 and 2. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 10. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from February 14, 2006: Idaho Community Development Block Grant - Meridian Senior Citizen Center Phase 2: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 11 was continued from February 14th for the Idaho Community Development Block Grant, regarding the Meridian Senior Center, phase two. Mr. Berg. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is just continued for any written testimony that we received and it's time to close this hearing and so we can get on with the application. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, any official motions needed to move forward with this? Berg: Close the hearing. De Weerd: It would be to close the Public Hearing and approve the -- moving forward with the grant application. Okay. Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item No. 11, the Idaho Community Block Grant for the Meridian Senior Center and -- can I do it in one motion? And that we move forward with the grant application process. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the Public Hearing on Item 11 and approve moving forward with the next phase of the community block grant. If there is no discussion, I will ask Mr. Berg to call roll. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 12 of 69 Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Item 13: Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from February 7, 2006: AZ 05-052 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.87 acres from R1 to C-G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC - 3055 North Eagle Road: Continued Public Hearing from February 7, 2006: PP 05-053 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24 commercial building lots 15.33 acres in a proposed C-G zone and an approved C-G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC - 3055 and 3085 North Eagle Road: Continued Public Hearing from February 7, 2006: CUP 05-049 Request for a conceptual Conditional Use for retail, restaurant, drive-thru and office uses in a proposed C-G zone and an approved C-G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC - 3055 and 3085 North Eagle Road: De Weerd: Okay. The next item is 12,13,14, and 15, are continued public hearings on AZ 05-052, PP 05-053, CUP 05-049, and VAR 05-022. I will open these four public hearings with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I believe that the variance application we could all actually wait on. If you'd like to discuss that one separately we could. I didn't know -- Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I need to get clear with counsel on when I need to recuse myself. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Council, for the record I will only open the -- Items 12,13, and 14. We will have a separate discussion on VAR 05-022, separate from these other three. So, with that I will open with staff comments. Canning: Okay. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Sadie Creek Promenade project and it's located at the southwest corner of Ustick and Eagle. The highlighted -- or the blue highlighted area shown there. It is an application for annexation and zoning of a portion of the property and that which is currently designated R-1, preliminary plat for the whole property, and conditional use approval for the whole property as required from the original DA that affects the already zoned -- or Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 13 of 69 portions of the property. And this is the first detailed conditional use approval associated with the original DA for the Kissler annexation project. That DA did require any future use to come through with specific conditional use applications and that's one of the reasons it's before you tonight. This going down a little further into the site. And the vicinity map. Or I mean the aerial photograph. This is the proposed plat. This is the landscape plan. This is a little easier to read. The applicant is proposing approximately 150,282 square feet of commercial or -- and office space of nonresidential and there are ten buildings currently shown. Maybe 11. I might not have counted that one. The site has three access points to Ustick Road. They are proposing on to Eagle and that's the variance application you will consider later. But this one would be a public street coming in here and, then, the internal circulation can serve all of the project. I did want to point out -- I'll let the applicant talk more about the site plan, but I wanted to point out the provisions of a modified development agreement or a new development agreement that staff has recommended with this application. The first one is with regard to phasing. The applicant anticipates phasing the plan to begin with, the commercial lots near Ustick and Eagle and, then, phasing back toward the west. Staff is supportive of that, but recommends that prior to issuance of any CZC that all the landscaping be constructed along the western property boundary and along Ustick Road to the point of the connection with Sadie Creek Avenue, which is this public street connection. The second DA agreement issue is the nonresidential buildings and staff has proposed to limit them to the 150,282 square feet that they have shown here and staff also proposes that no one building could have more than half of that square footage. So, it would limit the maximum size of any single building to a little over 75,000 square feet. The applicants have proposed office buildings on the western boundary and staff thinks that that should be noted in the development agreement and that those be restricted to single story buildings and that those buildings be designed to discourage views and access facing the west. So, facing into the adjoining neighborhood -- residential neighborhood. Also staff is recommending that the hours of operation be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. As part of this request for the conditional use, the applicant is requesting that the standard for the separation of those drive-thrus be 240 feet, instead of 300 feet. Staff is not supportive of that request and mostly because we know that these are very conceptual plans when we see them at this level and that as these get developed things change significantly and we didn't feel that -- that 300-foot separation is there, so that you have an opportunity -- or the Planning and Zoning Commission has an opportunity to really review the specific development pattern that's occurring on that property and since we anticipate that this will not be the exact development plan, we would not support that request to reduce that 300 foot standard. Regarding -- excuse me. Regarding uses, Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2 are for office use only and we mentioned that before and just to specify no retail and, then, staff is recommending that all the other lots be limited to the general commercial uses as listed in the UDC. So, anything in the C-G. And, basically, if it required CU approval, it would come back. So, taking the requirement for every building to have conditional use approval, but, instead, relying on the UDC to determine when that -- those buildings should come back. With regard to elevations, you do not have any elevations tonight. The applicant -- or the application does list the proposed building materials and those include stone, brick, stucco, and timber to be accented with Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 14 of 69 chrome, aluminum, and gloss painted trim. Staff would need to evaluate any elevation under the entryway corridor standards, but we do not have those elevations tonight. The planning commission has recommended approval at their January 5th, 2006, hearing. Tamara Thompson with Landmark Development spoke in favor. No one spoke in opposition, although Bill Knorpp was commenting. Some of that was -- the first one was on traffic on Eagle Road. Steve Grant testified on traffic from the development and transitional uses with landscape. And David Thurston had those same comments regarding traffic and transitional uses. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the proposed uses on the site. The height of the office building. And, then, the cross-access points to the south of the site. Some of you may remember that the conceptual plan did show a number of cross-access points, so the original concept plan for the annexation of this northern piece of this project also is associated with this piece of property just to the south and it did have several access points noted. So, that was an issue of discussion. You do have findings for approval tonight and I will answer any specific questions you might have. De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff at this point? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Anna, can you give me the -- sort of the thumbnail story of what happened with Bienville to the south and what was originally intended to happen with those access points? Canning: Sure. When -- well, Bienville isn't before you yet, so I guess -- do you want the history of the annexation, the Kissler annexation? Borton: Right. For this. Canning: Okay. When the original Kissler annexation came in, it included this property on the east side of Eagle Road and, then, it included all these properties on the west side. As part of that annexation, staff and Planning and Zoning Commission really wanted to see a conceptual plan and that conceptual plan was developed before it got to the City Council. But not all the property owners could agree on the concept plan and this center property, the one that's now requesting the annexation, dropped out of the concept plan. The concept plan was a very bubble diagram type plan. It didn't show buildings or exact acreages, it showed kind of a transitional use along this area, it showed some high density residential here, some high intensity commercial I think was the word they used there. It was also right at the corner of the -- southeast corner was the high end intensity commercial and, then, a commercial retail with some sort of transitional use on the east boundary. Then, this property was later brought in to that annexation or added to that annexation. It didn't show specific access points, it showed kind of arrows generally in three locations and generally going out toward Eagle Road, but it was very very conceptual and it was pretty much a bubble diagram. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 15 of 69 Borton: Okay. De Weerd: Any other questions, Council? Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Thompson: Sure. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Tamara Thompson, I'm with Landmark Development Group, 1882 Toluka Way in Boise. De Weerd: Thank you. Thompson: I have Anna putting up a couple exhibits for us here in a second. As you know, the site is at the southwest corner Eagle and Ustick Roads. We are proposing to develop approximately 15 acres. The site plan that you see -- that Anna showed you is conceptual at this point. We are proposing commercial retail, restaurant, and office uses. An exact mix of that will be dependent upon the market at the time that we go to development and you will see what the exact mix of that is with the final plat. So, this is a preliminary plat at this point. Like Anna said, we have -- for annexation and rezone of approximately 7.7 acres, preliminary parcel map, and Conditional Use Permit of the entire property. We have read the staff report and agree with the conditions as they -- as they go with these sections. Anna, I just have a quick question for you. When you were going through the new development agreement you list hours of operation for 6:00 to 10:00. I'm sorry. If I can ask her a question. Anyway, I have a question about the hours of operation, if that is for the entire site or if that is just the office uses that are adjacent to the residential. We met with the neighbors twice and due to the sensitivity of the existing residential to our west, we have proposed to limit the structures -- everything with -- from the new public road that's going in to the west to be single story, with those entrances oriented away from the west, so they would not be looking with west. And the neighbors have requested that we install a six foot high concrete block wall, which we are agreeable to. Other items is that the evergreen trees along that west property line be eight to nine feet at the time of the planting. And that residential shields be placed on the parking lot lights that are adjacent to that western boundary. And we are agreeable to all of those conditions to mitigate the neighbors' concerns. I do know that most of the neighbors are here to talk -- or that have been active in the project and those certain items I would like added to the conditions of the approval, just, you know, to make sure that they are listed. We have been in contact with the developer to the south that is doing the Bienville project and I had some -- actually, I have these in hard copy, too, that we could just put up on the little elmo thing, too, if that doesn't work on the computer. But I have some exhibits of how we -- the project is going to go together, but, essentially, there is a public road that is going to line up on Ustick that will go north- south and give them access to a signal .- to the new signal that the CentrePoint project is putting in on the -- on the north side for the Kohl's project. So, that traffic signal lines up and that will give the neighbors to the south access to Ustick Road. Without having my exhibits, I guess I'll answer any questions that you may have. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 16 of 69 Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm sorry, I had to reboot. It froze. They switched computers and this one seems to not want to work as well. So, it's booting up again right now. De Weerd: Okay. Why don't we pause for a moment, 50-- Thompson: Anna, I do have these in hard copy if we want to -- did you want to use the overhead? Canning: If Council would like, it will only take another couple minutes to see if I can get the presentation up. That's, generally, easier to see, but I can start up -- I can't start the elmo until the computer reboots anyway, so -- De Weerd: We can take a few minutes and let the computer get booted. Council -- oh, booted is not right, it is? Rountree: Rebooted. De Weerd: Rebooted. Or-- Canning: Well, I could boot it. De Weerd: Is that like an eight track or something. Bird: Do you want me to come over there an fix it for you? I can blow it right out of here. De Weerd: Councilman Bird's really good with -- Bird: I'm really good at it. I can shut her down good. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the intent of the hours of operation was just for those two office buildings on the western boundary. Thompson: Thank you. Canning: Just because we are all waiting and this is amusing anyway, I'd also like to point out that somehow our IT department thinks I can read these tiny little things up here. Nary: We do have a vision plan in our city benefits package. Bird: Wear your glasses. Canning: They need to be goggles for this thing. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 17 of 69 Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: While we are waiting for that to boot, I wondered if I could ask Mrs. Canning a question, maybe, for Council as they discuss this matter can consider that. We separated the variance issue out. I have read the staff report. I guess would the Council -- as they consider this project, before we could approve that plat, wouldn't we need to set that matter over to have that discussion on the variance? In reading the staff report it's unclear to me exactly what the planner's perspective of that was, but if we need to that maybe the Council needs to consider if they are going to consider this project or approve this project, to set over at least the plat or maybe the plat and the CUP until after the variance discussion is had, since it appears that -- at least from the applicant's perspective they find it to be critical to the whole project, but I didn't know if you had a thought on that Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think staff assumed that the variance would not succeed and conditioned the rest of the project accordingly. There is no lot frontage requirement or anything of that nature, so the plat isn't dependent on having -- having a road or a driveway provide access, necessarily. And there is cross-access within the project, so -- between all the lots in the project. So, I do believe that they can consider the item separately on the variance. Nary: Okay. Canning: Victory is mine. Thompson: Thank you, Anna. Okay. You have the area. We can go onto the next slide. This is a color rendering of our landscape plan and the item that I wanted to point out here is, again, this is the new public road that will be -- that we will be attaching to Ustick and this aligns with the new traffic signal that, then, goes to the north side for the new Kohl's project. So, these are aligned. And, then, what we are proposing is anything to the west of this line be single story and have the entrances oriented away from the west side. And, then, the property line here have a six foot block wall and, then, the evergreen trees that we are proposing be six -- I'm sorry, eight to nine feet at the time of planting to -- to help buffer the neighbors to the rear of us. Next one, please. And this you can't see very well, but I just had this dimensioned and we do have the required landscape buffer distances, which I believe is 35 feet here and here and, then, we have, actually, made this against the neighbors five feet larger than it needs to be -- or than it's required to be. Next one. This is -- since we don't have elevations, this is just kind of our architectural vision that we see for this area. Kind of more of a village look is kind of what we are calling it, but we have put architectural guidelines in of types of materials and, then, there is the gateway corridor architectural guidelines that we will have to -- have to comply with. And, then, this is the -- is the constructural -- I'm sorry, the concept plan that was approved in 2004 with the development agreement and these -- this was one property owner at that time. Mr. Egge and my -- I was not involved at Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 18 of 69 that point, but we have since purchased this property from Mr. Egge and the corner and -- but I understand that he pulled out very late in the game, where he went through -- almost all the way through. So, this area was going to be the high intensity residential. I'm sorry. Commercial. With the residential down below to the south. And with that I will take any questions that you have. De Weerd: Council, questions? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Tammy, on that public road that's coming through that's going to have the stop light or the lights -- Thompson: Yes. Bird: -- is ACHD putting those in or is the developer to the north? Thompson: My understanding is that the street improvements are complete on Ustick and so all the approaches that you see on there are already in. I believe the conduits that need to go in for those lights were put in at that point, but my understanding is the developer to the north, Winston Moore and company, is putting in that traffic signal, which we will be contributing our share of. ' Bird: And you're willing to contribute your share, too? Thompson: Yeah. We have talked to them and we would be splitting that. Bird: Okay. Thompson: And Mr. Inselman is here if I'm not correct. Bird: He's shaking his head. Thank you very much. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions, Council? Okay. Thank you. Thompson: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. I have one person that did sign up to testify or to express their support of the project. Betty Rosso, would you like to provide testimony? Okay. Is there anyone in the public who would like to provide testimony? Please come forward. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Grant: Certainly. My name is Steve Grant. I live at 1534 Leslie Way and that's the property on the western boundary of this project. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 19 of 69 De Weerd: Thank you. Grant: I would just like to state that we certainly have enjoyed working with Tamara and their plans. They have been very cooperative all along. And as she indicated and I'm sure you have got it for the record, they have agreed to build a six foot masonry fence along the western line of decorative block. The residential shields she's been very gracious about working with us on those, as well as the -- an upgrade in the landscaping to the eight to nine foot evergreen trees along that western property line, as well as a 30-foot easement, instead of the normal 25. We appreciate all of the efforts that she's made to accommodate our concerns with the building orientation, limiting those to a single story, and, again, we just want to go on record as stating that we appreciate their cooperation and do support their project. Hope it goes through in all of the ways that they have proposed it. So, that's, really, alii had. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Grant. Any questions from Council? Okay. Any additional testimony? Please come forward. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Knorpp: My name is Billy Knorpp. I live at 2972 Leslie Drive, which is, actually, straight south of this particular -- it's on the other side of Bienville. So, I'm not directly affected by this, but did want to state for the record that I also am for the way they are doing this and the boundaries that they have set and the things they are doing and want to continue with -- not necessarily exactly the same, because we have a ditch down at the bottom, that they would do that. The other concern that I have is -- and it's going to be sort of dual with the two properties, is the car circulation, that is that we want for sure that there be a way for cars to get in and out of this property and the Bienville and I will be here when you do Bienville, too. But just because this is -- it affects this one, too, but somehow that it all be set up so that cars can circulate through the whole property. My house is here and what we want to make sure is that there isn't a path that's best for them to do to go through our subdivision to get where they need to go if they are trying to go north on Eagle Road. So, we support in-out complete access, so that it will lessen the probability that people want to come through our property and I don't know what access is going to be needed here for this project, but the point is the two are tied together when it comes to circulation of traffic and I just want you to consider that this one with the Bienville, that somehow the two all be coupled together, so that there is an easy way for traffic to circulate in that -- in the dual site that it will end up and not go through our property. That's really all I wanted to say about this one and when we come to Bienville there will be more to be said. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions, Council? Okay. Thank you, sir. Anymore testimony? Okay. Would the applicant like to come up for any reaction, response, final comments? Okay. Council? Wardle: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 20 of 69 De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Question of staff. Anna, the application is coming forward without elevations or any type of architectural rendering; correct? Canning: Correct. Wardle: The applicant mentioned that those would come back in with -- potentially with additional conditional use permits; is that right? Canning: If the use required -- the way the development agreement is currently structured, if the use required a Conditional Use Permit, we would see it, then. Otherwise, it would just be a staff level to review the very generic entryway corridor design standards that we have. Wardle: Madam Mayor, follow up? I guess one of the concerns that I have, if we think just kitty-corner across the street, the building which, obviously, the Council didn't see, didn't need Council level approval, which is in the entryway corridor, that is void of windows on the backside, is that the kind of review that we are going to I see I guess is my question. Canning: Are you specifically referring to the Lowe's building or the other one? And I'm not sure we actually had the design standards in place when that was approved. I think that that particular building got approved just before we adopted those. But the current standards do require some break up of that mass. I don't think that they actually require windows. So, that might be the case. The entryway corridor standards were more designed to break up larger buildings than they were as design standards. Wardle: And, Madam Mayor, just another question, Anna. I saw -- can you go to the site plan, please. Canning: Tamara's site plan or mine or it doesn't matter? Wardle: Any. I guess I'm looking at a specific -- I think I have seen something similar to that in the City of Meridian. Personally, I didn't have a problem with the architectural standards, but I know that some of the Council members had concerns with individuals and so I just wanted to point that out. De Weerd: I guess I would have a question if Anna can't answer it. We have seen architectural vision, I think that's what the applicant used, and kind of a village feel to what this would look like and, certainly, I would imagine that it's that vision that is why we don't have a room full of people. And, you know, I certainly like the architectural vision that has been shared with the type of lighting standards, the banners on the poles, outdoor planters, the impression of outdoor seating, some of the accommodation of architectural materials and those kind of things, that it's not a straight strip mall, that it does have some architectural interest to it, although it's not really tied to elevations. So, Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 21 of 69 with the vision that they have created for the neighbors, that it would be my opinion they have bought into, what assurances do we have that this is not going to be a stucco strip mall that has very little of this fit and -- form, fit, and feel to it? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, currently the development agreement does not address the architectural vision. Staff could perhaps pull out some of those items such as you mentioned or the applicant could propose to add some of those to the development agreement and that might give us more to go on. Maybe make it an option that if it -- staff doesn't feel that it's consistent with that vision, that it go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a CU approval or -- De Weerd: Well, I guess I would feel comfortable with that, because it is very appealing in the look and if the architectural vision that they have created here, if there is any way we can institutionalize that into the vision that was brought in front of the decision making body can be tied to that, it is very attractive having the brick pavers down, with -- or the brick look down and the plaza type with the outdoor seating, all of this is very nice and I would feel comfortable, like the neighbors, with that somewhat put into some enforceable expectations, if it is not to come back for a public comment. And if the applicant would like to comment on any of this discussion, certainly, you can have the final word, but I'm just putting that out there for discussion, so if you need to comment you have that opportunity to comment. And I, too, would share -- I think Mr. Knorpp's concern about the car circulation and the connectivity, that certainly the application that we had previously denied that was not this corner, one of the reasons that -- of concern was that connectivity and how the traffic would move in and around in that area without compromising the surrounding neighborhood. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Just to, I guess, throw a little more into the stew, this Council has recently had a discussion about -- in creating development agreements and creating some time limits, so some expectations can get met and if the Council wants to consider in this development agreement, along with what the Mayor's comments have already been, some type of time commitment as to when the development agreement would need to be returned, so there is some assurance that that -- that this project is going to occur, rather than it lay dormant for a long period of time with no requirement or time guidelines as to when this Council would expect a commitment on the part of the applicant to be proceeded forward with this project. That may be something you wish to consider. You don't have any requirement now to do that. You don't have to set that if you don't want to, but part of the issue that Madam Mayor is talking about and the discussion is is that the buy-in and participation from the neighbors to this point is, really, that idea of buying into this vision. If the Council really wants that vision to really occur, besides including it in the agreement, creating some time window that that commitment is going to have to get made, so that's, really, what's in front of you and not the old agreement that's currently in place. It might be something you want to consider. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 22 of 69 De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nary. Any other discussion items from Council? Okay. Thompson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- De Weerd: If you will just restate your name for the record. Thompson: I'm sorry. Tamara Thompson again. Landmark Development. Our -- the neighbors have asked me that same question, about the site plan and the architectural vision. The site plan definitely is conceptual in nature, other than, you know, the buildings on that west side will be single story office buildings, that kind of stuff. But exactly how things layout and the configuration of the building, it's going to be tenant driven. As far as the architecture goes, my understanding is that -- that this was entered into the record, along with the gateway corridor architectural guidelines and that anything that wasn't in substantial compliance with this would have to come back. So, I don't have a problem at all with adding more detail to a new development agreement, so that -- that these types of items could be included in there, just, you know, to cover that sort of thing, because this is what our intent is. De Weerd: That's great. I appreciate that. Certainly, it's been a direction that this city is moving to to raise the bar and to encourage a look that is different than your typical strip mall and certainly -- again, I would go back to usually when we come to this corner we can get standing room only type of activity and I really believe that this is a quality that we haven't seen in this area before for this corner and I commend you for the work you have done with the neighbors. I think probably having two people testify in favor of it and that we don't have standing room only shows how closely you have listened to their concerns and have tried to address them. So, thank you. Thompson: Sure. One of the other things I wanted to show while I was up here is I do have the connectivity, but we could wait on that until the -- until we are talking about the variance, too, but I do have the site plan from Bienville that I can show you how that connectivity and the circulation works there, if you want to talk about that at this point. De Weerd: We might need to just keep that separate. Thompson: Okay. That's fine. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant, Council? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Just one question. And it's somewhat the element that we are going to get into in a bit, but from your site plan and the concessions that you have made and Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 23 of 69 suggestions that staff has made, are those all contingent upon the Eagle Road access that we will be discussing? De Weerd: You're not supposed to ask that question yet. Thompson: Madam Mayor, Mr. Borton. Borton: I just saw it discussed at Planning and Zoning. Thompson: Yeah. It -- unfortunately, access is like oxygen and without if you're dead and the tenants -- you know, we are looking for high quality tenants and -- and any of those tenants have in their top three requirements access and if it's not convenient or as convenient as their competitors, either, you know, on the same corridor or close by, then, they are not going to land here, so -- and we very much are tenant driven. We are not going to build some spec buildings. So, I would have to say the answer is yes to that. De Weerd: Okay. Anything else, Council? Okay. If there is no other questions or comments by Council, I would entertain a motion on Items 12, 13 and 14 in regards to the Public Hearing. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: If all the public discussion and Council discussion is over with, I would move that we close the public hearings on AZ 05-052, PP 05-053, and CUP 05-049 for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision. De Weerd: Do I have a second? Borton: Second. De Weerd: There is a motion to close the Public Hearing on Items 12 through 14. All those in favor -- Nary: Madam Mayor, maybe if I could interject for a moment. The reason I had asked the question earlier -- and I think Council member Borton's question to the applicant indicated that you may want to consider, before you vote on that motion, on whether to continue your Public Hearing, hear your variance application -- it certainly made it sound that the applicant was less inclined to want the city to annex their property or approve their plat or their CUP without the variance. Now, maybe I'm misreading that, but that seemed to be the flavor of her comments was that that was a significant part of this application. If the Council wants to hear the variance and make a decision and that may or may not impact their desire to go forward or you may want other -- to gather other Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 24 of 69 information, whether it's design, whether it's traffic study, or something else, you might want to leave your hearing open. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird. Bird: I would -- and, I'm sorry, I understood that and -- Nary: That's why I'm here. Bird: -- I got ahead of myself. Well, I don't know about that. But, anyway, I would pull my motion and we can go onto the variance, so that -- and when we take care of the variance we come back and, then, Mr. Rountree can -- we will just continue these three and go to the variance, if we could. De Weerd: Okay. Does second agree? Borton: Second agrees. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to continue Items 12, 13, and 14 until after the discussion of Item 15. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from February 7, 2006: VAR 05-022 Request for Variance to Allow a Vehicular Access Point to Eagle Road / SH55 for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC - 3055 and 3085 North Eagle Road: De Weerd: Okay. Discussion on Item 15 -- or I will go ahead and open the Public Hearing on Item 15, VAR 05-022. Councilman Rountree, I imagine -- Rountree: Madam Mayor, I wish to recuse myself -- De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: -- on Item 15. De Weerd: Okay. See you later. Rountree: Not too much I hope. De Weerd: Okay. The Public Hearing on Item 15 is currently open. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 25 of 69 Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I am going to borrow Mrs. Thompson's diagram, since it shows the whole area. I thought that might be easier. This is still the Sadie Creek project and this is the variance request for access to Eagle Road or State Highway 55. The applicant does propose one new approach to State Highway 55 and that approach is -- it's a right-in, right-out access driveway and it's approximately 306 feet south of Ustick Road. The ITD has not approved any approach permits on this site. The various is required, because this access point is not consistent with the Unified Development Code or the Eagle Road arterial study. The study was endorsed by the City Council and by the ACHD commission. The staff report notes a couple of the policies from that report. One is paragraph 3.2.5, which states that ITD and ACHD should work together with the municipalities to identify the specific public streets and private approaches on Eagle Road to be closed over time, the access consolation provisions of secondary access, et cetera. ACHD has provided three access point off of Ustick for this property and it's the long dimension for the property and it does provide access into the site. The second provision of that study was paragraph 3.2.6, which talks about the existing circulation that works within and between existing developed parcels should be reconfigured to reduce the number of access points to Eagle Road and to allow more local trips to be made without the need to travel onto Eagle Road and this concept should be incorporated into municipal planning and zoning policies. And with the adoption of the UDC, the City of Meridian did further that policy and the commitment was made to restrict access to Eagle Road to the half mile mark. Finally, I want to bring up some traffic accident data and this is from 2004. I'm not sure that the police department has compiled it yet for 2005. But in 2004 nearly 17 percent of the total accidents in the city occurred along Eagle Road. There is a direct correlation between the number of access points and the intersections along the roadway and the potential for accidents. At the top ten intersections in Meridian for total number of traffic accidents, six of those ten intersections were along Eagle Road and those were at Overland, at Magic View, at St. Luke's, Franklin, Atlanta, and at Fairview. Now, Ustick wasn't on there yet, because we don't have -- didn't have that much development along Ustick at that time. The staff does feel that this project can circulate adequately and get enough access for the retail provisions from -- without having that access to Eagle Road, the right-in, right-out access. Regarding outstanding issues, staff is recommending denial. The Planning and Zoning Commission did not hold a Public Hearing on this, although I want to note that Commissioner Zaremba did oppose the associated development applications, just because it did depict this access to Eagle Road and he was opposed to this access. The Planning and Zoning Commission talked a lot of the access that's being proposed by Bienville and they do have another variance request in for a public access road that would connect through this entire site. So, the staff is still recommending denial of that one. We can't make the findings for approval, but the circulation pattern currently is for a -- and, Mr. Nary, you will have to tell me if I'm getting too far ahead on Bienville. But is to have a public road access that would come in and loop around and connect back up to this public road. And, then, you would have a private access system throughout the kind of non-residential portions of the property and link those two systems. I also want to one point out that we have heard some interesting developments along the Leslie Drive properties. The first two property owners -- the first two lots along Leslie Drive as they front Eagle Road, those property Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 26 of 69 owners have come in to talk to us about putting a cul-de-sac on Leslie Drive and, then, connecting this to the commercial -- as commercial development to the commercial development to the south, which would provide access to the half mile road eventually. And I can switch over to our aerial and show that to you, if I can figure out which one it is. Nary: Mrs. Canning, before you get too much further on that particular point, was that part of the staff's reason for their recommend of denial or is it just you're giving the Council some alternatives to what's being proposed? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it wasn't specifically noted as part, but I do think we try and consider what will happen in the future and we have had a little more clarity on what could perhaps occur there and we do try and look at the overall circulation pattern and -- Nary: So, really, what you're testifying to and what your statements are is related to being able to show the Council there are other alternatives to what's being requested, not the specific applications or the specific projects per se on all of them, but that there are alternatives that are available to what's being proposed for this variance. Canning: Yes, sir. Thank you clarifying that. Nary: That's what I thought. De Weerd: Thank you for that clarity, Mr. Nary. Nary: You're welcome. Canning: This is the half mile mark and we do see a potential for some connection throughout this whole project. With that I will answer any questions that Council may have. You do have findings for denial in your package tonight. De Weerd: Council, questions for staff at this point? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. I'm sure they have comments. Just a guess. Thompson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Tamara Thompson, Landmark Development, 1882 Toluka Way, Boise, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Thompson: For a commercial center the most important site criteria to our potential tenants, which, like I said before, we are looking for some high quality retail. We have had quite a bit of interest from national restaurants and that type of thing, that their -- the most important criteria for them is access and if access isn't convenient, then, customers are going to drive right passed them and not stop. So, the viability of this center is its convenient access. Without that access it would create an undue hardship Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 27 of 69 on this property and may potentially kill the project altogether. Our site is unique in that a frontage road cannot be achieved to the quarter mile point, since current city policy is that access onto Eagle Road only be at the section line and at the half mile point. Could you back up just one? With Leslie Drive and with the school here, that that connectivity getting clear down to this point is not an option. Houses would have to be wiped out and it would bring all that traffic right passed the school. We have met with ITO several times. Our project, actually, went to the executive permits committee that ITD had last Thursday on the 16th and what came out of that meeting is that, basically, the -- essentially the same thing is what Winston Moore received on the north side of the road, is that if we would comply with the Eagle Road concept plan and obtain a variance from the City of Meridian, that our access point would be approved and the reason for that is that a right-in, right-out actually helps the whole intersection that funneling all the traffic from -- approximately you have got 40 acres once you have the Bienville project here, too, but even from the 15 acres, funneling all that to Ustick Road decreases or makes it -- makes the level of service worse at the intersection, because all that traffic has to come up here and wait to get through that light, where having a right-in, right-out -- and, actually, where -- I'm sorry, could you back up. One more, please. What we were showing is an access at this point and the reason I was showing it there is because that was consistent with what the concept plan that was approved back in 2004 was showing and ITD actually told us that the location would need to be clear down here, which is consistent with what Winston Moore has on the north side as far as the spacing. I'm sorry, Anna. Forward one, please. There is the concept plan where it shows -- and what it said down here -- and, you know, my client's purchased this property already, so he was relying on the development agreement in its entirety when he purchased it. But what it says down here is A's are ACHD approved accesses and B's are ITD approved accesses. So, the A's are here and, then, the B's are shown here and here, where there would be two locations for access along -- along this frontage. We understand that this still had to go through the proper channels, but it's confusing to us why that language was used at that time. Can you go to the one that shows the whole thing? One more. Right there. This is -- it's pretty hard to see at this scale, but, basically, from the center line of the intersection what's been approved on the north side of the road is at 700 feet there is a right-in, right-out on both sides. At the quarter mile mark there is a full turn access on both sides of the road and, then, the west side was given another right-in, right-out at the -- at approximately 1,700 feet from the intersection. And what's being proposed for our project is consistent with that, where with moving this down here it becomes approximately 660 feet from the intersection for a right-in, right-out, which is consistent with that. The traffic study also shows that adding the right-in, right-out at that location not only helps get traffic back onto Eagle Road without having to congest the Ustick intersection, but without it you're adding -- basically, the safety issues for left turns -- left turns are the ones that cause the most accidents, but those are, actually, being just diverted from Eagle Road onto Ustick Road, instead of being able to come down here and just making a right turn, which is a safe movement and it would have a decellane, that that, then, is put onto Ustick where you have to make left turns, which those are the ones that are most unsafe. So, anyway, our access has changed from what our original proposal was due to our comments -- or our discussions with ITD and what they took to their executive Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 28 of 69 committee. Like I said, our Eagle Road access is consistent with the concept plan that was approved in 2004 with the development agreement and -- sorry. The other thing I wanted to bring up is that customer traveling southbound on Ustick -- I'm sorry -- on Eagle, if they miss the Ustick intersection not knowing, you know, what's here and all of a sudden they -- you know, they see something and want to go in there, basically, they are going to have to come all the way down to the half mile point to do a u-turn to get back or they are going to take the first right that they can and cut through a residential street, which definitely isn't safe. So, for your conditions of approving the variance, the first one is the variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district. Granting this variance would be consistent with the two northern corner developments and, like I said earlier, any -- any retail tenants that we are trying to pull to this area, they are going to look at what other commercial access there is in the area. So, if it's not consistent with that, they are going to go someplace else. So, granting this variance would be consistent with the two northern corner developments and not granting the access would give those developments a competitive advantage over the south corners. The second condition is the variance relieves an undue hardship because of the characteristics of the site. This site is unique in that it will not have access to the half mile point due to the Carol Subdivision and the school that's in the way. Therefore, all the traffic generated by this corner will have to be funneled up to Ustick and having a right-in, right-out access onto Eagle Road would help the level of service at that intersection. And the third is the variance would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare. And, again, the variance actually helps the traffic at the Eagle and Ustick intersections. That left turn movements are the movements that cause the most accidents. And if there is an access onto Eagle Road, then, you're just changing those right turns into -- coming into the site onto left turns on Ustick. Again, we met with ITD and they told me -- because I tried to get a letter out of them, like what Winston Moore was able to present to you and they told me with just having their executive permits committee on Thursday, it would probably take 30 days or so for them to write up a big report on that. So, I do not have that in writing at this time. Canning: Mrs. Thompson? Thompson: Yeah. Canning: I received it at 5:12 today. Thompson: Yeah. That's not the letter-- Canning: We can go ahead and make copies. Thompson: That's not -- that's kind of an interim letter from, I believe, District Three, but the one that Winston had was actually from the chief engineer and they told me that would be -- would be coming in about 30 days. That letter -- Canning: This letter references the executive permits meeting. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 29 of 69 Thompson: Right. But they can't -- my understanding -- in talking with Kevin Sublon, because I did get that also, is that he said that he did not have the authorization to tell us that anything would be approved. It had to come from the chief engineer. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, perhaps I should read a bit of this. We did get it very late and I will give it to Will to make copies as soon as I can read this. One of the things they specifically note is that any desired access does require a variance from the City of Meridian and, then, it says that the necessary improvements will be determined once access determination is made. If your development are able to comply with the Eagle Road concept report, district traffic may be agreeable to recommending approval of the requested access points pending results of our review of your TIF completed by Stanley Consultants. So, this does not appear to say that anything has been granted at this time and it's very carefully worded to say that nothing has been reviewed, actually, at this point. It doesn't appear that the traffic study has been reviewed or that any type of access determination -- access has been granted to this property. Thompson: And I did get that same letter and, then, I called Mr. Sublon, who was the author of the letter after receiving it and verbally he told me something very different than what the letter states and he said he just wasn't authorized to put that in writing at his level. He can't -- he can't give me that information in writing. But I guess verbally he could. Anyway, moving on. We respectfully request your request of the approval for the variance and I will be here for any questions that you may have. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I do have a question. Tamara, on that -- your right-in, right-out, but the problem I see is -- and I can't remember, maybe Gary can help me, but I believe when ACHD through their contract -- a couple contractors redone east and west, they -- the left lanes are double -- left turn lanes. But Eagle Road is not left two double. It's just single. You know, I think that's very important to have double left-hand turn lanes off of Eagle onto there, especially, if we are -- if they are getting the entrance -- in and out entrances, three of them, within, what, a quarter mile -- three.quarters -- or one-third of a mile? You know, get two there, because you're going to have some going up to the north, some coming to the south and, usually, when you just -- I think that's something that ITD should ask the four developers to work to and participate in. I see that -- I would wait for their ruling on the right-in, right-out. Thompson: Madam Mayor, Mr. Bird, that is one of the conditions that Mr. Moore has on his and they are going to require that of ours. Bird: Oh. Okay. They are planning on doing -- Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 30 of 69 Thompson: On northbound, taking a left onto Ustick would be a dual left and they need -- they need the road improvements on both sides to happen for -- both sides of the pavement have to move on -- both the east side of the road and the west side of the road has to move back approximately -- I believe it to be in the 12 to 15 foot range on both sides. Bird: So, they have got that in the -- ITD has got that in their plans already? Thompson: That is in their plan, yeah. Bird: Okay. And the developers are participating in it? Thompson: Right. Bird: Thank you. De Weerd: Anything else, Mr. Bird? Bird: I have none, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Any other questions? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Mrs. Thompson, you had, I think -- I might have misheard you, but you made reference to 660 feet, roughly, I think you indicated on that. I'll try and point you. Right around there. An in and out access point. Thompson: That's correct. Borton: Okay. Because the materials mostly reference the 350-foot location from the intersection, right at the mid point. Thompson: Right. That's something that came out of the ITD meeting, because from the concept plan, that arrow that was drawn across, I was trying to make the access consistent with the concept plan from 2004 and something that came -- the feedback that came back from ITD is that the location needed to be pulled down to closer to the 700 foot, so that it's consistent with the north side accesses. And so we made that -- just in the last couple days made that change. Borton: Okay. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 31 of 69 De Weerd: Okay. Anything else? Okay. Is there any public testimony on this item? Please come forward. If you will state your name and address for the record. Morris: Linda Morris, 1374 Leslie Way. I fully support the developer on getting the right-in, right-out only at that 600 and some foot mark, because I think that will also help alleviate traffic on Leslie Way and also it's amazing how much traffic we already have -- increased traffic we already have on Ustick just the developments that have been done on the north side of Ustick close to us and it looks like to me if they don't have that right- in, right-out there, and you're coming from the south -- from the south going north on Eagle and you want it -- excuse me, you want to -- excuse me. You're coming -- yeah. You're going south on Eagle and you want to get into whatever they had got planned on that commercial on the very corner of Eagle and Ustick and they have to turn onto Ustick and, then, turn left into that development, it looks like to me they are also going to have a backup right through Eagle with all the traffic that's going to be wanting to turn left into their development. Like I said, it's amazing, even they have increased the number of lanes on Ustick for that first half mile now west of Eagle, the traffic has increased -- I couldn't even tell you how much it's increased, but just from those houses that they have built so far, I just can't see it not having that right-in, right-out on Eagle for the developer. I just think that it's just going to be more of a problem for us if it's not there. So, I just wanted to let you now. I fully support them on that. I hope you do, too. De Weerd: Thank you, Mrs. Morris. Any additional testimony? Yes. Grant: Madam Mayor, Council Members, my name is Steve Grant. I live at 1534 Leslie Way and that's on the west side of this proposed project. I came over here fully intending to remain silent on this issue, but find that I think a couple of comments would be in order. The two top concerns of the neighborhood are certainly the transitional issues that we have talked about already and, of course, traffic. There is -- that's just a big issue. To clarify a little bit, I think the comment that the city planner Anna made with regard to the neighbors on the eastern part of Leslie Way, there is some discussion that has been occurring about creating a cul-de-sac, but not at the expense of them giving up their homes so that a feeder road could be built, because there is just not room. I mean they are right on Eagle Road. So, connecting to the half mile at the River -- whatever it is. Riverside or River -- by the school, I mean I don't think that's what they had in mind and we have had a lot of discussions amongst the neighbors. So, I would think that's not even a realistic option and probably economically for any tenants interested in -- they don't want their customers going down a feeder street. That just doesn't make sense and I don't think it's feasible. I think one thing I would say that if the city has granted variances and ITD have granted variances or in the process of doing it to the north for those properties, you know, Kohl's and also Lowe's, that would build, in my mind, a strong case for considering their request. I don't think anybody is going to turn left off of Ustick near the intersection of Eagle and Ustick. They are going to cross one, two, three, four, five, six -- almost -- well, at least six lanes of traffic on the eastern most -- you know, the ones that are closest to the intersection as they -- of course, those left turn lanes are -- go away the further west you go. But that's going to be problematic. They are either going to go down to that light or they are going to go out, Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 32 of 69 take a right, and, then, take up the nearest right they can, which is our street, and go down and turn left, even though there isn't a signal at Leslie and Ustick, maybe the signal at Sadie Creek and Ustick would create a barrier. When that's red they could maybe turn left. I don't know. But it's problematic either way. I do agree that, you know, anybody that's coming south on Eagle Road that would want to go into their project that might not turn, you know, at Ustick and try to approach those retail establishments, if they had the right-in and right-out access, it would -- it would allow them to go in there and that would work. But having said that, anybody who wants to go left on Ustick and go west on Ustick, going out that right turn would probably come down our street. So, as you can see, I have got some mixed emotions about his whole issue. One of the things that I think -- well, I would like to request is I think this whole corner needs to be -- the traffic needs to be decided together. Bienville is going to come through here and they are going to request, as you have seen on that map, a full access at the quarter mile. Whether or not you choose to approve that or not is something that I'm sure that you will debate long and hard and you have already read -- some of you have read Planning and Zoning's comments on that. But I would encourage you to continue this whole thing until we can look at that whole parcel and make a sound decision with both projects in mind, because they are tied at the hip, in my mind, and need full consideration together and I would think it would be in everybody's interest to look at them together. That's really alii had to say. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Grant. Any questions for Mr. Grant? Okay. Grant: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Yes, sir. Knorpp: Madam Mayor, Council. My name is Billy Knorpp, as I stated before, 2972 Leslie Drive. I just want to go on record as completely supporting what Mr. Grant just said to you. I believe also that there is kind of mixed emotion about what the -- what it might do to us to have right-in, right-out. I personally think it's probably a little better for us than not having it, just because it does allow people to get off of Eagle into that without going through our subdivision to get there. But I do also believe with him that it needs to be considered as a block, that is this with Bienville and decide what the streets -- what the access is going to be to Eagle Road as a whole and how the roads will match up with one another, so that people can flow into there. There needs to be an easy flow for people to get in and out of there and not go through our subdivision. And that's our main concern as far as traffic goes. So, that's, I guess, all I would want to say about it is that I agree with Mr. Grant that it needs to be continued, hopefully, and no final decision made until you have made a decision on the whole corner, not just on what's happening with this corner, with a little piece of the corner. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any other public testimony? Okay. Mrs. Thompson, any final remarks? Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 33 of 69 Canning: Madam Mayor, while Mrs. Thompson is working her way to the podium, 660 feet would appear to be off of this site. So, I'm a little concerned. We hadn't heard about this request to change this until the hearing tonight, to my knowledge, and my records show that there is only 570 feet of frontage along Eagle Road. So, the 660 would put it into the property to the south. Thompson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, in regards to what Mrs. Canning just said, the -- I get that dimension from the traffic engineer and our civil engineer, so -- and I know that they are counting it from the center line of Ustick. So, I think that's where the discrepancy is in the extra feet. But, essentially, we are shoving it as far south as we can. It would be pinned right up against our south property line. Just -- I was going to show you the combined plans, which I didn't before, so I just kind of wanted to show you that circulation plan real quick. Back -- right there. Unfortunately, that doesn't show up real well here. But at this location is the public street access that comes down. The way Bienville has designed their plan -- and my understanding of what the city has asked -- city and/or ACHD, is that that road only be public to a certain portion and, then, it become private. We are also showing cross-access at this location where -- De Weerd: Excuse me for a moment. Just -- Mr. Nary, can we be looking at this, since it is a separate application? Nary: Madam Mayor, this is a lot more specific, I guess, than the previous information you had about the variance. You know, if the Council wants to consider the connection with the other project, that maybe the suggestion was that holding this matter off until you have heard the other project as well and deciding them jointly would make more sense. But rather than trying to now get this detail to try to piece with the rest of the information you have, might be a little troubling to a court if they are trying to unravel it later. De Weerd: And so in English? Nary: Yeah. You probably should wait. De Weerd: Thank you. I was going to ask Mr. Borton for an interpretation, but that worked better, so -- Thompson: Okay. I will not continue with that, then. De Weerd: Thank you. Thompson: I guess the only -- the last thing that I want to add is that I believe the first time we met with staff and had our pre-application meeting was back in May and we were ready to submit it, you know, very soon thereafter and staff kept saying we want to see everything together, we want to see everything together. So, Bienville has really held us up a lot, but we were held up twice at P&Z, because they wanted to see Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 34 of 69 Bienville, tOO. SO, we had to hold and wait for them to submit and bring their project in and now I'm hearing it again, so -- and it did actually -- we did not know ordinance was changing until two days, three days before. I think September 12th was when we heard about the new ordinance taking effect on September 15th. That included the accesses on Eagle Road. That wasn't on the draft that was on the internet. So, it wasn't something that we knew about. But here we are holding and holding and holding waiting to submit and we could have submitted prior to that and not been under the rules of that, it just keeps -- I just wanted to mention that, that we have -- we have really tried to accommodate staff and the different councils and commissions and trying to keep the project together, but for some reason they have been on a much slower track than we have. De Weerd: And I certainly can appreciate your frustration. I guess it is such a key corner and we have had an application in front of this and it was denied because of circulation, that there are just some things you can't rush and when you have the kind of traffic you do in that area, which makes it appealing for commercial development, you also have serious traffic considerations and I guess that falls on the shoulders of this Council. Thompson: Yeah. Madam Mayor, I can appreciate that. I guess from my viewpoint it feels like they are dependent on us, not necessarily we are dependent on them. You know, they need access onto Ustick, which we are more than happy to provide. We have provided several cross-access areas and a public road through our site that people going south, you know, would only be -- if you're going to live there or if they have some businesses there that -- you know, that cross-access has already been planned for. De Weerd: And you might be dependent on them for access to Eagle. So, it might workout that way. Thompson: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any further information needed? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna? Canning: Yes, sir. Bird: It's 660 feet from the center line of Ustick is what she's telling us, which is an eighth of a mile, which is 220 yards is an eighth of a mile. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 35 of 69 Canning: That will be very close. Depending on the width of the access drive, it seems like some of it would be on the southern property, but maybe they just meant it as an approximation, but -- Bird: I have some real concerns when you're that close to the intersection and coming through, I think it's like when you put interchanges on the interstate every mile apart, one's getting off and one's coming on and, then, they are so close that you are inviting accidents. And, actually, on their property you're less than an eighth of a mile, because I'm sure Ustick at that intersection has got to be -- half of it's got to be 45 feet or 15 yards, if I'm -- I would imagine, so -- I know we approved one north of that, but that don't mean it's right. Canning: Madam Mayor, there was some talk about holding these over to discuss all the traffic-related movements and I did want to point out there are other projects. If Council is inclined to go that way, there is an ACHD project for this property, there is annexation project for this property. Mr. Thompson has an application in with an associated variance for this property. So, really, this whole southern piece is trying to figure out all these access issues at this point. De Weerd: Thank you for muddying the water further. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Question for Mr. Nary. Does this Council have the ability to continue this variance application pending additional information based on an additional pending application I guess is my question. Nary: Madam Mayor, members of the Council, Councilmember Wardle, certainly you have the ability to continue this matter to a different date if there is other information in addition to the Bienville site -- I mean the applicant's made a valid point that, you know, they aren't necessarily dependent on them and that's this Council's decision, but this Council may decide that they are and that that relationship of these properties and the access to Eagle Road, at least on the west side of Eagle Road, is of concern to you enough to want to hear how they are going to connect together. As the Mayor stated, that was the key issues previously when the project was denied. If there is any other information that would be helpful to you in making that decision, I would suggest if you're going to set it over, that you make sure that you get everything you can to make that, whether it's different traffic information -- obviously, there was a letter from ITD that the applicant is hopeful will be also supportive of their problem. Obviously, if you want to wait for that. I don't know if there is any other traffic information that might be helpful. You might ask staff or the police department or the applicant to provide that. But you certainly can wait and hear that. I think the concern from the Council is is if you try to handle all of these separately in a vacuum, you may have a number of accesses along Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 36 of 69 Eagle Road that you may not all feel is appropriate and you're trying to avoid that. That's certainly a reasonable exercise of your discretion to do that. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Wardle, did that answer your question? Wardle: Yes, it did. Nary: Yes, you can wait. De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Questions? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Additional information from staff. Anna, were the Council to choose to wait based on additional information needed on the application for the south, what would be a reasonable date to assume that that information would be available? Canning: Mr. Clerk, do you know when Bienville is coming up? Is it two weeks? March 14th. Thank you, members of the audience. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I kind of -- I got a sense of where this is going, but to give you my perspective of this request, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense and I appreciate Mrs. Thompson's comments and the market needs and the business implications of this decision and I know that developers in doing these things like to have concrete answers, the sooner the better and things to be crystal clear, so they know where they are going. I'm not so sure what additional delays could make access 300 feet, 400 feet, 500 feet from this intersection viable. I don't know what additional information -- maybe there is and maybe delaying it might make some sense, but from what I have heard it seems -- and in light of staffs comments and the applicant's comments and the public's comments, I'm not so sure access from this property in any of those locations makes sense. So, if we continue it, at least that's -- that's my initial perspective. De Weerd: Any other comments, Council? Okay. There is a couple directions you can go on this and I would entertain a motion, if you're ready to have any kind of motion at this point. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Meridian City Council February 21,2006 Page 37 of 69 Wardle: I will float a motion and if it doesn't get a second, then, we will entertain another one. I move that we continue Item 15 to March 21 st, 2006. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to continue this Public Hearing until March 21 st. Do I have a second? Okay. I do not have a second, so the motion will die. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we close the Public Hearing on variance 05-022, the Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 15. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we deny the request for variance 05-022, to allow vehicular access to Eagle Road for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to deny the request for Item 15. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from February 7, 2006: AZ 05-052 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.87 acres from R1 to C-G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC - 3055 North Eagle Road: Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from February 7, 2006: PP 05-053 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24 commercial building lots 15.33 acres in a proposed C-G zone and an approved C-G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC - 3055 and 3085 North Eagle Road: Meridian City Council February 21,2006 Page 38 of 69 Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from February 7, 2006: CUP 05-049 Request for a conceptual Conditional Use for retail, restaurant, drive-thru and office uses in a proposed C-G zone and an approved C-G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC - 3055 and 3085 North Eagle Road: De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Now, we need to go back to the Public Hearings 13, 14 -- 12, 13, and 14. For our information I'd like to ask the applicant if they want to continue. De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to comment on Items 12 through 14? If you will restate your name. Thompson: Madam Mayor -- I'm sorry. Tamara Thompson, Landmark Development Group. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, at this point I think we'd like to proceed with the annexation and rezone and see what happens. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Is there anymore information needed by this Council? Bird: I need no more, Madam Mayor. Does anybody else want to testify? De Weerd: We had already gone that far. Bird: Okay. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Hearing nothing, I move that we close AZ 05-052, PP 05-053, and CUP 05-049, for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision. De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to close the public hearings on Items 12 through 14. Do I have a second? Okay. That motion fails. Do I have another motion? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Question of the applicant or is it too late for that? Meridian City Council February 21,2006 Page 39 of 69 De Weerd: We still have an open Public Hearing. Mrs. Thompson, Mr. Borton has a question for you. Borton: Would you be able to present a modified concept plan in light of the access issues on Eagle Road? You seemed to indicated before that that really changes the entire design and maybe liability of this project. Is that something that is of interest to you to do that and have this continued and have it presented or -- Thompson: Well, Madam Mayor, Mr. Borton, it's -- I mean at this point it's a conceptual plan anyway. So, you know, closing up that entrance doesn't affect, really, the internal circulation, you know, we still have all of that with the accesses onto Ustick. I believe what -- and -- excuse me. And we are proposing office, retail, and restaurants. And so I believe what that's going to do is just change the mix, but we are not going to get as much retail and restaurant, that it will end up more office. And, like I said before, the market's going to have to dictate that. Wardle: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions, Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Are we ready for a motion? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we close the Public Hearing for AZ 05-052, PP 05-053, and CUP 05-49. Bird: I'd second that. De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to close the Public Hearing on Items 12 through 14. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Does Council need any additional information, discussion, or are you ready for a motion? Bird: Madam Mayor, I'll throw out a motion. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird. Bird: If there is a second or not. I move we approve AZ 05-052, annexation and zoning of 7.87 acres from R-1 to C-G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision and I Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 40 of 69 believe the findings are already. We didn't change anything off the findings and approve the findings and conclusions of law. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second? Rountree: I will second. De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion to approve Item No. 12. Mr. Bird, I know that there was discussion about the development agreement and making sure that the architectural vision -- Bird: That would be -- I thought that was a preliminary plat, but if it's in the annexation and zoning, I'm -- I want that in there, that we would work on that as she agreed to. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Second agrees. De Weerd: And was there also a suggested time limit or are you -- Bird: I think six months would be a good time, wouldn't it? To redo your development agreement. Rountree: For returning an executed development agreement. Bird: I beg your pardon? Rountree: For return of an executed development -- Bird: Yes. That-- Rountree: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Any discussions? Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Borton, nay. Berg: Mayor de Weerd, tie breaker. De Weerd: Aye. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS. MAYOR AYE. De Weerd: Item 13? Canning: Madam Mayor, before we leave one, I couldn't -- I didn't hear the time frame. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 41 of 69 Bird: Six months. Canning: So, six months to bring back -- Bird: Return a signed -- Canning: To return a signed -- okay. Thank you. Sorry. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Just to clarify, six months from when they receive it for them to return it. Bird: Yes. Nary: So, after we have completed those terms and conditions as stated, for them to return it. So, not six months from today -- Bird: No. Nary: -- for the whole process, just for them to get it back. Bird: Get it back. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve PP 05-053, the request for preliminary plat and, then, this one we have -- I think is where we would not allow the entrance or exit off of Eagle Road and I can't think of any other thing that we discussed and to reflect that in the findings and to redo the findings. De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to approve Item 13. Is there a second? Okay. Motion fails. Okay. Council, for discussion I guess -- I don't know which way this is going, but I would -- if I were asked to break a tie again, I would like to see the preliminary plat and CUP come with a better idea of how it interconnects with the application to the south of it for that connectivity. So, I just thought I would give you an indication of where I was going. Bird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 42 of 69 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: May I restate my motion? De Weerd: Yes. Bird: I would move we approve PP 05-043 and revise findings as stated. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second? Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. So, the motion is to approve Item 13 with a revision to -- Mr. Bird? Bird: Beg your pardon? De Weerd: To reflect-- Bird: To reflect both planning -- the preliminary plat. De Weerd: Okay. To reflect that the variance was not granted, is that-- Bird: That variance wasn't granted, so it don't have to be involved in here. De Weerd: Yeah. But the preliminary plat still shows an access. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: I think that the intent that the Council is seeking is that the staff bring back revised findings reflecting -- reflecting findings for this preliminary plat approval without the access, since the variance wasn't granted. De Weerd: Okay. Nary: I don't know if there was anything else that Mrs. Canning -- that we discussed on the plat. I don't believe so. Canning: No, sir. And no, Members of the Council and Mayor, I don't think there was and, actually, an access point is not necessarily shown on the plat. It's not like a public street. So, I'm not sure that we need to revise the findings. I mentioned earlier that the findings were prepared assuming that the variance would fail. So, I think we are okay with the current findings. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 43 of 69 Bird: Okay. Madam Mayor, I would change my motion, if the second would agree, to strike the revised, because she is right, that it don't show, if that's -- if the second agrees. Borton: Agreeable to the second. De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. De Weerd: Okay. Item 14. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move we approve CUP 05-049 with a change in the drive-up. I would prefer to go with the staff recommendation of 300 feet at drive-thrus and to show so in the findings, if it's not already in there. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve Item 14 with the correction or addition as stated. Mr. Bird, would that also be to clarify the hours of operation for that office buildings on the western portion? Bird: That's already stated -- De Weerd: Okay. Bird: -- Madam Mayor, that the offices on the west is from -- has got a time limit on it and the applicant agreed to that. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 16: Continued Public Hearing from February 7, 2006: VAR 05-027 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3.H requirements for access to State Highway 69 for Meridian Gateway by White-Leasure Development Company - 1601 South Meridian Road: Meridian City Council February 21,2006 Page 44 of 69 De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Item 16 has been requested to be continued. Do I have a motion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we continue VAR 05-027 to March 7th, 2006. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to continue Item 16. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 17: Item 18: Item 19: Public Hearing: AZ 05.045 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 91.085 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reflection RidÇle Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC - 4275 South Locust Grove Road: Public Hearing: PP 05-048 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 255 building lots and 26 other lots on 91.085 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Reflection RidÇle Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC - 4275 South Locust Grove Road: Public Hearing: CUP 05-046 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 255 single-family residential dwelling units with reductions to minimum lot sizes, frontage and setbacks. Also, the applicant is requesting a waiver of the standard block length in a proposed R-4 zone for Reflection RidÇle Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC - 4275 South Locust Grove Road: De Weerd: Okay. Items 17, 18 and 19 are AZ 05-045, PP 05-048, and CUP 05-046. I will open these three public hearings with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Reflection Ridge project. It's located on the east side of Locust Grove and south of Victory Road. As you see, it's kind of an unusual shaped parcel. It has very limited frontage and, then, kind of flares out or flags out towards the center of the project. This is an annexation -- application for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and conditional use approval for a planned development. This one has been kicking around for awhile. We still -- this is one of our last planned developments to come through. I think I say that every time and another one pops up. We have got to be running out of them soon. But this is a planned development application. The applicant is requesting zoning of the 91 acres to R-4 and the preliminary plat approval is for 255 build-able lots and, then, conditional use approval for a planned development with reductions to minimum lot size, minimum lot Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 45 of 69 street frontage, and maximum block length. The applicant is proposing a mix of -- I know everybody hates the terms, but these MEW lots that take access from the 24-foot private drive and, then, face the open space. And there are 18 of those lots and, then, the remainder of the lots, 237, are detached single family lots. Often on these planned developments the question comes up how does it relate to the new code. We don't have an exact analysis, but 152 of these 255 lots are 8,000 square feet or greater in size. Now, they look small here, because this is a large piece of property. One hundred three of the lots are below 8,000 square feet. But the average lot size in the proposed development is 8,785 square feet. So, the average size is over the 8,000 square foot minimum for the R-4. Without doing an exact analysis, staff is confident that everything on this property would meet the R-8 standards. It's just a question that we didn't go and figure out which one would exactly meet the R-4 standards. The applicant is proposing to have usable open space that exceeds 17 percent of the site. They will have a swimming pool, a clubhouse with changing rooms, and restrooms. A half basketball court, a sand volleyball court, two tot lots, gazebos, picnic areas, benches, ornamental entrance, streetlights, micro-paths, a regional pathway along the Ridenbaugh, which is on the north property line. And landscaped entrance boulevard corridor with street trees. And you will note as you come in this is a -- there is no houses taking access from this entry road until you get to this little roundabout. And that's where the access points start. The gross residential density is 2.8 dwelling units per acre. We do have some elevations here for you to look at. I think these are just typical of the street-loaded ones. These wouldn't be the MEW lots. The Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval at their -- well, they heard the item on October 20th, November 17th, and January 5th. At their January 5th Public Hearing they did recommend approval. Dave Koga, the applicant's representative, spoke in favor. No one spoke in opposition. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the Ridenbaugh Canal ownership and constructing a multi-use pathway near the canal and that pops up as an outstanding issue that I will get to in a moment. The street layout and traffic calming mechanisms and, then, emergency secondary access from Meridian Road via existing private lane future collector roadway and that's at this corner here. You can see it -- the road curves up and that would provide the emergency access on a private lane out to Meridian Road. Just to give you some references, we do have an application in the works that takes in approximately the northern half of the section and would provide access or cross-access into this residential subdivision, so we will have a -- we anticipate that we will have that interconnected street system fairly soon. The key Commission -- key changes that the Commission made to staffs initial recommendation were they did amend one of the site specific comments to reference the revised plat. So, nothing substantial. Regarding the outstanding issues, there was some question about the ownership of this Ridenbaugh and they were going to do some quiet deeds to trade property, so that the applicant could construct the pathway along the canal and staff did ask in the staff report that the applicant provide an update of their efforts regarding that tonight. So, I would hope they would be able to do that. And, then, one other out -- it's not really an outstanding issue, but as I mentioned, the property to the north and west, when that comes in we will have to look at this -- resolving this private lane issue. Staff is confident that this property has done what it needs to do to resolve that issue. There is plenty of right of way there to either just have the emergency Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 46 of 69 access or to transítion this into a public road access. So, they have addressed that issue and we will just have to make sure we address it with the next one as well. You do have findings for approval for all the applications and I will answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff at this time? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Koga: Madam Mayor, City Council Members, my name is David Koga with the Land Group at 462 East Shore Drive. First of all, I appreciate Anna, she kind of covered all the highlights that I was going to mention. Two things. First of all, as part of the design, because it's one of the questions that's always brought up in regards to neighbors. We did have a neighborhood meeting, even though it was not required. The only neighbors that are really directly related to this project is this portion right here and apologize that this drawing doesn't show it, but there are some existing one acre lots -- oh, thank you. One acre lots right here and a five acre lot right here. We designed this -- the entrance area on purpose -- go back to that one, Anna. That it's all open space with no homes to provide them a really good buffer for those -- for their existing livelihood that they have right now. We did also provide a stub out to the five acre lot to the south. In regards to the question in regards to the Ridenbaugh Canal, what happened is when we went through the survey and got our legal descriptions about the site, the boundary does, from the north, follows the center of the Ridenbaugh Canal to right here on this Z and, then, it jogged to the south of Ridenbaugh Canal. Through our search and with our surveyors we found out -- at first could not find out, really, who owned that land, so that's why at first we wanted to go through a quiet title. During the process we found out, in reality, through our search, that Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District does own the land to our title company. So, we changed it from a quiet title into a quitclaim and as of right now there is a meeting -- as a matter of fact, tonight with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District for their approval of this quitclaim and we are confident that this will be taken care of, meaning the developers will take over ownership from the center -- from the center of the Ridenbaugh Canal to the south, which will also include our ten foot wide regional pathway system. That was part of the outstanding question on that. Other than that, we did spend a lot of time with ACHD to comply with their requirements, stub outs, half -- we have -- we will provide half the cost for a bridge to the north. Also we put quite a lot of different traffic calming measurements throughout the traffic to take that into account. I think that's about it. If you have any questions. De Weerd: Council, questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none. Rountree: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 47 of 69 De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: What's your anticipated timing for the connection of Rumple Lane? Koga: We -- part of that will depend on how quick we start on the construction on this, number one. Not required to connect to there until we go for our -- pass our 50th lot on the development. But we are working -- there is two possibilities on the connections to Rumple. One is to work directly with the developers to the north and number two is to use the private Rumple Lane itself and in both cases we are working with both the ownerships and developers at the same time. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any other questions? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Two questions. The multi-use pathway that you have talked about on the Ridenbaugh Canal, will that be -- is that ten feet asphalt? Concrete? Koga: Yes, sir. Borton: Which is it? Asphalt or concrete? Koga: Asphalt. Borton: Okay. Koga: It's the typical where from the edge of the boundaries we have to have a five foot landscape and, then, a ten foot pathway -- asphalt pathway system. Borton: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone who would like to provide public testimony on Items 17, 18 or 19? Okay. Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Items 17, 18 and 19. Rountree: Second. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 48 of 69 De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to close the public hearings on Items 17 through 19. If the applicant has no further comments? Okay. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we approve Item 17, AZ 05-045, for Reflection Ridge Subdivision. Borton: Second. Bird: And approve the findings? Wardle: And to approve the findings, yes. De Weerd: Motion is to close -- I'm sorry. Approve Item 17. Rountree: Just one behind. De Weerd: Along with the findings. Is there any discussion? Other than smartaleck comments? Okay. Mr. Clerk. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we approve Item 18, PP 05-048 and to approve the findings. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve Item 18. I assume there is no discussion. Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Item 19. Mr. Wardle. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 49 of 69 Wardle: Madam Mayor, I'm -- as Anna says, moving to approve one of our final planned unit developments. I move that we approve Item 19, CUP 05-046, and to approve the findings. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 19. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: I guess that motion also included an assumption that we hope is correct. Canning: Yes. It's got to be right one of these days. Item 20: Public Hearing: AZ 05-053 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.87 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Windham Place Subdivision by Eagle Springs Investments, LLC - 2640 North Meridian Road: Item 21: Public Hearing: PP 05-055 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24 building lots and 3 common lots on 5.87 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Windham Place Subdivision by Eagle Springs Investments, LLC - 2640 North Meridian Road: De Weerd: Okay, Items 20 and 21 are Public Hearing AZ 05-053 and Public Hearing PP 05-055. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is the Windham Place project and it's located east of Meridian Road and south of Ustick Road, so it's this also kind of flag-shaped property with very limited frontage on Meridian Road. Just -- the property just south of it still shows as Ada County, but the Council recently voted to annex that property and approved Brynholt Subdivision on that property. So, this completes the city's urban fabric in this area. The applicant is proposing approval of 22 attached single family lots and, then, one detached single family lot for new construction and, then, one lot for the existing home and, then, three common lots. So, that the staff report inaccurately pointed out an error in the applicant's request, if that makes sense. So, there are 24 total build-able lots with this request. The gross residential density is 4.09 units per acre. And we do not have elevations for the proposed attached units and perhaps the applicant has some pictures that they can provide and I can put on the board. But we did not have any in our files. The street pattern does connect up to the existing street to the east. And, then, Brynholt Subdivision extended this public street connection and that's the one you see it connected to. The other Brynholt, then, loops these other stub streets going into that. So, what you see is the one stub street coming through Brynholt and connecting to the stub street from the east. Okay. The Commission did recommend approval of this at their January 5th hearing. Peter Harris Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 50 of 69 spoke in favor of the application and no one spoke in opposition. The key issues of the discussion by the Commission were the multi-use pathway along the North Slough. And you see it come down here and there was discussion to extend it. I thought we got a revised plan. This one's very difficult to read. But you can see here in this little sketch that the open space has been extended now to include the entire pathway area. No, that's not right. I'm sorry. I thought I had gotten revised plans in here and now I'm not sure I did. We may need to put it up on the board. I do have a revised eight and a half by eleven. I can show it to you. I can talk about it. Basically, what it does is it continues the open space to this whole area below the North Slough and it continues the pathway through that property there. So, the existing home lot would just go to the - - the North Slough would be their south boundary is, essentially, how that got modified by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Those were recommendations from staff, so there was -- going into the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, so there was no substantial changes, other than those recommended by staff. There are no outstanding issues to staff's knowledge and you do have findings for approval. And I will end the presentation there and if you would like me to get the overhead projector up so I can show you the revised landscape plan, I can do that. De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you want her to prepare that so you can see the revision? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: If she's comfortable with it, I don't need to see it. Canning: Okay. I am, ma'am. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? Harris: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Peter Harris, I spoke last time has the applicant, so kind of nice to get a voice in favor and be the applicant at the same time. De Weerd: If you will, please, state your address for -- Harris: Oh, address? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Harris: 6951 Duncan Lane, Boise. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 51 of 69 De Weerd: Thank you. Harris: And we have continued the path down through this area here and it ties into the path that's shown in the Brynholt Subdivision. It's all south of the South Slough, so the path will continue all the way up and connect up here to the road. And as Anna said, this is all common down here to continue on down to this area. The attached product here -- I guess we maybe missed that as far as getting elevations to you, but they are going to be similar to the elevations of the townhouses that are over here in the Highgate Subdivision that are in the front half of this project over here. It's a similar project as what we design these products here after. And, then, there is one single family home as she stated in this -- in this mix. Other than that, we are happy to see this section fill up and finish this. And if there is any questions? De Weerd: Council, questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Harris: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone wishing to provide testimony on Items 20 or 21? Okay. Seeing none, Council? Any additional information needed? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Move we close the Public Hearing AZ 05-053 and PP 05-055. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion to close the public hearings on 20 and 21. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Move we approve AZ 05-053, request for annexation and zoning for the Windham Place Subdivision. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 52 of 69 De Weerd: Okay. Item 20 is a motion to approve. If there is -- is there any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we approve PP 05-055, preliminary plat for Windham Place Subdivision. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve Item 21 with the revised plat. Do you have a date for that plat? Canning: No, Madam Mayor, I don't. It says -- it just states February 2000, but-- De Weerd: Okay. That's close enough. Is that a good enough date for Council? Bird: It is for me. De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion? Okay. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 22: Public Hearing: AZ 05-059 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.71 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Meridian Hiah School Ball Field and Technical Center by Hummel Architects, PLLC - 2090 West Pine Avenue: Item 23: Public Hearing: CUP 05-053 Request for Conditional Use Permit for ball field lighting adjoining a residential district for Meridian HiÇlh School Ball Field & Technical Center by Hummel Architects, PLLC - 2090 West Pine Avenue: Item 24: Public Hearing: VAR 06-003 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3A-11C for exposed light bulbs for athletic field lights for Meridian HiÇlh School Ball Fields by Hummel Architects - 1900 West Pine Avenue: De Weerd: Thank you. Items 22, 23 and 24 are public hearings AZ 05-059, CUP 05- 053 and V AR 06-003. I will open these three public hearings with staff comments. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 53 of 69 Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Meridian High School ball field and technical center project. I understand that most of you know where Meridian High School is. This project -- they are requesting to annex a portion of the property. Some of it had been previously annexed and some had not. So, the annexation and zoning is for 9.71 acres, but the conditional use is for 14.26 acres. And, then, the variance is for the ball fields. So, it's a little bit confusing that way. This is the site layout. The technical center is located on the southern end of the property and, then, you see three ball fields on the northern and northwestern portions of the property. The technical center -- the proposed square footage is 68,875 square feet and it is in one building. There wasn't much discussion about those, so I'm going to move on and discuss the variance application, which the Planning and Zoning Commission did not consider, but I wanted to explain a little bit about what that was. And that variance request is for exposed light bulbs on the proposed athletic field lighting fixtures. So, it would be the lights for all three fixtures or -- they may only be proposing one. The applicant will have to indicate which ones have the proposed lights. And I believe they have a demonstration -- or a model of the fixture for you that they can show you. I just wanted to provide a little background on the requirement for down-shielding that's in the Unified Development Code. It's really a -- kind of a two-fold purpose. The one is primarily to reduce glare to the surrounding property owners and I think you have heard from -- in other developments where they have had just ornamental street lights that cause the glare to surrounding properties and we have heard that frequently. So, that's part of the requirement for the down-shielding. The other benefit to down-shielding lights, which we don't discuss very much here, is just that it prevents from uplighting or it helps to keep the dark sky and I don't know if you have ever heard that term before, but it's people that like to look at the night sky, that like to look at all the stars and the constellations, get concerned with all the uplighting. So, those are kind of the two principles behind requiring downshielding. I think the school has addressed the glare issue to the best of their ability and can demonstrate that tonight. The variance -- staff does recognize that ball fields are a unique use and they are difficult to downshield completely. So, recognizing that this is an unusual and unique use, staff has recommended approval of the variance application. We do have elevations for the technical center. I think they go on for pages and pages. It's a long building. And this is just that if you don't understand that term uplighting, these were just some examples from the Unified Development Code that showed the difference between what's an uplit and what's not. And, basically, you just want to direct all that light to not be going upwards and you will see that all these fixtures shield that -- that bulb to keep it from lighting upward. The Commission heard this item on January 5th while they heard the annexation and zoning and conditional use on January 5th. In favor were Margie Kennedy, Wendell Bigham, and Don Nesbitt. In opposition no one. And commenting was Paul Geile and he is their neighbor to the west. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the design of the ball field lighting and the tiling of the Rutledge Canal and that's along this -- how does one describe that for the record? It would be the western portion of the site, the northwestern portion of the site is where the Rutledge Canal flows. And the impact of the proposal on adjacent properties. There was no major changes to staff's initial recommendation and the outstanding issues for City Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 54 of 69 Council, the applicant has requested that they not be required to tile the Rutledge Lateral, but we have -- we believe that the adjoining property owner Mr. Geile would like to see it tiled. So, that seems to be the only outstanding issue and you do have approval for all items before you. And I will answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff? Bird: Not at this time. Rountree: None right now. De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to comment? Please state your name and address for the record. Kennedy: Sure. My name is Margie Kennedy. At 2785 Bogus Basin Road. I'm with Hummell Architects, the architects working with Meridian School District on this project. And Madam Mayor and City Council Members, I'd just like to let you know that Meridian School is excited about this project. Meridian High hasn't seen any improvements for many years and this will definitely add something to their camp which they have been seeing all the other newer schools, so this is kind of exciting for them. Annexation will -- will be mainly for the athletic fields that Anna was talking about. We have the varsity baseball field and a softball field and a practice field, which are a desired amenity for the high school, since they have never had their own varsity baseball field, they have always had to go off campus, so it's for them. This is a pretty important thing for them. We only have the field lighting on the Varsity baseball field and the softball field. There is no lights proposed for the practice field right now. And just to kind of go into a little bit more explanation on these lights, you have probably all seen athletic sports field lights where they actually have nine -- they are kind of conical shaped, nine lights that are all kind of lined up together and they are -- like Anna said, they are -- these are the most state of the art light fixtures that we could find. Mountain View that was done not too long ago, has very similar lights, although since, then, technology has even come farther. So, the glare of these lights can direct -- they can prevent the glare from going to the sides onto adjacent properties. For example, if we ran a foot candle study and the middle of the field is what would be 50-foot candles and by the time the glare reaches the property lines we are down to like .1 foot candles. So, these lights do prevent the uplight and the sideways as well. We have also taken some great depth at designing the height of the light fixtures, which is important, because we want to make sure that the lights are up so that they are shining down and not too short so they are shining straight across the field and into the neighborhoods and the houses and stuff. So, we do have those designed at a specific height to work best for the baseball fields. We have also agreed that after a baseball game that this nine light fixture -- we would be able to turn off all of the lights but one for the maintenance and clean-up crews and whoever is left remaining there. So, we will be designing the fixtures to accommodate that. I know there has been some discussion on what time the lights go out and, you know, would love to say that 11 :00 o'clock the lights go out, but you know what happens if you're in overtime and innings, I mean a majority of the time they will be out by then, Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 55 of 69 but for someone to pull the plug at 11 :00, I think you might have a lot of unhappy spectators and stuff. But you have to remember these lights are a seasonal amenity, it's not something that we have on all the time, so just kind of keep that in mind when you're -- it's not something we are going to have everyday. The conditional use that we are applying for is for the technical center, which right now they have an existing auto body, auto technology, welding program right now that is award winning and they cannot take in as many students as they could fill the classes with, so this building will have those programs and it will fill up. So, they are all excited about that building being put up there. One of the last items that I think Anna touched on was tiling of the ditch there. The school district feels that we still have to provide the irrigation district access to that area. So, if we were to tile it, we really wouldn't pick up any additional land, because we would still have to allow that access by them and the fence would stay in the exact same place. And so we kind of feel like the public isn't gaining anything by spending another hundred thousand dollars to tile the ditch. And, then, the other comment was about public safety, are we changing it, are we -- can we preserve the safety that we have now and the answer is yes. I mean the ditch is there now, the ditch would continue to stay there now, so we don't feel like we are changing an existing condition at all. So, with that in mind, just like you to know that we are excited about the project and hope you can waive the requirement for tiling of the ditch. And I thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions of the applicant? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: On your lights on your baseball field, how tall are you going to go? Kennedy: Eighty feet. Bird: Eighty feet. How many poles are you going to have around your -- Kennedy: The varsity field has two on the curve area and two on the straight sides and the same is for the softball. So, they have four total. Bird: Four light standards? The softball field won't be eighty feet, will they? Kennedy: No, they are a little bit lower, but not much lower, because, still, we have got to -- Bird: Do you know right offhand -- or maybe Wendell does -- what's the height on the football field lights? I don't -- they are not as high as baseball. Football don't have to be as high. Kennedy: And, you know, those lights are so antiquated, those are just not even something to compare these new lights to. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 56 of 69 De Weerd: Any other questions from Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: What's the recommended pipe size for tiling the ditch, do we know? Grady: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, normally anything over 48 inches we will waive that requirement. That's just been a rule of thumb. And I'm not sure what the requirement is on this. Kennedy: Well, we just tiled another portion and it was 36. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions, Council? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Mrs. Kennedy, can you show me out here with the pointer what -- I know a portion of it's going to be tiled. Kennedy: Uh-huh. Borton: What's the portion that you're referencing that wouldn't be? Kennedy: Starting from right here. Borton: Right. Kennedy: I think it's daylighted. It would not be tiled up to here. Which right now this is Mr. Geile's land. This new acreage that we are annexing is actually kind of landlocked there, which makes it kind of nice for the school district to use. And up here there is another canal and, then, up a little higher here is some residential. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: Was there some discussion I think at P&Z to try to show the expense of -- Kennedy: Yes. We have approached the owner in previous discussions with them and they have declined. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 57 of 69 Borton: Is that still the district's offer? Kennedy: I believe so. De Weerd: Any other questions? I guess my question would be, then, are you -- are you providing fencing, then, if you leave the ditch open? Kennedy: Yes. Our entire site has a six foot chain link fence around it. De Weerd: So, you will do it property side of that ditch? Kennedy: It would be on our side of the ditch. And, actually, we are even providing for irrigation district people to access the canal from our side as well. So, it would be the canal, their 18 feet, and, then, the fence. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Canning: Members of the Council, I was under the impression that the applicant would bring -- would be bringing photometrics and copies of what those light fixtures look like, so we could add them to the record and I have not seen them. Hopefully, you have -- Kennedy: I do have an eight and a half by eleven of this and I, actually, have a blow up of the photometrics, if you want me to show it. Canning: And, Madam Mayor, I don't know if it's necessary to look at them, I just wanted to make sure that we had them in the record, so that we had something to evaluate when they came in for their certificate of zoning compliance application, so that's -- De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. If you could submit that to the clerk, we'd appreciate that. Kennedy: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further questions -- thank you. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony? If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Geile: My name is Thomas Geile and I live at 2150 West Pine and I am the property owner west of this project. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Tom. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 58 of 69 Geile: And I just want to read something and it doesn't have the mechanics of this project, but it has something to do with what has happened to my integrity, I believe, that was stated by some people of the school. In the previous testimony from the Planning and Zoning meeting of January 5, 2006, Mr. Bigham expressed some dissatisfaction with my handling of two items. From his remarks I inferred that I felt he felt that I had declined several offers and by doing so was being a difficult neighbor to this development. Item one. The assessment of 20 feet and, then, ten feet by approximately 200 feet of my property for the ditch rider to get from their property to the new weir box. I declined this offer because it would not benefit my property and no compensation was ever offered. In the minutes of this meeting Marge Kennedy of Hummell Architects noted that they had found another route on school property. I was disappointed that Mr. Bigham would bring this up after the route had been established. I felt that this made me look like I was being a difficult neighbor to this project. Item two. Tiling of the Rutledge Canal also noted in the P&Z meeting of January 5. The school says that the access road with a ditch rider needs to be kept open. The access road is on my side of the canal and will not be closed and it's always been on my side of the canal. Mr. Bigham feels that my turning down of the offer to pay for half of the tiling of the canal is not being cooperative. At the time this offer was made, my understanding of city code was that the developing party is to tile the canal. My son personally witnessed a student push another student into the canal. I have seen many students -- other children play in this canal. Many students have hidden in the canal to smoke or drink. I should not be expected to share the increased liability that Meridian High School is bringing to this area. I was here years before the school was built and have endured the noise, the traffic, and literally hundreds of trespassers. One day 20 arrows were retrieved from my field. I have picked up several dozen softballs and baseballs from my property. Who knows how many golf balls are currently in my field. At one time I stopped an entire cross-country team of runners, coach included, after they had passed a no trespassing sign and climbed over a locked chained gate. As far as I'm concerned, I have not requested anything from this applicant beyond the existing requirements. I'm asking only that my and surrounding neighbors interests be balanced against legitimate needs of the school. I believe that my requests are reasonable, consistent with city code. I would expect this applicant to be treated as any other applicant. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Geile: Any questions? De Weerd: Council, any questions? Thank you, sir. Rountree: Well, wait a minute, Madam Mayor. I do have a question. De Weerd: I'm sorry. Mr. Geile. Geile: Excuse me. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 59 of 69 Rountree: I do looking at my notes. You indicated that the irrigation access road is on your side of the canal. Geile: Yes. I am on the south side of the canal and there is 900 feet from where the corner right there goes out and to the end of the property. There is 900 feet there. And there is a ditch rider road that has always been on my side of the canal, always there. So, the school shouldn't be concerned. Rountree: How is that accessed? Geile: There is a gate from the cul-de-sac right at the very northwest corner of this project. Rountree: Coming out of the sub? Geile: In Haven Cove Five. Rountree: Okay. Geile: And, then, it comes down and, then, went across where the new ball field is going to be -- it's now tiled. And they wanted an access from where the -- can we put up another photo there. That they wanted access on my property about 250 feet from this corner down to here, because they talked about bringing a road into here where this road is, there is a road in here some place. I guess that's it. And, then, they wanted the access to there. And, of course, I declined, because it was no benefit to me. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Geile. Any other questions? Okay. Is there anymore testimony? P. Geile: My name is Paul Geile. I live at 4717 Willow Lane in Boise. Idaho. And I wanted to make sure everyone got a letter that I sent in advance outlining a couple of items that were relative to this project. If I can cover them again real quickly. On the ball field variance, I think it's reasonable the variance be issued for the exposed bulk portion of that. I want some good reassurance that the design -- the final design has every other effort being made to limit the spillage onto my property. When I spoke to Josh Wilson, he gave me the impression that a pretty good faith effort is being made to do that, but I kind of would like to hear that either in writing or from the Council. And on the same subject as lighting, Boise has run for many years with a lights out policy at 11 :00 and I spoke two days ago with the head of Boise parks and asked them how difficult that is to live with and his response was that it's -- it's a self-imposed limitation and if you're right in the middle of a pop fly, those lights will go out and every player understands that. They have had tournament games that have been called for the amount of time and that's the way they choose to do it, because that's what respects the wishes of the neighbors. On the tiling of the Rutledge Canal, outlined in that letter are a Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 60 of 69 fair amount of safety issues that it just -- it's an odd place to get a waiver for tiling a canal. My understanding is that getting a waiver of this kind is a relatively rare event and this is a particularly difficult place. Like my dad has said, we have seen many many many many trespassers down this ditch. I, myself, have disposed of probably a hundred softballs that we have picked up from our property. And since Meridian in their testimony in previous meetings has indicated that public will be allowed access to this area on occasion -- the high school kids, a ball goes over the fence, they are willing to let it go, but I think, you know, when the church group shows up and the balls are eight or ten bucks apiece, they may be very tempted to go after them. And in this -- in this letter that I sent to you earlier, that it does create a very awkward area that if the fence is six foot slatted as promised by the applicant, it will create an area that is very difficult to secure and very difficult to respond to an emergency if there is one and the tiling of the Rutledge, it -- I got an estimate for two foot pipe delivered to our house, 21 bucks a foot. And had this project been planned properly to the point where Nampa-Meridian would have gone ahead and done the labor and we would have considered splitting half the cost, but we were never approached with any cost figure on splitting this canal and it is my understanding that the developing party tiles the ditch and if you have any questions as a result of that letter, I will be glad to take them. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none, Madam Mayor. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Mr. Geile, is it still, then, your offer or potential offer to split that cost? Geile: If -- I can't speak to my father's ability to go ahead and do that. My recommendation to him was if -- if at some point the city required us to split the cost, I would split half the cost of the materials only, which is the deal that Wendell could have gotten from Nampa-Meridian had he planned this ahead of time and done this from the beginning of the project. I don't know that we should have to split it at all and I would be amazed if the Council allowed a waiver for an open ditch with 800, 900 feet of new frontage up next to a public school. But that's, obviously, your option. In speaking around to other developers and even to your staff, I haven't found anybody that can remember a waiver being granted of that nature and if the decision gets made now in one piece on approval of these things, is -- the waiver is part of the annexation or is it part of the zoning or is it part of the CUP? Rountree: It's a variance. De Weerd: It is the variance. P. Geile: Well, the variance -- a variance I thought was -- Meridian City Council February 21,2006 Page 61 of 69 De Weerd: It is part of the variance. P. Geile: Part of the variance. So, the variance has the lights and the ditch? Bird: No. Canning: Madam Mayor, no, the variance is just for the ball field. City Council -- it's just a request that the applicant can make and the City Council can grant. De Weerd: Okay. So, no, it is not part of the variance, it is part of the application. P. Geile: Okay. So, as I read the code, if it was -- it was very large requiring four feet or larger, if it was part of a water feature or if they could get a special dispensation from you they would not have to tile that ditch. Again, my understanding is that would be an extraordinarily rare event. You can do that, but in looking at the safety hazards that are going to be present at that place, it would be -- it would be a very unusual thing. And the other half of that is if -- if by granting the waiver you indicate that a fence is adequate protection for the public for an open ditch, when our property comes to be developed one, two -- ten years from now, can we be afforded that same waiver. Because the position we don't want to be in is having you grant a waiver now, having us develop in two years and, then, you're telling us that the ditch has to be covered at our entire expense. So, as a general rule from what I have heard, you develop, you tile the ditch. And there is public money involved, but we didn't choose to be neighbors to the public and we were not responsible for the traditional rule of having to pipe the ditch next to your development. Any other questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. P. Geile: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further testimony? Bigham: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Wendell Bigham, 911 Meridian Road, Meridian, Idaho, representing Joint School District No.2. To briefly address the issues and, then, we will go right to the tiling. On the lighting for the ball fields, we are trying our best to do the state of the art lighting that provides the minimum amount of cut off and the maximum amount of lighting on the play fields, so we -- as we have told Planning and Zoning staff, we believe we are doing all we can on the lighting. As we all know, the trade-off is those really high poles to get the lights down. The discussion about the lights out at 11 :00 o'clock. I think the previous testimony from Don Nesbitt, principal at Meridian High School at the Planning and Zoning meeting indicated that on a good day the majority of the day's games are over by 10:00 o'clock at night. Rarely do they go on beyond 11 :00, but, generally, there are instances where they do go on beyond 11 :00 Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 62 of 69 o'clock. Our policy would be to work with the neighborhood, but we would like to not have to call the game in its third overtime just because the lights needed to go out on a seasonal event. Mr. Geile's comments about Boise parks is certainly true, Boise parks does have a lights out at 11 :00 o'clock. It is a parks and recreation department, not a sanctioned high school activity. So, we would prefer to be able to work with the neighborhood and I'm sure whatever concerns that Mr. Geile has that he wants to bring to us regarding lighting will only be exacerbated many times over when he does sell and/or develops his property. We will have many more neighbors than just one. So, it will be incumbent upon us to be a good neighbor. The safety issues that Mr. Geile was worried about, the existing campus used to have the open canal right here. Okay. Somewhere right through here. More or less right there. This part of the campus was an existing softball, it was fenced off with a chain link fence by an open ditch. We have that in a number of spots throughout the area. Things that we have tried to do, in no particular order of the discussions tonight, we originally tried to get a walking path on our property over to here to get the kids to walk to the school without coming down the canal right of way through Mr. Geile's property. We have been unsuccessful in finding an opening that we can get through down there. Should we ever find a way to get through to that subdivision, we will be proposing to put a path in here. Conversely, there may be another solution. Mr. Geile's comment about the ditch rider's right of way -- typically they come in this way and, then, they have historically gone down his private drive to the road. We have had -- we have a roadway through here that was a canal right of way, but I don't think anyone's been down this ditch more than maybe once or twice a year. It's a very low traveled area, so -- do you want me to continue or cut it off? De Weerd: Council? Bird: Let's hear it. De Weerd: Okay. Bigham: Thank you, Madam Mayor. We first approached Mr. Geile to see if he would be interested in having the ditch rider be able to come out and go down his private drive. That was declined. We talked about bringing our access road in through here. The next offer to him was that we split it ten foot on each side of the property line for the ditch rider's access. He declined that. So, we now have a turnaround here and we actually have a fire road coming clear back here now. So, we are able to get through a series of gates, the ditch rider, out back to this place so he can -- if he chooses to go through our property. So, we got that resolved. The fencing issue along here, it is a six foot high chain link fence, if my memory is any good. The slats are in the fence at the Geiles family request. If the site vision into there is problematic, we will gladly take the slats out of the fence. But that condition exists in a number of places. The tiling of the Rutledge Lateral -- understand the code. I also put on, if you will, just briefly, the taxpayer's hat that I have to wear. Because the property line essentially runs down the center of the irrigation ditch, the first day and the first pays philosophy is a little bit unfair. So, at the first neighborhood open house meeting suggested to the Geiles family that they entertain partnering with us to tile the ditch and at that time I didn't know how Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 63 of 69 much it would cost and we were going to approach Nampa-Meridian to do the tiling. They provide the labor and equipment for nothing. That was declined. I think my offer was about 25 cents on the dollar. This portion of the ditch is tiled. We are -- excuse me -- out about 60,000 dollars in material. Nampa-Meridian is providing the labor. So, if material costs of this chunk of 60 inch line -- or 36 inch line is 60,000 dollars, this is, what, 75,000 dollars worth of materials to go down through here. What we would offer is, yet today, we would be willing to share the cost of tiling that ditch on a 50-50 basis, either by lump sum bid or by partnering with Nampa-Meridian. So, Mr. Geile's comment that we would be willing to pay for half of the pipe would be a legitimate offer if we can get Nampa-Meridian to do it this time next year, in the wintertime. If not, I still would prefer to leave the ditch open. We are willing to have a condition placed upon this that when the development of that property comes up, that we have an obligation to share 50-50 in the tiling of that ditch. We truly believe we have an obligation, but we do not feel it is right that we bear the full obligation, because this fence, whether it's tiled or not, is in the same line. It's on the edge of the canal company right of way. So, by tiling the ditch we get no enjoyment of that investment for the taxpayers. It is simply 18 feet of open space and a tiled ditch, which this developer, when they develop this, will be their setbacks or some kind of a greenbelt walking path or something. So, that's kind of where we are on the tiling of the Rutledge Lateral. We are trying to be neighborly. It is a big expense and we would prefer to work with the Geiles or whoever they sell the land to, so that we can step up and meet at least half of the taxpayers obligations. And I think with that I would simply stand for questions if you have any. De Weerd: Council, questions? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Do you have any indication from the Boise School District with their high school locations, whether or not they have any restrictions on the use of lights in their facilities? Bigham: Madam Mayor, Councilman, not specifically. Up to the year 2000 I worked for the Boise School District and there was no restrictions. That doesn't mean that there aren't any. I honestly don't know. Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: Do you have restrictions on any of your other fields for the lights? Bigham: Madam Mayor, not to my knowledge. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? Borton: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 64 of 69 De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Mr. Bigham, this open canal on the northern boundary -- Bigham: Madam Mayor, Commissioner Borton, you're talking along here? Borton: Right. Bigham: Yeah. It's a drain ditch. Bird: It's a drain ditch. Yeah. Borton: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? Any questions, Council? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I got one question. Maybe I should ask Mr. Geile, but does he still irrigate out of the Rutledge? No. No. I think Wendell can answer that. Bigham: Madam Mayor, Commissioner Bird, yes, we have changed the Geile's property point of diversion that used to be up here and ran through in an open ditch, we are building a new diversion structure here for the Geile's water right. Bird: So, they still flood irrigate out of that? Bigham: Still flood out of there. Bird: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further questions from Council -- thank you. Bigham: Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Bird, did you say you had a question for Mr. Geile? Bird: He just answered, but if he'd like to come up for the record, I'd appreciate it. One of the two. De Weerd: If you will restate your name for the record. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 65 of 69 P. Geile: My name is Paul Geile, I live at 21 -- excuse me. That's my dad's address. 4717 Willow Lane in Boise. And it is correct that our original point to get water was in this location. That weir box has been changed and our new location to get water will be right there. At this time we run it to a pump approximately there and it's in gated pipe for the entire acreage. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird? Bird: That answered my question. De Weerd: Okay. P. Geile: Any other questions? De Weerd: No. Thank you. Bird: Thank you. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I do have one question for Mr. Geile, Senior. Despite what mayor may not have happened or been discussed or not discussed in prior meetings, at least what we hear today -- what I hear is a renewed or a new effort and gesture by the school district to share an expense that -- now that we now have a figure of what that might be, I'm just curious if you have got an official response now, regardless of whether it was proposed before or not, whether you're willing to share that expense on the material, assuming Nampa-Meridian Irrigation can do the labor next winter. Geile: I believe my son has checked the price of the pipe and that was around 18,000 dollars total delivered to the site for the same size pipe that is delivered now. So, the cost is not evidently -- for the pipe is not what they had -- the school has said it is. Not in the 100,000 or 75,000 dollars. The total cost of the pipe to this site is 18,000 dollars. So, if the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District would do that, as they have done for this short piece, it would cost about 8,000, 9,000 dollars -- say 10,000 dollars each. Borton: I thought that -- I thought -- Madam Mayor? I thought that the other pipe was 36 inches and the pipe that your son is referencing -- Geile: I do not know exactly what it is, but it appears to be about 30, maybe 36, but whatever that is, the same size pipe that they delivered to that location now. Borton: Is the disagreement, then, not that you're both willing to share, but as to what that expense would be? Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 66 of 69 Geile: At sometime I guess I would be interested in sharing, but as I see it, the city code, without -- with the waiver, would allow them just a fence for protection against that canal. Actually, I would be -- I would want the same consideration if I develop next week or two or three years, that a fence on my side of the property would be protection for the canal. So, I see -- whatever you decide on the waiver is yours, but I see that what your code has said is tile the canal. So, whatever you -- whatever you have to decide I guess I'll live with. Borton: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Borton: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Geiles. Okay. Any final comment? Council, any additional information needed? Okay. What would you like to do? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I guess not hearing nobody else wants to speak up in the Public Hearing and I guess we have all got what we need, so I move we close the public hearings for AZ 05- 059, CUP 05-053 and VAR 06-003. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the public hearings on Item 22 through 24. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Council, if there is no discussion, do I have a motion? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we approve AZ 05-059, request for annexation and zoning for the Meridian High School ball field and technical center. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion is to approve Item 22. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 67 of 69 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Item 23. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we approve CUP 05-053, for the Conditional Use Permit of the ball field lighting, Meridian High School ball field. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 23. Do I have a second? Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: It would be -- yeah, this -- the tile is in the CUP. So, you want to -- do you want to do what the staff recommended or -- or is the motion to leave it open? Borton: I'll clarify the motion. Bird: Okay. Borton: The motion does not provide for the waiver of tiling the Rutledge Canal on CUP 05-053. Rountree: Second agrees. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: So, in other words, they got to tile it? Borton: Correct. Bird: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Item 23, the motion is to approve. Canning: Madam Mayor, staff didn't hear the with or without part. Was that -- all we heard was with or without and we are not sure which one you stated. .....- Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 68 of 69 De Weerd: With tilting. Canning: With tiling. Borton: Without the waiver. Canning: Okay. De Weerd: With tiling, without the waiver. Okay. Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Item 24. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we approve 06-003, request for variance for exposed light bulbs for the athletic fields -- ball fields for Meridian High School. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 24. Is there any discussion? Borton: And to include staff comments and requirements to have photos something something provided to you as part of it. Canning: She's going to hand the clerk those right now. Borton: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. That is the conclusion of our agenda. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Bird: So moved. ..--- Meridian City Council February 21, 2006 Page 69 of 69 Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:38 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) J /~ ()6 DATE APPROVED ATTESTED:¿~~~/~ WILLIAM G. BERG JR ,CIT CLERK