Loading...
April 6, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6. 2006 Page 53 of 136 Zaremba: Okay. After -- let's see. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-006 and PP 06-005, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 2, 2006, with the following modifications: In Exhibit B, under site specific requirements, I would add a paragraph 1.2.12, asking that the applicant provide cross-access among their own lots. I would -- which I believe they have already agreed to. I would add a paragraph 1.2.13, asking that the applicant provide signage that indicates there is an exit towards West Everest Lane somehow, which I believe they have also agreed to. And I would add a paragraph 1.2.14, that they will provide evidence of a cross-access agreement to use West Everest Lane, I believe it is, and provide evidence of that to staff by ten days before the City Council hearing. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-006 and PP 06-005, include all staff comments, with -- as amended by verbal discussion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Let's do that again. Zaremba: I missed that. Borup: All ayes. Rohm: Let's do that again. Zaremba: Sorry. Rohm: All those in favor say aye. Thank you. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: AZ 06-004 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 358.57 acres from RR to R-2 (66.02 acres), R-8 (167.02 acres), R-15 (79.82 acres), C-N (17.26 acres) and C-C (28.45 acres) for The Tree Farm by Treehaven, LLC - north side of Chinden Boulevard on both sides of Black Cat Road; west of Spurwing Subdivision: 1f " Rohm: Pay attention. All right. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-004 related to the Tree Farm and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This item is also a continued item. I will not go through the whole description of the project again, but it is approximately 358 acres on the north side of Chinden. Mixed use development. It is just an annexation application. It was continued for, really, two specific reasons. There Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6. 2006 Page 54 of 136 were two issues that were brought up at the last hearing. The first there was several issues in a letter from counsel representing the Rabehls who own this four or five acre outparcel. That was one of the issues is what is the boundary of that parcel. As I mentioned, their counsel also brought up some other issues. Our legal staff, as well as Tree Haven's legal counsel, has addressed those issues in a subsequent letter that should be part of the packet this evening. The second real issue is Basco Lane and getting a future public street down across the Phyllis Canal to the Aldape property on the north side of the Phyllis Canal. More specifically, who owns the property -- see if I have a good map up here -- in question. The applicant has broken this, really, down into five different segments for purposes of explaining who owns these areas or what they have found out since the last hearing. I also followed that up with a phone call to the Ada County assessor's office. I did find out that all of those areas, actually, the bill -- the tax bill is being sent to MDC's office on Chinden, I believe it was, is their -- the location of their headquarters or their office. I don't know who has been paying it, but at least the Ada County assessor seems to think that they own all of that area. There were several changes in the staff report. Most of them dealt with cleaning up some of the things we talked about before in the memo. A couple of them are new items or modified even further items, now that this new information has been presented. There still is a question of who owns parcel four, Tree Haven or MDC or the previous owner. They are not all the same, but they all do -- they have agreed -- the applicant has agreed to include all of the parcels one, two, three and five within the annexation application, as it does appear that they own those areas. Now, that gives you -- that gets you right to the top of bank of the Phyllis Canal, which is owned, it appears, in fee simple, by the irrigation district and, then, again on the north side of that would be the Aldape property. So, that's kind of up to speed on what I have found out. I did have a chance to meet with both the applicant and the owners of the TECO One parcel that are on either side of the existing Basco Lane, as well as a representative from the Aldape family, last week, I believe it was, maybe even the first part of this week. I can't remember. They are all running together. But, anyway, did have a chance to meet with them. There were a couple of things in the staff report that I am really asking you to make a decision on. I have not formulated a decision on who should be responsible for construction of a road to the north. It's a little bit different situation than the typical stub streets that are a pretty common requirement of developments. In this case what the subject applicant owns is on a steep slope and you really can't build a road, you know, right on the edge of a mountain side. However, the TECO One properties don't touch that. So, there is a little bit of who should be responsible to get access to the Aldape property. In my mind that is still an outstanding issue. Probably, really, the only outstanding issue. The applicant did submit a letter and they have another clarification in the staff report -- staff report to condition 16. It's, really, more of a clarification. They are willing to dedicate the additional right of way that -- the width of that parcel three does go down to about 40 feet -- kind of necks down to 40 feet in here. They have agreed to turn that over to -- excuse me -- ACHD or TECO One when it's ready to become a street and only for that purpose, to be a street to go down -- down the hill and back down towards the river to the Aldape property. I thought that that's pretty much how the condition is worded. I'll let you look at that letter that was just dated yesterday from the applicant. That's the only thing in here that I see that they did clarify, I guess, Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 55 of 136 that they are working with the Anderson and Thomas parties on relinquishing that easement that -- you may remember they have this -- I think it was 2001, this easement that was recorded over Basco Lane saying the people that are using it now can continue to use it, but we reserve the right to limit its future use as a public street and it gave these two individuals, I believe they are, the ability to stop any public -- that from becoming a public street in the future. So, it says they are working with them on that. And, again, they are agreeing to bring in the Jayker parcels that are five, one, three and two into the annexation application, so there aren't any county outparcels. We are annexing everything it appears that MDC/Jayker/Tree Haven owns. So, everyone is a party to that. I think those are probably the biggest things that are still outstanding. I did also receive just at the break from White Peterson some additional information on the property dispute on the Rabehls -- back to the Rabehls for just one second. On the Rabehls property. I haven't had a chance to fully go through it. It looks like there was a record of survey that was recorded back in the day anyways. But that is something that the deed that the applicant has provided is usually -- in fact, always what we go off when we annex properties. If there is a dispute and it turns out that we have annexed something that we shouldn't have, we can sure go back and re-record an ordinance after that's been decided and the property line gets figured out exactly where it is legally and who owns what, we can sure go back and re-record the ordinance and get it squared away. But, again, the applicant has provided deeds. This is -- there is new information, but I did want you to know that I did receive this and I believe Mr. Nary has a copy as well yesterday from White Peterson. With that I think I will stand for any questions, if you have any, and the other refreshers, but that's, really, where we ended up last time was how do we get an access and who is responsible north and kind of addressing some of those. Commissioner Rohm, I think, wasn't comfortable with just getting a 22 page or 20 some page letter from an attorney and not having a chance to fully review those provisions in there. So, I believe that's why it was continued last time. But some, if not most of those, have been addressed and I will stop talking and stand for questions. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I would comment that I also appreciated the opportunity to read several different large documents that we got at the last minute and to have that opportunity to consider them. Let me ask staff one question, if I may. There was another subject and it's addressed on page 14, paragraph 13. This is elements that would be in the development agreement and there is an added last sentence that says note if any existing structures. I'm assuming that that's the applicant's request not to have to move the red barn, which currently exists and is a nice attractive building and it's still a useful building, but might infringe on a buffer to Chinden. Rather than say any existing structures and, essentially, any landscape buffer, can we be more specific? I would say if the existing red barn encroaches -- I'd like to be -- I agree with them on the red barn, but I'd rather not just say anything they find out there that encroaches on the landscape buffer can remain. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 56 of 136 Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I believe that's the intent. However, there may be other structures that they need to keep that mayor may not encroach into the landscape buffer on Chinden. You may ask them that question, if that clarification works for them or not. I'm not sure if anything comes up close to the road or not. I have not studied this site in depth and don't remember if there are any other structures. That sure makes sense if this is the only one we are talking about or even to clarify along Chinden or something. Zaremba: If there are others. Hood: Yeah. And define those. I think that's a great point, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Anything else? Zaremba: Not at the moment. I need to hear the public testimony. I probably will have more discussion. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please? O'Neal: Do you have one of the pointers? Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Derrick O'Neal representing Tree Haven, LLC, tonight. My address is 2242 East Riverwalk Drive, Boise. I'm going to let the presentation load, I guess. Borup: Mr. Chairman, while that's happening, I -- maybe just Mr. -- and I don't know about how the other Commissioners feel, but since we have already had a hearing, the main thing I would be interested in is the -- is the access to the north, the road -- the stub street and potential -- I think most of the other questions have probably been answered, but that's one of the main things I'm interested in to -- O'Neal: I'll try to focus on that. I think I can go through it pretty quickly of the things that we thought you wanted us to focus on. So, the first issue was the Rabehl outparcel. If you can go to slide one. Borup: Right. Yeah. And that was the other one. O'Neal: And that is this parcel right here. There has been a discussion about the appropriate boundary and property there and I think Caleb's remarks reflect where we are on that, is that we have taken the warranty deed and what's of record and that's what we have used for this application. That's what our legal counsel has advised us to do and I believe that the city attorney could comment on that as well. As it relates to the second issue that was brought up with the Rabehls, there was a 23 page letter that was given to the Commission prior to the last hearing. We have taken the opportunity in the time that we had to review that. We have presented a response to you in packet from Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 57 of 136 our legal counsel and I believe the city attorney has also reviewed that. So, those are two issues with the Rabehls. Lastly, we received yesterday another letter from the Rabehl's attorney Mr. Gigray. We have had a chance to review that and a couple of comments. They mentioned that they would be willing to withdraw their complaint if we agreed to some specific conditions and restrictions on the annexation and rezone. We have reviewed it, we feel we cannot agree to the requests as they may be too restrictive to ours and potentially the city's flexibility with the property's most appropriate use in the future. And that's where we are on that. There was a condition there that stated they would like to have the right to farm condition and I don't think that's our choice, I think that's a -- that's something that needs to be put in. We are totally comfortable with that. It can be put on the plat or where ever. That's not really our choice. We are comfortable with that. Lastly, I think it is important that we have been trying to work with the Rabehls and I believe they have been trying to work with us. I think there is just a difference of opinion. They have offered to sell the property to us. However, they have offered to do that for 1.5 million dollars, which is about 375,000 dollars an acre or 300,000 dollars an acre, and we just can't economically make that work. It's not feasible. Subsequent to that they have decided to put the property on the market and it is currently listed for sale for 1.5 million dollars. So, that's where we believe we are with the Rabehl issue. As it relates to Basco Lane and the surrounding property ownership, again, this is the other outparcel, the TECO One parcel and, then, below the rim is the Aldape property. And the question -- the property in question is what we refer to as the gulch. And you might go to the next slide. And this probably isn't the best description, but we are trying to help you visualize this. The red line is, actually, the defining top of the slope of what we define as the gulch. And this is going from Chinden Boulevard across over to the Aldape property. There currently is -- if you look in that blue line, that's a current road that they use to access the property. This property here is what we call the North Gulch and that's parcel four and what was referred to in your materials that we will refer to in a second, parcel three, I'm sorry, and, then, this is parcel four. Those were some of the properties that were in question. And, then, you can see the grove of trees and that's how that works. So, you go to the next -- not the next one, Jason, but the following one. Two slides from here. Next -- just leave it there for a second. This is also showing the topography. These are two foot contours, so you can see why it is defined as a gulch and why the road is there. That is the only place that a road can really go. And, then, you can see this other property, which was in discussion on the map, but it didn't show. The topography is very steep and this was the parcel that was requested to be researched. So, that's a very steep slope between the canal and the TECO One property. You can go to the next parcel. So, to take that a little bit further -- and this explains it. We have done a lot of legal research, done a lot of title research and I think we -- we have agreed on a few things with TECO One and Ewings that, in fact, Jayker Tree Farm owns parcel five and one and MDC owns two and three up to right here. We have agreed, as Caleb stated, to include those in our application. Tree Haven, LLC, does not own it, but we have got MDC and Jayker Tree Farm to agree to do that. Parcel four we could spend the rest of the night talking about. That actually goes to the early 1900s when three gentlemen sat down and went through a process of determining who should get what side of the gulch and it is not clear. Our legal counsel -- our title company won't insure that Jayker or MDC has ownership to Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 58 of 136 that. We are not comfortable that we can claim ownership to that and I believe the TECO One folks have done their research and they concur with that. So, that's where the ownership is on number four. We have agreed, however, to take whatever action necessary, as outlined in our letter dated April 4th, to allow any property controlled by MDC or Jayker to be used for right of way for access down to the Aldape property. If there is any property necessary to do that, we have agreed to do that. And it can be dedicated to them or TECO to a collector road status. We have also agreed -- next slide. We have also agreed -- and this isn't the best slide, but this is the access from Chinden. This road here is designed as a full collector to our functional boundary right here, which is right before it goes down to the gulch. We have agreed to provide a fully serviced collector road, fully landscaped, all utilities, sewer, water, et cetera, including signalization at the Chinden Boulevard to this point. So, that would be fully serviceable to the TECO One property and to the gulch area. And our estimate -- current estimate that's about 3,100 feet and that's a two million dollar -- plus or minus dollar cost to us. So, we believe we are providing significant access and improved access there. Caleb was also correct in the statement that -- that we have not agreed and is reflected appropriately in the staff report, we have not agreed that we feel that it should be our responsibility to build the road from here to here. Tree Haven, LLC, does not own that property. We believe we are to our functional boundary, which is where the project starts and stops. We are delivering a full service collection. So, that's one thing we have not agreed on. That really is the highlight of those two issues. I did have some clarifications that were outlined by Caleb. Just an update for you. The infamous Anderson-Thomas agreement, we do have a draft of an agreement for that. That's in process right now. We have agreed to stipulate that we will be happy not to have a final plat recorded until that is done. We are not going to wait that long, we are in process with it, but things take time and we are in that process. But don't record a plat unless that's done and I think it takes care of that issue. And then -- Zaremba: Can you specify what the new agreement is likely to say? O'Neal: Yeah. I would -- it would relinquish that easement to MDC and the restriction there. So, it wouldn't restrict access down there. And I think the other ones I'll just go through them, because I think we need to clarify them. But condition 12 we would just like to have clarified that we think Basco Lane is the most logical place to get down below the rim for various reasons and there is a condition that states that if that doesn't work, it needs to move to the western boundary of the TECO property. We are not comfortable with that for various reasons, not to say the least which is there is over a 50 foot embankment that would have to be cut through to get down there. We just want to say that we will do that. The condition states that that -- if Basco Lane doesn't happen, that would be there. As long as it says that Basco Lane will unreasonably be withheld by other parties or the highway district, we are totally comfortable with that. And, then, lastly, a clarification. It said that we would -- on condition 16 we would quitclaim any right we have to properties at TECO One. We are happy to do that, if in the event that it's used for public right of way. We are not just going to quitclaim it to them if it's not used for a public right of way. We just wanted to make that clarification, which is parcel four. And, then, Commissioner Zaremba, on condition 13, I think largely that is the Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6. 2006 Page Sg of 136 intent. However, with that facility out there, there is some irrigation pumps and other materials that would change the use of that. So, we wanted to make sure that we don't just say the red barn, there are some other affiliated entities. And we can get specific. I can't do that tonight, but we could get specific with exactly what additional items there would be there, but -- Borup: But that's the only building, as far as you know? O'Neal: There are some other buildings, but I'm not sure they are -- they are closer than the red barn. I'd have to defer to Mr. Carnahan, the owner of Jayker nursery. Zaremba: Well, to cover the pumps and stuff, would it be comfortable to say that what we are referring to here is the red barn and the equipment that -- O'Neal: Yeah. Yeah. Associated -- yeah. That would be great. Zaremba: Associated equipment. O'Neal: That would great. Zaremba: Okay. O'Neal: So, I think, in essence of time, I went through that pretty quick. I probably missed a few things, but I know there is some other discussion tonight. Lastly, I just would say we have been focused on some real specific issues, which I think are very legitimate, but we are really excited and believe staff is excited to be put in front of a signature community that I think is going to be great for the City of Meridian and we are looking forward to moving through these issues. So, I will stand for questions. We do have our legal counsel here if you have questions for them as well. Borup: Mr. Chairman, just one that I have. Rohm: Go ahead. Borup: And, then, this is more of clarification. I think I understand what you said, but I did want to maybe repeat it one more time. You're saying you would be putting in a public road to this point here, which will connect to the existing road that's been accessing the Aldape property? O'Neal: Yeah. I will connect to that existing -- Borup: So, they can still get to their property -- O'Neal: Absolutely. Borup: And the only difference now they will have a paved road to get there. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 60 of 136 O'Neal: Well -- and I think the difference is that we will be providing sewer, water, power, utilities -- Borup: Yeah. Right. O'Neal: -- to future developments. Borup: So, they will still have their historic -- they will still have the same access as they have had all along. O'Neal: Absolutely. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Tuck Ewing. Ewing: Commissioners, Tuck Ewing representing TECO One, LLC. 1500 EI Dorado, Boise. We have had a few meetings with the developers on this project and I'd like to start off by saying we are still in support of the project as a whole. As Derrick had mentioned, probably as far as TECO One is concerned, the biggest issue we have is Basco Lane and -- can we go back, Caleb, to that -- that one. Yeah. That will work. We have also done the research on trying to track back a lot of the ownership interest in that area and it is very complicated and I commend the developers. We cannot find anything to dispute anything that they have come up with to this point. Obviously, as you can see on this map, with the new things that we have found, TECO One -- TECO One's parcels being here and here, are, in a sense, an island in this sense and do not touch to the property owners to the north. And TECO One's issue is also with parcel four being here with no ownership that we can find or we don't know who owns that to this point. Obviously, probably, the party that has the most rights to it, as far as we are concerned, is MDC or Tree Haven, due to the fact that they have paid taxes and have, in a sense, represented that they have owned it until recently where it was found out that they didn't. We have got the letters from Tree Haven stating the fact that they would concede any right of way that was necessary to make that road go down and, then, it would be the responsibility of ultimately TECO One to get it the rest of the way down and halfway -- potentially halfway across the Phyllis Canal. At this point TECO One doesn't believe that it's their responsibility to extend this down the gulch and ultimately because we do not touch the neighbors to the north and we have expressed verbally -- not in writing, but verbally that we would be willing to do the same thing that Tree Haven is willing to do and dedicate whatever area that TECO One owns directly to ACHD to accommodate that collector road, so that they could fulfill their requirements to their neighbors to the north. So, TECO One feels like that they are being more than reasonable by dedicating that area to the development, so that they could get that access to their neighbors to the north, just due to the fact that TECO One feels that if we did not go as far as saying that, that this development still needs to get that access to their neighbors and I don't think that they can do that at this time. I don't think that we Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 61 of 136 have got far enough along to fulfill that requirement. Parcel four definitely is a big concern to us and, like I said, I do believe that we -- TECO One has absolutely no claim to that property. I don't think that we could go in and make a claim towards that property. We have never felt like we have owned it and as Derrick stated, MDC or Jaykers don't feel they own it, but we feel that they have a much better claim to go get it. It is approximately a quarter of an acre. Obviously, it does sit approximately where the road is now and where potentially the road could be in the future. So, there is really no worth to it. I think TECO One's biggest concern, ultimately, is a financial one, obviously, and we have got a development in Tree Haven of 350 plus acres and ultimately they are -- and the way we see it are pushing this access point onto us, which is nine acres and also could potentially include a portion of a bridge across the Phyllis Canal and TECO One doesn't feel that, number one, it's fair or feasible for the nine acre piece to have to accommodate that when a 350 acre piece with many different uses on it probably could manage it considerably better throughout -- with the big scheme of things. Borup: Well, I'm confused. I don't see where in this application where it says that TECO One is required to do that. Ewing: Well -- where it says in which application? Borup: Anything that's been -- other than what you have said. There is no requirement for TECO One to extend that, is there? Ewing: Well, there -- Tree Haven is basically saying that they are going to give us a stub road to right here and at such future time that -- if we do anything with ours, we have to give -- and, then, once they give us a stub road to there, it's our responsibility to get the road the rest of the way to Aldape property. Borup: Well, I don't think they have said that. Ewing: They haven't? Borup: Not that I have heard. They are saying they are -- they are bringing the road to their northern boundary. Ewing: And if they are willing to do that and they will get up and testify to that-- Borup: He just did. Moe: That's what I heard as well, that they were going to take it to the north property. Ewing: This being the north property? Borup: No. They don't own that property. Moe: They don't own that. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 62 of 136 Ewing: Well, they do own this property. Moe: No, they don't. Borup: No. Ewing: What? Borup: That's what you just got through explaining to us. Ewing: No. They own this property right here. Borup: That's parcel three? Ewing: Yes. And parcel two and Jaykers Tree Farm, which is an affiliate of MDC or-- Borup: But their testimony was that they did own parcel three, it was owned by MDC and Jaykers. That's what Mr. O'Neal just said previously when he was up here. Ewing: That is correct. Okay. It's owned by MDC. Parcel three and parcel two is owned by MDC. That's correct. Borup: Okay. Ewing: So, what's you're question? MDC is the one that's selling to Tree Haven. Borup: But Tree Haven is the one that's doing the application. They own to this property line. They are bringing the road to that property line. They are not requiring anyone else to extend it. They are bringing it to the historic Basco Lane and what happens after that is up to someone else. Ewing: So, Council is willing -- or is willing to let basically MDC cut this portion off here and retain that area of land? Borup: No. I think we have even addressed that. I don't think that's even being addressed. They are just annexing it -- asked for annexation is all. Ewing: I agree and I think one of the questions -- or one of the concerns were if you're going to annex, annex everything that you own, which is going to include this area and this area and this area. Basically parcels five, one, two and three. We have come to an agreement that they potentially may not own four, which is just that area right there, but they do own one, two, three and five, and so they -- by they I mean MDC or Jaykers. There is five and one -- Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 63 of 136 Borup: But all they are doing is annexation. They are doing -- they are not asking for any development. They are not asking for a plat. They are not doing any development. All they are asking is annexation is my understanding. Ewing: Annexation and not a concept plan? Borup: No. Ewing: Well, if this council wants to agree -- if it's just an annexation thing, I -- TECO One's position has always been and it was at the last one, annex all property that is affiliated with MDC, including Jaykers Tree Farm, which was the research that we have been doing since the last Commission meeting. I was to the understanding, due to some of the questions from the Commissioners at the last meeting, that the access and the road was a concern. If that's going to be taken care of at a later date -- Borup: Well, I don't know if -- let me understand. Is what you're asking for is them to bring the road to the Phyllis Canal? Is that what you have been trying to say? Ewing: I think it's their responsibility to bring it to the Phyllis Canal for their neighbors to the north, which is not us. Borup: Okay. Even though they don't own the property? Ewing: I -- okay. Ultimately, TECO One doesn't really care where they bring the road to the neighbors to the north. Ultimately if they can't come through the gulch because they don't own it, they can move it somewhere else, as far as TECO One is concerned. Borup: Okay. Ewing: I think TECO One tried to work with the developers to make the most logical location work, but if this council doesn't agree with that, then, TECO One really doesn't care where that access to the neighbors to the north goes and I'm sure that the neighbors to the north will have comment on that. Borup: Okay. I think I understand what you're saying. Ewing: Any other questions? Sorry I got -- drug that out a little bit. Rohm: Thank you. Sherry. S. Ewing: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm Sherry Ewing. I'm a little shorter than Tuck. I live at 2934 East Lake Hazel Road and I'm representing the Aldapes and the Everetts, who live just north of this subdivision. And I am wanting to make sure that we get two accesses and the reason is, of course, we can't get access from the north because of the river. We can't get access from the east of our property, because Duck Alley doesn't even come to our property. We are about a quarter to a Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 64 of 136 half a mile away. And another parcel is owned by some other people. To the west Highway 16 will be going through there, which will have no access down at the river bottom, so that's going to limit the east-west access. Thank you. And so -- and we have no -- Black Cat is not an option, because of the fact that it does not touch our property either. On October 12th of last year I talked to a planning staff member and he informed me that because Tree Farm, Jayker, MDC, all those people, which is one, has over 2,000 linear feet bordering the Aldape property, that we would deserve to have two accesses and he said because every 1,200 feet you should have another access. And the fire department will only -- if we only have one access, the fire department will only allow us 50 homes and those 50 homes on 261 acres is really low density. So, we are thinking that we really need two accesses down there somehow. And if it doesn't go through, quote, the gulch, it needs to come through another piece of property that MDC, the Tree Farm, whatever, is developing. And I would be very anxious to see what Roger Anderson and Matthew Thomas are doing towards our access. I'm really concerned about that. At the Planning and Zoning meeting you indicated that you would delay their annexation until our access was resolved and I do not believe that that has been resolved. In fact, I think, you know, the little green strip, number four in there, is a major thing and it could take years and years to develop -- or to clear up. And to me that is major. And I just also want to say that also if you pass this annexation, you're just passing this problem onto City Council. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. John Ewing. J. Ewing: I'm John Ewing, 1500 EI Dorado. I'm representing TECO. Actually, I was hoping I wouldn't have to testify, but I do have some concerns and I think they grew a little bit. I guess that, Mr. Borup, to answer your question, you know, I think with TECO One is who is the neighbor to the north and if the city is going to take the stand that one owner can own something and sell off land -- and I'll give you an example, the next time TECO One does a development and we don't want to put services to our neighbors to the north, all we will do is is we will sell it to another one of our companies or another group of people and leave a 50 foot buffer and say, hey, we don't own it, you know, and that's what -- we think that the relationship is -- is -- well, it's very close. That's why staff has asked them to annex all of the land that they are involved in. So, I think that if you're going to allow people to leave spite strips that they are going to control not having to give access, that's your choice, but it doesn't seem right to me. The other issue I got is is when they do hit TECO One's property at the north they are saying they are giving us access, but we can't get off that road. Parcel four -- and to start with, parcels aren't really parcels. It's -- if you go back to the map, that one parcel -- yeah. That one. Two and three is the same piece of ground. You know -- and I don't know why one and five is changed. Again, maybe it's changed because if the road moves over, five wants to be by another owner. I don't understand that. But the fact of it is where four is pointing -- well, you can see it. That's where the collector is going to come. Tell me where you're going to get access to anywhere with number four that nobody owns and you can't -- you know, TECO One can't go in there and continue the road over land they don't own and I don't -- and I don't think Tree Haven can right now, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 65 of 136 Borup: But Tree Haven says they will relinquish any claim they have. J. Ewing: They don't own -- they don't own four and I don't think a collector can go on 40 feet. And the fact of it is so what if they do say they are going to give it up, we are saying we will give up land, too, you know. We are not the neighbors to the north. Okay. And that's probably enough said about that. The other thing is -- bottom line is Sherry testified and I'm going to reiterate that the fact of it is the reasons the access has been brought up is is because I believe that at the very first it was a concern of ours, but it was brought up from your side and there has been a lot of discussion about it. And the comment was made that until that was solved you didn't feel like you should move it forward and I feel like it isn't, so I think they have tried to work with us what they have and we have met and we have talked, but it's still not worked out. One last thing is when we met with staff -- I don't know what happened between the time we met with them and now, but I thought that you kind of felt the same way, that it hadn't been worked out. And I didn't really hear that, but -- but, anyway, that's alii have. I'll answer any questions. Thank you. I made it to my red light. Borup: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Bill Gigray. Gigray: Mr. Chairman, my name is Bill Gigray, III. I'm here appearing on behalf of Sandra and Art Rabehl. They are the ones that own the property and if I could ask permission of staff if they could have the aerial, that would be tremendous, which is the parcel that's along Black Cat Road and is on the west of Black Cat Road in the kind of squared off pie shape there in the middle. My address is 5700 East Franklin Road in Nampa, Idaho. I'm an attorney practicing law. Our position is we do want to work with the developer. They have made this application, but we believe it's premature to finalize this at this point in time because of a number of unresolved issues. First of all, I want to say on behalf of my clients, who have lived there for 38 years, are farming it with alfalfa, have raised cattle, pigs and sheep. They had hoped to retire there. This situation has arisen within a very short period of time. We believe there are issues associated which we have raised in our position statement with regards to the time this application was filed. This was not even in the Comprehensive Plan, so no finding can even be made that it's in conformance with the Comp Plan, because it's not even on the map that has included the boundaries of the planning jurisdiction. Secondly, there is still unresolved issues with regards to the negotiations with Ada County, because when the impact area was negotiated at whatever time in the past, the county passed an ordinance, as did the city, that no annexations would occur outside the impact area and it's still -- the city amended their ordinance in September of 2005, but the county still has not done so. The idea of impact areas is so that the property owners, of which my clients are, who are in the county, are on notice that there are areas which will now be the subject of annexations in the future and the traditional way of dealing with that is to first include them in the impact area and, then, of course, the development is in accordance with the impact area. That step has been totally missed in this instance. That step should be Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 66 of 136 gone through and the agreement that was reached with the county, which is through 67- 6526 of the Idaho Code, should be followed in this instance as a condition precedent to a final action on annexation. The next item is the legal description and this is an issue where my clients absolutely have to give notice at this point of their position. I would tell you that our legal position is that the Idaho Supreme Court recognizes boundary by agreement, it's enforceable under law, and that we will be forced to bring a quiet title action, which may include the city if you move forward to final action, because you understand once you do an annexation and it goes to the State Tax Commission, it's map is included within the taxing district and you don't undo an annexation very easily. In this situation we also have to move forward with that, because of the fact that the Eggers trust, who owns this property, is intending on selling it and my client has to put them on notice of their claim and they have been in possession of this property and one of the documents that we have submitted that Caleb mentioned, we would hope would be included in the record, and that is the record of survey of the -- survey of this description by Alpha Engineers and we have a copy here of the survey and the record of survey is full size, we have a copy of the one that was recorded with the Ada County recorder, as well as the legal descriptions of the four parcels that are sub parcels that come into play with the boundary by agreement. I would also submit that Mr. Bill Crookham, who is the predecessor in title of Eggers trust will support the fact that there was a boundary by agreement and that he did agree to that and when you look at the survey, which we are asking be included in the records of this, it will show that Alpha Engineers prepared that at his direction. And so we submit that we are going to have a plethora of evidence to support our position on this and my client's position at this point is he is not consenting to annexation into the City of Meridian and even if you take the position that you have the right to annexation under 50-222 under category A because of the permission of the owner, those portions of the property which are -- we claim in my client's property, there is no permission. What we are saying is -- and we have notified Eggers trust -- I sent a letter to them February 28th notifying them of our position. I have not received any response whatsoever from Eggers trust. If they don't respond and they move forward, we will have to file an action in order to protect my client's interest in this, which they will do. The last part of this -- and we also feel that there is a serious issue with your ordinance on the city impact urban service area, which this is not included, and the staff report shows that there are existing constraints and opportunities with regards to sewer and water to this property at this point in time and that there are reasons why this should be held for further clarification, so that these issues can be resolved before it goes to final resolve. We are willing to work with them on this. We would like to get the boundary resolved. We -- my clients have offered, I have sent the letter to Eggers trust saying we will transfer those parcels which belong to you, if you will transfer the parcel that belongs to us and it's -- there is four parcels on this survey and there is three that my client would transfer to them. There is one larger one they would transfer to us. But I don't know what their position is. I haven't communicated with this whatsoever. The last part is if, on annexation, as you well know, you can impose development agreements and you can have conditional rezones. We have heard this evening the Hightower proposal, the Knight Sky proposal, and each one of those we have plats, we have proposals that are very specific about where roads and streets are going, what the proposed use is going to be, and exactly what the Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 67 of 136 imprint on the land will be, so that the neighboring property owners know what's going to happen. That's not the case here. All we have is a vague concept plan and a proposed zoning designation, of which my client's property lies in the middle of parcel three, which is 167 acres of R-8 and to the south and we submit part of my client's property is proposed to be in the C-C zone. What we have asked them to do is to say if you agree that certain uses, which are allowed in R-8, wouldn't be used and that the rest of the uses which you want to use that would be by Conditional Use Permit, we would agree and withdraw the objection. But the boundary issue still needs to be resolved, because that has to do with the annexation. And we listed those in our position statement and there are a lot of uses here which my client is not -- would not be happy about, if they are saying, no, we can't do that, we won't agree to this. It's not onerous. We will be willing to work on some of the conditions. If there is some of these they say we absolutely have to have, come and back tell us that we have to have them, but they haven't said anything, other than, well, we just can't agree to that. And so we are just looking at a concept plan here. No specifics. We are also asking in a development agreement that those uses that are allowed be by Conditional Use Permit. If they do a PUD they got to have the same basic standards that you have for a special use permit, but not in the platting. And what we feel is that your ordinance provides extra protection for Conditional Use Permit to assess the impact and the effect of the development and the proposed use on the neighboring property and since my client has a small piece in a large sea of annexed property, we feel it's only fair that we have another shot to have a Public Hearing, if there is issues where higher development standards could be imposed to lessen any adverse impact and they would have to have a Public Hearing anyway for a plat or for a PUD. We don't feel any of those requests are onerous and would be reasonable in this situation. My client has to assess what's in his best interest. This has been foistered on him. We are wiling to work with them. But we feel like some time is needed here to figure out what are all of these logistics and if those can all get figured out, then, it gets pretty smooth later on. If it moves forward too quickly, we feel that it's doing nothing but forcing people to positions and it's going to cause nothing but a problem. So, we appreciate you listening to what we have to say and I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Gigray. Any questions of this -- Borup: I have got one. Rohm: Yes. Borup: Mr. Gigray, I'm not quite sure if I understand your comments on the survey. Are you saying that you have another survey that differs from the one that was turned in with the application? Gigray: Yes. And if I could show that exhibit. My staff made a mistake and they delivered these here at City Hall, not to the Hightower office where the Planning and Zoning office is or you probably would have had this in your packets. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 68 of 136 Borup: Oh, maybe it's under -- and that's different than -- and that is different also, than, the deed that you -- that your clients have? Gigray: This is a record of survey that was prepared by Alpha Engineers at the request of Mr. Bill Crookham, who had this done in 1981 following the agreement that he orally reached with my client Art Rabehl about the boundary of the subject property and where we are having the problem here -- and if I may -- Borup: So, is this recorded? Gigray: Yes. Borup: And is this the -- Gigray: The big one doesn't show the recording. The smaller one does. Borup: And does this differ or agree with the deed that they presently have? Gigray: No. It's a boundary by agreement and a boundary by agreement alters the boundaries. Borup: But there is no agreement that -- there is no agreement signed accompanying the survey? Gigray: No. It's an agreement that was reached orally by prior property owners, which was followed up by actual possession and construction and location of fences and ditches and property. Borup: But no written agreement? Gigray: The only written -- the only written evidence of it is this survey that was recorded, which follows their agreement. Borup: Okay. And does this survey differ from what's been submitted? Gigray: Well, I point to this -- and I don't know if I can -- oh, here we go. Do I just push on that? Is that what -- I'm not good at these. This part here was to be transferred to my client. That piece there -- there is a small piece here, and this piece here would be transferred by my client to Eggers. And so the deeds show the almost Nevada-like -- well, I guess it's not Nevada. Kind of a squared off pie shape is what the -- is on the legals that are recorded. And, then, by agreement, because of the issue with an old ditch that was here and the need to straighten this ditch out and the impracticalities of farming that existed between Mr. Rabehl and Bill Crookham, they agreed that they'd straighten the ditch out there and that this would become part of the Rabehl property and because of some farming conditions and ease of farming on this end, my client agreed that, then, he would move the fence down here and the new boundary would be Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6. 2006 Page 69 of 136 down here, so that this could be farmed more easily up here on behalf of Mr. Crookham. Then, there is some small little tips down here that were on the south side of where the new ditch went in, which would go from my client to -- well, up to now the subsequent title holder, which is Eggers. And we are offering to do that. We are not trying to hold this up. We have the legal descriptions, they are there in the Alpha Engineer. I have written a letter to Eggers trust. I followed it up with this one, once my client found the survey, offering to make those transfers. And if they are willing to do that and this application can be amended, so the legal is described and that issue goes away -- Borup: So, on the survey that you gave us, you're saying that parcel number four would go to the Eggers' property, Eggers -- Gigray: Yes. If that's the one on the north, sir. Borup: Yes. Gigray: The one I'm looking at has a font that -- Borup: Parcel number two, which is on the south, which was part of Eggers, would go to your client. Gigray: Yes. And parcels one and three, which are the little tips on each side, would go to Eggers. Borup: Well, why is -- why does this survey show these nice straight lines if that's not what it's intended to be? Because that's what it -- okay. I see. Because originally it was on both properties. Gigray: And, then, you will see, sir -- and 1-- Borup: Well, I still don't understand which one was which, though. Gigray: The larger map is easier to see. Borup: Yeah. That's the one I'm looking at. Okay. That's alii have. Moe: Along with that, it was recorded. Borup: Yeah. I don't understand what was recorded, though. Moe: Right. Borup: There is four different parcels here. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 70 of 136 Gigray: Yeah. And they are there in order to describe where the boundaries need to change and so that's the way the survey was done. And, then, drew up a legal description for each parcel, so that the transfers could be made and the legal descriptions properly identified, because it isn't one contiguous piece that was part of the boundary agreement. Borup: So, how has the assessor's office been taxing these properties? Gigray: I assume the assessor's office goes off of the recorded deeds. Borup: So, the assessor's office should have four different parcels. Gigray: No, I don't think -- no, the assessor's office is -- these are not deeds, these are records of survey. What we are saying is that is evidence of the agreement that was reached by the predecessor in title with my client as to where the boundary was. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Gigray: And, sir, there is a paper that's dropped before you here. Could I pick that up? If I could have permission I'll -- Borup: Oh, yeah. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Gigray: Thank you. Rohm: Art Rabehl. Rabehl: Mr. Chairman, fellow Commissioners, Art Rabehl is my name. I live at 6745 North Black Cat Road. I just wanted to comment on the survey papers that we did take and come up with. We went through everything that we had last Sunday trying to find these and it was the last item that we did take and come up with in the bottom of everything and we did locate this. So, we got a hold of Mr. Gigray on Monday and told him what we had and that we had found it and so that's how come it -- you just have that information now. We did also go to the assessor's office, because if you remember last time we were here a month ago we mentioned that they -- we didn't have as much property as what we originally had and the fellow at the assessor's office stated to us that it was a clerical error and he could correct it real quick like and he just wrote on this sheet that he had there and he says that's taken care of, you now have the original property back. So, as far as the present property and the survey, that was not recorded, and so that's where we stand on that part. Mr. O'Neal mentioned that they had tried to work with us. I did want to make a comment that they did take and make us an offer, but that they didn't want any of the buildings. I haven't devised a suitcase to pick up my house and buildings and stuff and take with me. So, until they want to take and make an offer which includes what we have there, it makes it difficult for us to -- you Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 71 of 136 know, to work with them, because to me if you want a piece of property, you know what it is there and you need to buy what is there. I mean you can't just say, well, I want bare ground and you can't buy it that way, it just doesn't work, I have always seen it happen. So, that's where we stand on that at the present time, so -- if you have any questions I would be happy to answer them. Borup: Mr. Chairman, just more of a curiosity. I assume -- at one time I thought you were talking about annexing to the city, but apparently you feel that the value of your property increases by not being annexed? Rabehl: Well, the reason I wanted to do that is I wanted to make sure that I could continue to do what I wanted to do as far as farming out there. Borup: Okay. Rabehl: And also if I annexed into the city my taxes are going to go up and I'm not going to get any real benefit that I can take and see from that happening. So, at the present time I would like to -- Borup: But you do have it on the market? Rabehl: I have it on the market at the present time. Yes. Borup: Well, I understand on being able to continue to use it and taxes. That makes sense. Rohm: Thank you. Rabehl: Thank you. Rohm: Deborah Nelson. Okay. Thank you. P. O'Neal: Good evening. My name is Pete O'Neal, 100 North 9th Street in Boise, Idaho. I did get out and get a snickers bar during the break, so I -- that will get us through. Starting at the bottom -- or what you heard last -- going back up the list. We did offer to buy the property from Art and Sandra Rabehl. As Commissioner Borup noted initially, this was included in the original annexation request and I think they subsequently decided they didn't want to be in and, that's fine. I think what we were trying to point out, that if you're valuing four or five acres as part of a giant development and want the highest price per acre, there is not a lot of value in that house and improvements on it, even though they cost what they cost and they cost to replace, because that's going to go away in the process. So, I don't think we suggested his house isn't worth anything, it's just that there is a total dollar amount that is probably reasonable and we still think that. The difference is we don't agree on what's reasonable at this point in time and, hopefully, at some point in time we will get there. As it relates to Mr. Gigray's comments as it relates to all of the legal issues and 23 Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6. 2006 Page 72 of 136 pages, I believe that Nelson responded in detail and, Mr. Nary, you could answer that. I don't think there was anything new added tonight that hadn't been brought up before and answered and if you have got any questions on that, I'd refer that to our attorney Doug Nelson. As it relates to the property, the Rabehl's property issue with the record of survey. I think we done all we can do saying that, okay, we have requested annexation and the Eggers have requested annexation and rezone of the property is we thought we are involved. So, if it turns out that there is an error of a quarter of an acre or three-quarters of an acre or whatever it is, I think that can be legally and technically adjusted in the process. We'd just as soon not buy the same acre twice, but, you know, if that's what it turns out to be, sometimes that's probably what it's going to be. The Eggers have proved to us that they are very very reasonable people and I suspect there is a reasonable solution to this and it's no -- it doesn't appear to me to be a reason for you folks to have to play Moses on who owns what and how all of that's done. I think that's a legal -- a legal issue. Going to the Ewing issues and the Aldape issues, if you could put up that one gulch picture, I think I'd like to make this pretty simple. Even if we controlled parcel four and parcel three, you can't logically build a road on that property without -- the other one was fine. Without using some TECO property. And, realistically, TECO can't -- or Aldape can't build a road on all TECO property without using some of parcel three or MDC property. You probably could do it by going around four. The easiest way to answer four, by the way, on quiet title, which we are happy to work with the neighbors on, is the highway district can condemn it and it probably would be a pretty easy job to condemn if nobody claims ownership. Probably won't cost them very much either. So, there is ample room to get a road down the gulch. TECO One has said they will cooperate with right of way. We said we will cooperate -- or MDC associates will cooperate with right of way, so there really isn't a question of is there is route down to the Phyllis Canal. The question is we don't think we should pay for it, having taken two and a half million dollars worth of investment and -- that accrues to both the Ewings and the Aldapes up to our functional north boundary to have to build a road on property we don't own to service property that we don't think we are adjacent to, doesn't seem fair to us and, frankly, TECO doesn't think it's fair to them if they come in with a plat and you say you got to extend a road through there. So, you may be in the position of -- or I'm not sure you need it for annexation and zoning at this time, but at some point in time that's got to be resolved. Understand the Aldapes want access. They have access. We have assured them they will continue to have access through the gulch. It's possible to have access through the gulch. They request that we provide two accesses, so that they don't have to deal with their neighbors to the west or their neighbors to the east, to have alternate secondary access we don't think is reasonable. I mean if we had to provide two accesses to every piece of property that is on the north side of the canal from us, we don't think that's terribly -- terrible equitable. We do agree with the City of Meridian, we do agree with ACHD, that there should be two points of access to our functional north boundary, one that's here at Basco and the other is at Black Cat. And once we get down the hill, if the guys in the valley want to cooperate and tie together so they have two ways in and out, so they can maximize their development potential, rather than what they can do with one access, that's a real possibility. So, the real issue is who builds the road. It's possible to get one -- to get one built. I think that's all I have to say. Be happy to answer any questions. I think Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 73 of 136 Doug could explain how some of these funny strips came to be. I think -- he's a big boy and he can speak for himself. I don't think he appreciates being referred to as somehow or other intentionally holding these out as spite strips, so that we don't touch something. I mean that doesn't make any sense. I mean there is some historical ways you have described property that they changed several iterations ago that created these funny little out parcels. But, in any event, I'll answer any questions you might have. Rohm: Thank you. Borup: Maybe just one. It sounds like you're willing to do a quitclaim or whatever for parcel four, because you're not sure you have any ownership there anyway; is that correct? P. O'Neal: That's -- absolutely. I think what we wanted to add to the condition is we don't want to quitclaim it to TECO or anybody and, then, just have them sit on it and say, well, we can't -- Borup: What difference does it make? P. O'Neal: Well, if that is, then, used as we can't logically build a road -- that they can't logically build a road, because we haven't determined the ownership on this, we think it's -- Borup: But you're not building a road, so why would it make any difference? P. O'Neal: Don't care. But it's -- I think it's at least -- listening to some people, they think we ought to build the road. Perhaps the biggest value -- Borup: That's why I was thinking maybe you ought to just quitclaim it right now, you have got nothing to do with it, and what happens in the future it's up to whoever continues development and there is no question whether you have a claim or not. P. O'Neal: Well, we have offered to do that if-- Borup: Well -- but that's not what you said earlier. It was offered with conditions. P. O'Neal: Well, I think we just got to make sure we don't get put into a corner and into a trap legally that we shouldn't have done that, but there is reasonable solutions to route down the gulch. Borup: And do you have any idea why that -- those other two strips, owned by MDC -- or you say that was -- that was just part of the past history of -- P. O'Neal: They changed the way they were describing the property and that got lost in the translation, I believe. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6. 2006 Page 74 of 136 Borup: Thank you. Carnahan: I'll just try to keep this brief. Doug Carnahan. My address is 4410 West Chinden Boulevard. All my comments are going to be regarding the gulch and I'm going to try to be brief and not cover what a lot of other people have covered. My family owns MDC. It's a company that's been around for a long time. Own Jayker Tree Farm. It's also a company that's been around for a long time. And we are a partner and investor in Tree Haven with the O'Neals. These are different businesses. They are not related, linked in any way, other than there is common shareholders in them. There has been no devious business development plans to do anything, including spite strips. I will be glad to answer questions about the history of when we acquired this property over 15 to 20 years, if you'd like that, but just accept the fact there is no spite strips, it was all done for good business reasons at different times. We are selling the property, several hundred acres, to Tree Haven. MDC is. We have tried to sell those parcels down in the gulch to Tree Haven. We tried to sell the parcels in the gulch to the Aldapes and we tried to sell the parcels in the gulch to TECO One. Tree Haven didn't need them. And the Aldapes and TECO One didn't want to buy them. I can respect that. And, then, I said I'll make the right of way clear. I will dedicate across any piece that I own in there, I will dedicate to Ada County Highway District -- I'll dedicate a right of way to build a collector connection. I'm happy to do it for anything I own. As a stockholder in Tree Haven, Tree Haven doesn't own any ground in there and they shouldn't be asked to build a road or something down there. So, that's to be clear on that point. But I'd like to address one other -- two other things. One, the Anderson-Thomas thing. I have verbal agreement with them. Before the final plat is recorded that issue will be resolved. And so it's done. I mean put a condition in that if it's not done, then, we can't go forward. It will be done. In a verbal agreement. The last thing -- and if I can get the slide put up that shows the entire development, I'd appreciate it. Wanted to -- can you put the one up that has the kind of blue lines marking out where the different -- no. There. Right there. Right below project location, that five square acres is my home. If you move over to the right and, then, you get over to a line of the -- the TECO One property, if two roads were to be put in there, the obvious one is to put it through the gulch and we support that and we are behind it. If we were to put a second road -- and there is this 50 foot vertical height difference between ground at that level below the Phyllis Canal and above the Phyllis Canal, think about where you're going to excavate and put all this big road and big hole in the ground to build, basically, another gulch to get down there to the Aldape property next to my home. That's absolutely unacceptable. It's the only place it can happen. The other place is over -- it goes -- because the ground below ours is Spur Wing Country Club. There is just no other place to do it. So, I've said enough, I have made my points, and I'm open for questions. Borup: I've got one. Could you go back to that topo? This is your property along here? Carnahan: Yes. Borup: What's the value of that property to you? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 75 of 136 Carnahan: You mean in dollars per acre? Borup: Yeah. Carnahan: The same price that MDC is paying me for the rest -- Borup: Is it really? Carnahan: Or Tree Haven is paying me for the rest of the ground. Borup: Well, the Tree Haven is paying the rest of that, because they can put buildings on it. Do you anticipate that the same thing can happen here? Carnahan: No. I don't anticipate buildings can be put on it. Borup: So, what can it be used for? Carnahan: I don't know. But I paid for it, so I'm going to sell it. But I'm happy to dedicate -- was I clear? Any property I own down there I'm happy to dedicate to ACHD the right of way for a collector road to go through there. Borup: Well, I'm just trying to cut through everything. It seems kind of silly to me to have property that's unusable and pay taxes on it. I mean why even have it, but -- Carnahan: I need to take the longer term view and see if it's usable to me or not. But I have offered to sell it. I haven't even set a price on it. I mean I got -- Borup: Well, yeah, how do you set a price on something that can't be used for anything? Carnahan: It's ground. I mean hillside. And people sell hillsides. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Carnahan: Oh. Excuse me. Could I add one last comment? Rohm: One last comment. Carnahan: The ground on parcel four, that questionable ground, I'm happy to dedicate - - to donate that ground free of charge to ACHD. Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. I think that tonight's discussion has been a complete rehash of the last time we were all here. I don't have -- I don't think we have heard anything tonight that we didn't hear the last time we were in here. And I don't think that this Commission's responsibility is to resolve these kinds of issues as to whether each of you dedicate a portion of ground or quitclaim a portion of ground to Ada County Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6. 2006 Page 76 of 136 Highway District or otherwise. But it does appear as if our actions on the annexation directly relate to how access is going to be taken to adjacent properties and I, for one, am not comfortable until maybe you all end up with a quitclaim deed to Ada County or something. I don't know what the answer is. Mr. Nary, do you have thoughts on this? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you have basically two primary issues in front of you. One's been raised by the Rabehls in regards to their property. Most of those -- I think, like you have stated, Mr. Gigray has put on the record what -- similar to what was already provides in the last hearing in writing. I think I answered most of those and the last one you have a letter from counsel for -- for the applicant here that I think is accurate as well. Most of the issues that are raised are issues that are certainly before you for your consideration, but they are not impediments to being -- to annexing this property. The area of impact issue, the boundary dispute, the -- whether or not the -- there is an accurate survey of the property; there is a comp plan amendment that has already been approved by the City Council. That's not an issue. Available services -- can be made available. The applicant knows that -- what's available at this time. That's not an impediment to annexation. All of those issues that were brought by that, I think, although you may all address them as you wish, they are not impediments to annexing the property. The issue regarding the roadway access to the northern boundary is not an impediment to annexing the property. It might be helpful to the City Council if you have an opinion about it or you may have -- may want to put on the record as to where you believe that what's being proposed, where -- how it does relate to the northern property, because of those parcels that are being required to be annexed as part of this application, that are one three, two and five, a portion of this application now borders the Phyllis Canal. There is this one parcel that's an outparcel. If you, as a Commission, have an opinion about how that connection to the north can be made, you certainly might want the City Council to know what that is. But it's not a reason you can't recommend annexing the property. Most of these issues can be addressed by the City Council as well. They may feel that it is too great an impediment to annex at this time and it's not in the city's best interest. You all certainly can make the same conclusion as well if that's what you think, based on this one little piece of the roadway issue for the access. Again, I don't know that you have to make that decision. I think you certainly can. It's within your discretion. But none of the issues that are raised in front of you, either by the Rabehl's parcel or the access parcel, are reasons you can't annex or recommend annexing the property, they are simply reasons that if those are significant concerns to you, and you don't feel it's in the city's best interest, you can certainly make that recommendation to the City Council and move it forward. Rohm: I guess in response to those comments, we hear project after project after project that we make it part of the development agreement that requires cross-access agreements to be signed and a part of that development agreement before we move a project forward. Now, this wouldn't necessarily be a cross-access agreement, but, in essence, that's what you're ending up with. You're ending up with being able to get from property A to property B via some prescribed method that doesn't appear to be plain to -- we have been listening to this for a hour and a half and I -- I don't have a clue what the long-term answer to that question is. And if, in fact, whenever we hear a Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6. 2006 Page 77 of 136 proposal, we make it a requirement that they have a cross-access. It just seems to me that it's in the best keeping of the applicant and the adjacent property owners that that issue be resolved before we move it forward or it may not get resolved at the completion of the annexation. That's just my position. Anybody else have some thoughts on this? Moe: Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess I'm about as confused now as I was the last time this came before us. Tonight I have heard that everybody is willing to give up parcel four to Ada County or whoever, but none of you want to say that you own it, because you don't, evidently. So, I don't know what you give up when you don't own it to begin with. That was one of the main things in our last discussions that we were hoping we'd get some resolution on what the deal was with that property, so we could move some of this forward. Now, here tonight we are now speaking of the Rabehls, but they have got other issues. I understand what counsel is saying as well. My biggest concern, again, is just like the last meeting, I don't like moving things forward to City Council just, basically, putting the trash in for them to make the decisions, when we really cannot make the decision yet. So, right now I'm not sure that I can -- I can move this forward. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Well, I can put it this way. I have been spoken for by both of you. We have in the past decided that certain things were not in the best interest of the City of Meridian to take on when they presented a number of problems that, as Commissioner Moe said, we aren't able to resolve them, why should we push it onto the City Council. There are issues here that could be resolved, as has been pointed out. Everybody has offered to cooperate and I might offer as a suggestion that everybody go to ACHD and dedicate to ACHD the parcels that would complete a road and, then, bring this application back to us. I'm not sure that I would want to just continue it forever, because I'm not sure that is a resolution. To me, the choice would be continue it until something really different happens -- and I agree with you this is not different from the first part of this hearing. Either continue it until something really happens, like the swap by agreement or whatever it was called, is recorded and approved and everybody agrees to it. That everybody who has suggested they would dedicate land to ACHD does that and they come back with those things approved. And the other option would be to send it forward with a recommendation of denial. I suspect even if we send it forward with a recommendation of denial, this same Public Hearing would happen at the City Council level. Rohm: I agree with that, Commissioner Zaremba, and what my recommend would be is to continue this for the sole purpose of -- at whatever date we continue it to, to take receipt of documentation that the right of way has been dedicated to Ada County Highway District to resolved the issues for the cross-access to the adjacent property Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 78 of 136 and if we don't get that, then, it's -- it's dead, because I don't want to move this forward recommending annexation without that issue being resolved. Moe: Not only that, though, you need to remember the Rabehl's property as far as the boundaries, they are still disputing that as well. Rohm: Well -- and that's, as far as I'm concerned, as far as the disputed boundary, that's between two property owners to resolve themselves and -- I don't even want to get in on that. Caleb. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I may save you a little bit of time. That's pretty impossible to do. One, ACHD won't accept a right of way without it being improved. Two, they won't accept a right of way that's landlocked and unless you're going to build a street all the way from Chinden up to the Phyllis Canal, they won't accept a road in the middle of nowhere that no one can get to that's public right of way. So, that's basically an impossible thing to dedicate, again, unimproved road and, two, a road that doesn't start and doesn't end anywhere. Rohm: You got an alternate-- Nary: Mr. Chairman? I mean I think -- I would think your alternate solution is what you all have talked about. You can either move it forward with a recommendation to annex with all of those conditions to be resolved as part of a development agreement and that's the recommendation to the City Council. The boundary by agreement is not an issue for the city. That's -- you're exactly correct. That is an issue between the property owners. If they think they have a boundary by agreement, they think that those should be amended; they can deal with that, that's not the city's problem, that's their problem. But if you want that issue of the access resolved, then, you can either recommend to approve it with that to be resolved on you can recommend to deny it, because it is not resolved, and the City Council can, then, either continue it until the matter is, deny it because it's not in the best interest of the city, because the access is not resolved. The problem that you have here is with that one strip -- I think as Commissioner Moe stated, no one wants to own it, everyone wants to give it away, no one wants to build a road on it, no one wants to pay for any of that, but that's something the City Council can direct on making the ultimate decision of denying it because it isn't resolved. That is an impetus to get resolution or for it to really be a different alternative route to be figured out that would go around parcel four, whether it's through TECO's property, whether it's around this parcel, whether it requires them to redraw this -- this proposal as part of the annexation -- if the City Council wants to do that, they can do that. But those are probably, really, your only two options. Continuing it is probably not going to get anymore information in front of you. We continued it once, as you said, and you heard the same stuff tonight, I don't know that you will hear anything different if you continue it again. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 79 of 136 Rohm: With that being said, I think the right answer is recommend approval with conditions to resolve. Now, I'm not going to make a motion myself, but I think that that's the best way to move this forward, because, quite honestly, I don't want to see it again. Borup: I think everybody had a comment but me. Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup and, then, I have an additional -- Borup: Well, I started thinking what Commissioner Zaremba said about dedicating that to ACHD, but I was thinking the same thing Mr. Hood said, it's not going to happen in any time frame that we would give and it does appear to me there is some -- I mean the Rabehl property and the survey, all that shows to me is there is five parcels that were surveyed. It doesn't show who owns what. But if what was said was true, it does appear that the new suNey that was done did cut off a part of the property -- part of the original property and there is probably an adjustment to be done there, whether it's on the north or the south of that, because the survey -- it appears to me the survey now took off both parcels and that's for someone else. But I'm concerned about forwarding it on, too. I guess the one thing that if that was accomplished tonight, I would be willing to recommend approval, and that's -- that's parcel one, two, three, and five, if it was quitclaimed to TECO, I think that would solve everything. Zaremba: Well -- and four could be quitclaimed that -- Borup: Well, they can all quitclaim four. No one -- Zaremba: I'm sure there is wording that says -- Borup: Yeah. That all five -- Zaremba: If it's discovered that I have ever had any interest in it, I hereby give it up. Borup: Yes. No, that's -- I have seen documents to that -- basically that same thing. I mean it's unusable land. It's -- I mean no matter what Mr. Carnahan says, he didn't buy that to grow trees on. When he bought the property he knew -- he knew he may be paying for that, but that was not what he was paying money for. That was just part of the deal. And it's along the same line as -- Mr. O'Neal mentioned about Rabehl's property. They are buying the land, not the house. The house is of no use to them. The same thing here. The land is no use. It's just part of the deal and it's unusable. A 50 foot embankment, there is no way it can be developed for anything anyway. But I'm just making that as a statement. If that was done, I would be ready to pass it on now. Rohm: I think at this point, then, it's probably appropriate to close the Hearing Public and I would entertain a motion to that effect. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 80 of 136 Nary: Mr. Chairman, could I make one comment before you do that? Rohm: Absolutely. Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I guess the only caution I'd have from Commissioner Borup's statement is in requiring the applicant to dedicate their property to another property owner as a condition for annexation is unusual. Borup: And I'm saying I'm not comfortable with making that a requirement. Nary: Okay. Borup: And I'm not saying it should be, I'm saying if that was -- Nary: You can require that cross-access be resolved and that there be access to the north or there be a cross-access between the adjacent property owners or your recommendation as to where the property boundaries are in your estimation as the Commission, would probably be more commonplace as to a recommendation to the Council. Borup: I'm just saying cut through all the games and do what's practical and what's reality and the thing could move on. But, no, I wouldn't make that a recommendation -- as a requirement. Zaremba: My comment would be that -- I think the Rabehl's issue can easily be resolved. To me it's an even swap one way or the other and whether it happens before it's annexed or it happens after it's annexed, the property owners can agree on who gets what property. And I would hope that doesn't end up being a court decision. I think they can agree to that between them. My issue would be the access to the Aldape property and my instinct would be to move it forward recommending denial, unless that condition was met. Rohm: Isn't that the same thing as saying recommending approval if it is met? Zaremba: No, because the City Council has taken our recommendation of approval and dropped conditions off of it before. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: It's a slightly different attitude. Rohm: If we make the recommendation for denial unless they resolve and they do come to resolve, do you anticipate the city being able to at that point in time approve -- is that what -- Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 81 of 136 Zaremba: That they would overrule us and approve? They have also done that in the past when something was resolved. Rohm: Then, let's get this closed and that's a great motion. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-004. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Borup: It still seems like a backwards motion. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of file number AZ 06-004, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 2, 2006, for the following reasons: The issue of access to the property to the north has not been resolved. Rohm: Do you want to -- Moe: Second. There is no need for anymore than that. Rohm: Other than it doesn't give the City Council the option of -- that's the motion. Zaremba: If they present it at the Public Hearing that it's been resolved, then, the City Council would not take our recommendation. Rohm: Fair enough. That's-- Nary: It is merely a recommendation, Mr. Chairman, so-- Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending denial of AZ 06-004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Borup: Aye. Rohm: There has been three in favor of the denial and one dissenting vote. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 6, 2006 Page 82 of 136 Borup: We just needed some variety. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Thank you, everybody. And I apologize for the length of that hearing, but it -- there is just a lot at stake here and we don't want to miss anything. Thank you. Before we open any other hearings, I need to poll the balance of the Commission and see if they are willing to stick it out awhile longer. Are you willing to take one more? Okay. Moe: We are here. Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: AZ 06-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision by Pacific Landmark Development - 5603 North Locust Grove Road: Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: PP 06-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 88 building lots and 10 common lots on 29.69 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision by Pacific Landmark Development - 5603 North Locust Grove Road: Rohm: We are here. Okay. With that being said, at this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from March 16th, 2006, for Items No. AZ 06-001 and PP 06- 009, both related to Basin Creek Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This should be pretty brief. We did have a full hearing on this item last time. Just a refresher real quick, this is an annexation and zoning of 29 acres from RUT to R-4 and a pre-plat of 88 single family homes and ten common lots for Basin Creek Subdivision. We did have a discussion about it, but it was similar to Knighthill where ACHD had not approved it yet. ACHD did approve the application with no changes and staff would not have any further comments. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Ford: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Ashley Ford, WRG Design, 453 South Fitness Place in Eagle. Thank you so much for hearing me this evening. Rohm: You're welcome. Ford: Thank you. We are in complete agreement with the ACHD staff report. We are in agreement with your staff's report. And we just respectfully request your recommendation of approval to City Council.