Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 22, 2006 C/C Minutes Meridian City Council August 22, 2006 Page 48 of 81 De Weerd: And before any decision on Item 17? Wardle: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Okay. Second agrees. De Weerd: Second agrees and that clarifies it for Mr. Borton? Borton: It does. De Weerd: Okay. Sorry. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 17: Public Hearing: VAR 06-017 Request for a Variance for a right-in only access from Eagle Road to Sadie Creek Promenade for Sadie Creek Promenade by Landmark Development Group, LLC - Southwest corner of Eagle Road and Ustick Road: De Weerd: Okay. It is continued until after Item 17. So, I will go ahead and open the Public Hearing on VAR 06-017 with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Sadie Creek Promenade project. It's located on the west side of Eagle south of the Ustick. It is a variance application. The applicant is requesting one new right-in only approach to Eagle Road. Specifically the new approach is to be located approximately 660 feet south of Ustick Road, the Ustick-Eagle intersection. As I mentioned previously, ITO has -- will not grant any approach permits on this site. That's -- our current letter says that, because it is too close to the intersection. Staff recommendation is for denial. Again, the access is not supported by the Comprehensive Plan or the Unified Development Code. The request also does not meet the required findings for a variance. As noted previously, we have seen an increase in the number of accidents at the Ustick-Eagle intersection since 2004 and it is currently rated either number four or number five in the top ten accident areas. With regard to the required Findings, the first one is the variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district. This is currently prohibited in the C-G zone and along this highway corridor and, in this case also, ITD has specifically said that they will not allow an access point for this property from Eagle Road. With regard to the variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site, this project has three deeded access points to Ustick, so they do have quite a bit of access to a major arterial road. With regard to the third point, the variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. You have heard testimony in the last application about left-in, left-out turn movements and the increase that they cause in safety concerns and the severity of those accidents as well. Just to get it on the record again for this hearing, staff has proposed -- although staff is Meridian City Council August22,2006 Page 49 of 81 recommending denial of this, they have proposed a compromise that provides better access for the Sadie Creek Promenade project in that it moves the right-in, right-out only to -- closer to their property. It would line up with the Gateway Marketplace right-in, right-out only on the east side of Eagle Road, so it would move it quite a bit closer to this project and would provide that right-out as well, rather than just a right-in. So, staff does have the compromise included in the memo for this project. And with that I will answer any questions. De Weerd: Council, any questions for Anna? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. I can say right off you look very different from the last time we saw you. Thompson: Thank God. De Weerd: Congratulations. Thompson: Thank you. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Tamara Thompson, Landmark Development Group, 1882 Taluka Way, Boise. 83712. Sadie Creek Promenade is designed as a very beautiful project and we are committed to quality tenants. Since we were here last we -- well, we were here last six months ago almost to the day. I think it was February 21 st. And our right-in, right-out variance was denied. Since, then, our tenant interest to the project has dramatically decreased. The lack of access has hurt the commercial viability of the site. There is a couple of things that I want to clarify, that this is not a reconsideration of that previous variance, this is a completely new application for a right-in only, instead of the right-in, right-out, and the letter that you have from ITD was for that previous application. This is a new application to ITD also and that goes before their executive permits committee tomorrow, which I don't believe is a coincidence. They have told me on several occasions that they want the city to act first and, then, they will act second. So, I think they are looking to see what you do tonight. The other changes that have happened since -- in the last six months is the designed speed on Eagle Road has changed from 55 to 45. So, previously for a right-in, right-out application we were right on the cuff of having enough deceleration length in the 660 feet and with the design speed change to 45 miles an hour for the right-in only we more than meet that deceleration speed. So, what we would be looking at is a dedicated deceleration lane for a right-in only, with no rights out. As far as safety, safety's everybody's number one goal here. And when we are talking about left turns, if you're looking at traffic heading northbound on Eagle Road, making a right-in turn is -- from the memo there is -- or I guess it was from our previous hearing that there is one conflict point for a right-in only and if you don't have that right- in you're taking all of that traffic, putting it onto Eagle Road and making them do left turns, which he have heard repeatedly is the less safe option for access. So, we believe that what we are asking for is much safer than funneling all the traffic to Ustick to enter the site and exiting the site. If you're trying to get back to Eagle, they are right Meridian City Council August22,2006 Page 50 of 81 turns, SO it's kind of sixes on that. So, that's why we have given up the right-out aspect of what we are requesting. Additionally, the UDC language, as I read it, is -- specifically says it limits access points to state highways. So, I don't know if that's -- if that's a distinction that -- if it's just semantics or whatever that this is actually from Eagle Road, not to Eagle Road. So, anyway, I'm not sure if that's -- if that's something that -- if we fit into that category or if -- you know, if a variance is actually required for that if we get ITD approval. I'm going to make this short and sweet. So, in conclusion, our right-in only ,we believe, is a safer, more convenient access for our tenants. It will help us get the quality tenants that we are looking for. And, again, Mr. Bird, I know you have been wanting to know if everybody is participating in the improvements that are going on out there and that would allow us to participate in those off-site improvements. It would be a -- if we get ITD approval it would be a continue of approval from them as well. And we look forward to bringing a beautiful quality project to the City of Meridian. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Questions from Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Wardle: Tamara, if I could -- staff has suggested in their presentation some sort of a compromise with the property owners to the south. Is that something that you have considered, discussed, been a part of? Thompson: As far as what staff brought up as a right-in, right-out somewhere in between us that aligns with the -- the eastern side of the road, since I know that one intimately, that would be an approximately 880 feet from the center line of Ustick and, yes, we would -- we would be agreeable to something like that. I have not -- I don't know from ITD what they would think about that. I haven't talked to them directly. Because tonight's the first I really heard of it. Wardle: Madam Mayor, just to clarify. But you would be willing to -- because we have, obviously, two applications. You would be willing to, essentially -- if it could be reached, look at -- at taking access through some sort of a joint shared right-in, right-out, which -- or some sort of access which staff has suggested? Thompson: On the surface, yes. But, you know, there is a lot of agreements that have to be made there, because -- and it's the same thing that they deal with -- with the property owner that I represent is that until development is certain, you don't want to be giving away cross-access points or having other people come onto your property to build roads and that kind of thing. So, if we go first, you know, the approach at Ustick gets put in and that turns into a public street. If we go first, you know, we don't -- even Meridian City Council August 22, 2006 Page 51 of 81 though -- even if they grant cross-access through their property, that doesn't give the right to physically go on somebody's property to construct a road. So, it kind of -- I mean it's the same situation and who goes first is at the mercy of the other property owner and there is a lot of agreements there, a lot of cost-sharing agreements, that kind of thing that come into play. So, yes -- the answer is yes, but -- there is a lot of moving parts. Wardle: Thank you. Nary: She's not even a lawyer. De Weerd: You know, I don't know if I can legally ask this, but I -- I guess that's why we have an attorney sitting there telling me -- if I have to stop, please, stop me. If we were to continue these two variance requests and ask you to get together and find -- if you were to get right-in -- I think the right-in is certainly safer, you don't have some of the concerns that the neighbors and Leslie Way would have an issue at. If you could get together with the other applicant, discuss access or -- to Ustick for them, if you were granted the right-in and they were also granted a right-in only, as long as they had access through your property, so like you were saying, it answers the question who goes first, because they need access to Ustick. So, Bill, could I ask if they would consider discussing between the property owners if those kind of ideas would work for them? Can I ask that? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you certainly can. I think the testimony that you have heard both from Mrs. Thompson and Mr. Haggett is that they have already done that. I think the problematic person that we don't have any really authority over or control over is ITD and I think one of the things that Mrs. Thompson stated in her testimony that may be something you and the Council want to consider is the fact that ITO may be waiting for the city to make a decision. Now, the city doesn't have authority to grant access to the federal -- or to the state highway, but we can -- but the city can limit access to the state highway. So, if ITD is truly waiting, then, what the city may -- may want to be doing is giving them some direction over what your preference is on this particular stretch of Eagle Road. Whether it's access that is joint, and if that it isn't going to be approved by ITD, then, you either want to hear these matters again to make a decision that isn't going to -- that is going to relate to the separate properties, but that your decision that your access point that you want is one access at no more than -- no less than 880 feet from the corner -- or from the center line of Ustick and that's -- that's your decision. You continue these matters for these variance decisions until ITD makes a final decision on whether they will grant that, because, again, if you grant -- if the city grants them an access and ITD doesn't, then, it really doesn't make any difference. That's something you consider. But if you do what you're proposing, Madam Mayor, I think they have it already. So, I don't know that that gets you any further on a final decision untillTD makes a final decision. De Weerd: Well, I guess if ITD is kind of waiting until the city makes a recommendation and because there is three Council members up here I know I won't be breaking a tie, Meridian City CounCil August 22, 2006 Page 52 of 81 so I will just throw out my idea and -- for what it's worth, which isn't much, when I don't have a tie opportunity. But if you were to look at just getting right-in access and negotiate or work with the property owner to the south to give them access to Ustick, that I know I would certainly be willing to write a letter to ITD with full support of right-in only. It's the right-out and it's the left-in that has the biggest heartburn, I think, for the safety aspects and I think for the neighbor issues. So, would you consider those kind of discussions with the property application to your south? Thompson: The first thing that that brings up for us is that -- I believe that for what they are trying to develop, they have to have more than egress point and I don't know this for sure, but I think that it's -- you can't do more than 55 residences without having two points to get out. So, if something happens to the public street here, these guys aren't just totally landlocked and have another way to get out. And I think that asking the -- the smaller property that's a third of the size to bear all of the traffic through its development where the publiC street doesn't handle all of it, is -- is too much of a burden. But I don't know this for sure. So, we need -- we need clarification on that. That is one access point acceptable for the amount of residences that are going to the south, because we have given a secondary cross-access point. But the intent of that was just for the convenience of customers, so for the retail along the front, you know, if we have retail in here and if they have retail, then, those retail customers -- it's convenience for them to be able to shop back and forth and not have to go out onto a public street to -- to get there. But if it's actually a condition that they have to have two egress points, I don't think a right-in only works for their development. But, again, this is -- this is -- De Weerd: Well -- and the fire department might have a threshold on building permits allowed until that additional access would be allowed. I guess I'm just suggesting that discussion -- I think probably the neighbors would even be more amenable to the right- out if this development had an access to Ustick, because it would be the quicker route to Ustick, rather than through their subdivision. I'm just asking for those discussion opportunities, so that Council might have a better opportunity as well to have the whole picture. Thompson: And I think -- I mean I know that we want to get started on something, but there has been so -- there is so many unknowns out there about, you know, is all the traffic -- because, you know, we were all denied access onto Eagle -- is all the traffic going to be coming through there, is that adequate, and for us, for our development, the 15 acres to the north, a right-in only is adequate for us and if it's on our property line or 200 feet to the south, that probably doesn't matter. But if it's at the quarter mile point where you go a quarter mile past and have to come a quarter mile back, then, that is problematic. So, I think, you know, the closer -- that 880 is probably the threshold that we are going to be willing to work within. De Weerd: Thank you. Ron, did you have any comments? Or chief. I'm sorry. Meridian City Council August22,2006 Page 53 of 81 Anderson: Madam Mayor, I was just going to confirm that you are correct, the Uniform Fire Code in residential development says anytime you have over 30 residents that we require two access points. Meridian has fudged on that and we allow 50 residents and with commercial it's the same thing, we require two points of access. But it doesn't matter to us whether they are both off of Ustick or one's off of Eagle, so that wouldn't matter. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, chief. This is a Public Hearing and I do have two people signed up to indicate for or against. Candy Seeley signed up for. Would you like to provide testimony? Seeley: Candy Seeley. 1567 North Leslie Way. I, actually, am very much in favor of this project. They have done everything that we have asked in discussions trying to get the whole thing together. They put in light retail and -- up against the properties that are backing up my subdivision and they have been very magnanimous in the back and forth going -- and the communication between the two. I had an idea, which was the same idea you came up with, grant both the different properties that we are talking about tonight the right-in access and give them the signalized access out onto Ustick as the full circle around and that would solve our problem and probably solve all the problems if we could do something to that effect. So, that's all -- I was, you know, the same mind with you trying to do something like that. Because that would solve our problem of the right-out people coming in down our roadway and, then, they have the signal, which is away from our street already, to direct them north -- I mean east or west, whichever way they want to go. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Tim Reed signed up for. Reed: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council Members. Jim Reed with Idaho Commercial Group. I represent a purchaser -- we have the property under contract, the northern property. One of the things that just needed to bring up and it all boils down to me. I'm a commercial real estate broker and this access and ingress and egress and stuff, it all boils down to what we see the property, you know, values and prices per square foot of dirt and all of those things and since we put the property under contract and through our due diligence period, which we are still under now, some of the things that concern me would be the time table in which what we have done so far, if we could get a decision to move forward with the project. The other issue is that we had numerous tenants interested in the property and when we first looked at the property in discussing whether we could get access onto or off of Eagle Road, we had a tremendous amount of interest, especially, you know, for that hard corner area and since then, until that's all been figured out, that's all dried up. So, right now we are looking at the economic feasibility of doing a project there, you know, with the right retail mix with what's going on on the other three corners, which is, you know, very nice developments and a lot of commercial space, without that access somehow into -- into that northern piece that we have under contract, it doesn't look like it's going to happen on our end. Then some of the safety things -- and I have learned a lot sitting here tonight and I don't need to be a traffic engineer to kind of just understand logic. I drive Meridian City Council Augus122,2006 Page 54 of 81 the roads every day, I drive Eagle Road every day -- the fact if we had a hundred cars coming south on Eagle Road and those hundred cars wanted to come into that development, they would have to go right onto Ustick and, then, left into our development, which causes the highest injury rates and everything that we heard here tonight. If by chance from a safety standpoint, which is -- seems to be the paramount issue here, if half those cars or a third of those cars, a quarter of those cars could make the right-in to our project it would be much safer, in my opinion. But I'm not a traffic engineer, so -- but with that that's, really, all I had. So, is there anything -- any question? De Weerd: Any questions from Council? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. I had only two people sign up to testify. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this application? Graham: Madam Mayor, Council Members, my name is Steve Graham, I live at 1534 Leslie, which, as you probably know, borders the western part of this project. I submitted my written testimony, which you have probably already reviewed and I just wanted to verbally say that we do support -- I do support this project, I think the right-in is a good solution for everybody. You just heard from the developer or a potential buyer that it probably works for them and I think that's the right thing to do. So, I just wanted to verbally state that and hope that you'll take that into consideration. Any questions? De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Graham: Thanks. De Weerd: Okay. Anyone else? Thank you. Any closing remarks? Okay. Council? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I guess I will begin. Just a question for legal staff, I think that we have got a -- or in my opinion we have a potential compromise. Is it -- but I'm going to be talking about both applications. Should we close the Public Hearing on this application or leave it open? I mean, I guess -- where is the process for us to do that? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean you're going to have to -- at the point that you're ready to make a motion or decision, then, you would probably close the Public Hearing. You have the other one left that's still to make a decision on, unless you feel you need to have -- to hold them both open for more information before you can make a decision, there is no reason to keep it open. So, you can close the Public Hearing on this if you don't think anymore information is necessary to be able to make a Meridian City Council August22,2006 Page 55 of 81 decision. If you -- I guess as your -- are you wanting to know if you can go to the other one first? Wardle: Well, my -- Madam Mayor, my intention would be -- and I have heard a couple different things. We have heard the comment about the Idaho Transportation Department having final authority over access to the state highway. I have also heard both applicants agree that a shared common access could work for them. However, we don't know if the highway district would even entertain that -- that sort of an idea. That would be the only additional information that I would need to have, if that makes sense. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess the dilemma that we have -- and I -- I think what you may have to consider doing is if you're going to make a decision so that the Idaho Transportation Department knows what your preference is, then, your -- the best way to do that is to, then, close your hearing, make a decision. Does that mean you may have to rehear them if that decision isn't approved by ITD? Yeah, you will have to, then, bring them back to make an alternate decision, because we can't at the end of the day leave the decision with -- leave a decision that doesn't allow access to Bienville and doesn't -- and doesn't answer the question that's been requested by Sadie Creek. De Weerd: Mr. Nary, though, could we not continue these, make a recommendation to ITD, and see what comes back? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean I guess that's the only place that I don't have a specific answer to. If ITD will accept your recommendation -- as a recommendation and make a decision -- I just don't know if they will. You know, I guess for -- as long as these developers -- this has been a long process and I'm going to guess that time isn't totally of the essence for them, as long as we have been talking about this and I have been trying to -- I have been sitting here trying to think of some way that you didn't have to hear this again, because I thought maybe that would be your preference, but I don't know that there is any way to avoid that. If your -- if the decision of this Council is the compromise that's been discussed and that both parties in principle agree to, subject to some conditions and such, then, that can be your decision. If ITD won't grant that, they will have to come back, because there won't be any way for them to continue with the project, either one of them, with your decision that isn't going to allow them access. De Weerd: Council, I guess right now I'd like to call a ten minute recess and perhaps give an opportunity for anything new that might come within that ten minutes, but because I can call a recess, I'm going to call a recess. Ten minutes. (Recess.) De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and -- I know there is a lot of discussions going on, but -- okay. I will go ahead and ask if there is any new information. Meridian City Council August22,2006 Page 56 of 81 Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess the discussion went like this -- I'll do it this way. ITD will probably not -- would not make a comment on anything that wasn't in the specific applications that are before you tonight. So, if we did, indeed, recommend some compromise, they would probably have to reapply have ITO act on that compromise. However, they did approve a right-in, right-out only immediately across the street, so -- for Gateway Marketplace. So, that may be a solution. The other thing that was talked about was to go ahead and approve the right-in for Sadie Creek Promenade. To have a temporary full access at the quarter mile mark for Bienville until such time that they had access through Sadie Creek Promenade property and, then, it would become right-in, right-out. I had concerns about that. We had this discussion at Gateway Marketplace hearings about these temporary access points, knowing when will that be constructed. If all the development occurs before Sadie Creek, then, there is no mechanism for actually getting those improvements done to regulate that right-in, right- out only, because, otherwise, it's just going to be an un -- kind of an unstructured access there to -- that won't direct people in the place they need to go. So, I have been leery about the temporary access points and how we get those finally approved in past hearings and I still voice my concerns about that. Sometimes ITD, by them building the median, would solve that problem. In this case I don't believe it would, because they are constructing it for u-turn access at the corner mile. So, unless there is some physical barrier to folks entering the Bienville Square property to prevent the left-in, it may -- the problem won't be taken care of by ITD putting in barriers -- or medians is I guess the point. So, I do have concerns about any temporary full access and how and when and where and why that goes away. Why we know. How and when. So, those -- that was the only alternative that was raised to me during the break. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Council? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I don't know about the other two, but this is one councilman that is ready to make a decision and get down the road and let ITD tell us whether we are right, wrong or indifferent. De Weerd: I'm certainly willing to write a letter. Bird: I think -- Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Bird: Follow up on that. I think if we don't make a decision one way or the other, right, wrong, or indifferent, it's -- they are not going to -- they are just going to throw it back at us. They are waiting -- they have -- they have waited all along for us to make a decision before they make a decision, so I don't believe we need to keep these two developers hanging in the wind any longer. And I know that time probably isn't very essentially to Meridian City Council August22,2006 Page 57 of 81 them, but time is dollars in construction, so I -- I'm for going ahead and making a decision. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I agree we need a decision tonight from my perspective as well. I think with regards to the specific comments and ITO and Meridian, the decision and our roll here with regards to what takes place on -- at least Sadie Creek right now is open and Bienville, as we heard before, and do what's best for Meridian and we will make our decision accordingly and ITD will get it and deal with it and if they don't like it, then, they can come back and if they do, then, they deal with it. I agree with Councilman Bird that the chicken or the egg doesn't help anybody, doesn't solve anything, it just costs the developers time and money, which we are very sensitive to, so -- Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: My comments and remarks to this particular project and, then, from what I have heard, first and foremost -- and I'm sure the other Council members are as well -- I'm extremely sensitive and appreciative of the comments and different hats that everyone wears when we talk about this particular project from homeowners whose concerns are traffic and not necessarily the development of the property. Developers who might be concerned about a development foremost. Brokers or agents who might be concerned about the greatest commercial value. There is a great mix in our roll as well and on Council to try and control access to these roadways. I think Lieutenant Overton's remarks were particularly important when we talk about a variance and has indicated prior instances where we try and review something like this, of the varying standards, one of the three primary elements that we focus on is whether or not the variance would be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and of the three that's one in particular that I think Lieutenant Overton's remarks were very important and made an impression upon me. I think with regard to Sadie Creek -- and legal counsel stop me if I should speak only to Sadie Creek, is that -- Nary: Council member Borton, yeah, at this juncture that's the only matter in front of you is Sadie Creek and the hearing is still open, so -- Borton: I want to -- while the hearing is still open, make a remark to Sadie Creek on the right-in only access. I know in other instances there was reference, I think -- Tamara, you might have made a comment about your ability to perhaps provide temporary access. In this particular project does a temporary right-in, just for discussion purposes, is that feasible, temporary meaning until something else happens. And I'm just -- as Anna talked about a concern about how you would ever manage a temporary access, what I'm getting at is would be temporary until some additional potential access upon Eagle Road is available for your project to utilize? Meridian City Council August 22, 2006 Page 58 of 81 Thompson: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, like I said before, I think it depends on what that other anomaly is that would close it. If it's another access between that and 880 feet, I think that's something that would be a yes. But, again, if it's at the quarter mile point I think a half mile -- you know, quarter mile there and quarter back is too far for convenience for retailers. Borton: Okay. Thompson: But to answer your question on how -- logistically how do you take care of temporary, you know, the only thing I have seen is bonds and most surety bonds are pretty hard to collect on. So, cash bonds is what I have -- what I have done in other jurisdictions. Borton: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Did you have anything further? Borton: Not at this time, I guess. De Weerd: Okay. Council, we have an open Public Hearing on Item 17. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Hearing no more public testimony, I move that we close VAR 06-017. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 17. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Council, I guess in the motion to continue Item 16 it was -- through clarification it would be before a decision is made on Item 17. I believe we still have an open Public Hearing on Item 16. Is there any additional information needed? Okay. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I would move that we close the Public Hearing on Item 16. Borton: Second. Meridian City Council August22,2006 Page 59 of 81 De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close 16. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: For purposes of discussion I will open up with my thoughts on Item 16 and, certainly, that when we made our prior decision on this application to deny access, evidence was presented that there was certain access to Ustick Road and the property was not landlocked. Obviously, we have heard this evening that that is not the case and certainly it is, in my opinion, our need to provide access to that property probably for Eagle Road. The question that I have is really one that is what is best for the community, how to -- how to achieve that request, along with staying within our goals as a community to move traffic and keep safety and so I have heard both applicants on application 16 and application 17 discuss the potential to share an access. We have heard some testimony that the transportation department mayor may not accept that and I think that we have talked about the fact that we need to make a decision and to move forward from there. I would be in favor of granting an access which would be shared and no more than 880 feet from intersection of Eagle and Ustick Road for these two properties. I'll put that up for discussion. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: In addition to I guess some of my remarks in the prior hearing and dovetail on what Councilman Wardle has said, I agree -- I agree with, again, the role that we have to play, weighing these competing interests. I think from my perspective providing access to this Bienville project with a right-in, right-out, I think that the temporary access issues create problems. I think it -- as we have discussed it's going to be, eventually, a right-in, right-out. Again, what Lieutenant Overton talked about with left turns and the safety hazards of that particular movement on Eagle Road makes, I quite frankly know that from experience, as everyone in the room does, when you try and make a left turn across Eagle Road, it is uniquely different. My suggestion and preference in this particular project and applaud both projects, their cooperation in the past and their future cooperation, they know they are going to have to work together to make this corner successful. But I agree with Councilman Wardle -- I'm butchering his name tonight. Councilman Waddle -- that a right-in, right-out access at this particular 880 feet -- I think that's from center line -- it lines up with -- and that's not the reason why, but I think it does happen to line up with the Gateway across the street to provide access to the parcel and hopes that both projects as they develop and flourish will utilize it. I'm mindful of the concerns of the residents and the fear that people might turn right and, then, right, it's most likely a reality. I don't discount that whatsoever. But I know you, Meridian City Council August 22,2006 Page 60 of 81 too, also were mindful of the challenges of a City Council that has to weight competing interests and continued growth and development. Every Tuesday we hear very valid concerns and discussions with growth and development in any particular project in anyplace, in any fashion always creates traffic, which always creates more potential traffic hazard than without development and I know we all understand that and we just try and manage as best we can. I see this to be the most reasonable middle ground to proVide viable and valuable access to Bienville. So, that will be my preference. Bird: Madam Mayor? Nary: Madam -- oh, sorry. Bird: Go ahead. De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- and I heard what Councilmember Borton said. My only concern from the city's standpoint is the issues that have been raised by Bienville and their -- and the way their land is situated, that -- although I agree with what you're saying about the temporariness and maybe the challenge in dealing with that, is that part of the testimony in front of you by Bienville's application is that they are landlocked and subject to the other property's development to allow full access and so if you only grant right-in, right-out, they will not have full access to Eagle Road and, therefore, all of the traffic has to head south and find it's way north in some other fashion until the other property develops and I think -- I think what Mrs. Canning had stated was, you know, that what the parties had talked about was at the point when there is the access to Ustick to allow that northern access, then, the right-in, right-out makes more practical sense. But I just am concerned from the city's perspective that if we only grant right-in, right-out, that you are limiting that access to the degree that that property still might be challenged in being able to be used at all, because of that and I don't know that you're not going to end up with this hearing back in front of you again saying that's still not going to work. I understand your concern, Councilmember Borton, about the temporariness, but I'm just -- I'm equally concerned that if you don't grant full access at least until the northern piece develops, that the Bienville is going to be back in front of you again with the same concerns that they are still subject to the other property's development, so -- Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I agree with Councilman Borton. I hate to give full access on Eagle Road, but in the same token, as Mr. Nary stated, they would be landlocked until the northern section is developed and gets them a way out of the -- onto Ustick. I guess at 880 feet, which is, you know, a little over an eighth of a mile from the center line of the intersection, I take it, is what you were suggesting, that gives us ~- that gives you about halfway Meridian City Council August22,2006 Page 61 of 81 between there and Leslie. Leslie Drive is a full access drive and I'm sure there has been wrecks there. I don't know. I can't -- I hate to have a full access deal, but I hate to also land lock up the deal. I think the ideal thing is right-in and right-out, but until they get something to Ustick, there is no way I -- that I could land lock them that bad and I think if we -- I don't think full access is going to be used that much, to be truthful with you. I think you're looking at something like -- De Weerd: I guess Council -- and I would ask either Anna or Chief Anderson, but if there is only one access you will be limited with your building permits until a second access is available. Bird: That's right. De Weerd: And so just keep that in mind. I guess one of those -- this Council has kind of adhered to a mantra of maybe the Councilman that's not here, but we are not in any hurry. I think that there was an opportunity to address the concerns of Bienville in getting their access to Ustick and giving the access to Eagle in a form that doesn't compromise the surrounding neighbors. There is an opportunity there and I guess ad nauseam I just had to say that one more time and I appreciate that Council continues to put up with me. But, Anna, did you have a comment as well? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, I did have a comment. I think you have heard testimony, I'm just -- I'm afraid that Councilman -- or that counselor Nary's comments made it a little more confusing, because to do a full access at 880 we are pretty sure is not going to fly, so -- with lTD. So, with regard to a right-in, right-out, with -- by providing permanent access to this, we heard from the developer to the north that that right-in, right-out only location was probably sufficient to go ahead develop that northern property, so we are not hearing that we won't have that cross-access and so I just -- it's all getting very confused and things are a moving target, certainly, but I just wanted to make that clarification as well. I understand Mr. Nary's concerns about not land locking this parcel. But we have heard from the developer to the north that right-in, right-out only is an acceptable alternative for her to move forward with developing that property. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary, I guess the question to my left is can we be having this discussion when the Public Hearing is closed? Nary: All you're asking about is options and so at this point, yeah, all you have asked of staff are what potential options do you have. De Weerd: Okay. Nary: If you're going to concern as to whether -- and it's my error. When I was listening to the testimony or the staff report about the compromise that -- it talked about right-ins, Meridian City Council August22,2006 Page 62 of 81 but the question wasn't to Bienville, if -- can you only live with a right-in from this point forward. If you're comfortable that that was what Bienville was agreeing to, then, that's up to you. I mean that's -- that's your decision. If you feel that's what they have agreed to -- if it isn't they'll tell you, they will ask you to reconsider it and you will have it again. So, I mean if that's what it was. My only concern -- my only concern is that there is access and that it is not land locking this parcel. If you're comfortable that they were agreeable to that compromise and the compromise was right-in, right-out only from this point forward, not temporary and not contingent upon some other access, that's your folks' decision. Again, if Bienville doesn't agree with that, they ask to reconsider it. I do think it was stated pretty clearly by Mrs. Thompson they were agreeable to that. So, if that's your recollection that's perfectly fine. De Weerd: Okay. Nary: Less muddy? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: One additional question of staff. Anna, you have stated IT D's policy on full access. Permanent full access. Do they have any sort of a policy regarding temporary nature of access? Canning: Members of the Council, Councjlmember Wardle, I can't state from policy. I was just reiterating what the applicant had said earlier. So, perhaps temporary is okay. I don't know. De Weerd: Okay. Council? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I have a motion. Madam Mayor, I move that we approve Item 16, VAR 06-018, to approve a temporary full access no greater 880 feet from the center line of the intersection of Ustick and Eagle Road. The temporary nature of the access being that the access to Eagle Road becomes right-in, right-out when public street access to Ustick Road is available. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Borton: I'll second, Madam Mayor, with some discussion and perhaps clarification. The motion mentions full access. I take it that did not intend left-out access. Was it left-in only? Am I muddying the distinction? Full access, as I heard from the public testimony, meant all directions. Meridian City Council August22,2006 Page 63 of 81 De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Bird: Call for the question. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Item 17. Wardle: Madam Mayor, question for legal counsel. We heard testimony from the applicant on Item 17 that a shared access, which was approved in our previous motion, would be sufficient for them if it were no less than 880 feet, which the motion included. What sort of action do we need to take on Item 17? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Wardle, I suggest if -- I suggest you make the same motion. I mean you have the ability to grant under a variance if you feel the Findings are available -- or can be made, whatever is reasonable in light of those Findings, that you can make the same motion if you wish. De Weerd: Okay. I guess -- I know I said we are on Item 17, but on Item 16 do we have a clear understanding of when that temporary is lifted? Is that -- was the part of the discussion that that is when there is access to the north? Canning: It was stated as public street access. De Weerd: Okay. Wardle: Madam Mayor, public street access to Ustick Road from the parcel. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Sorry. I just needed clarification. Okay. Item 17. Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Canning: I think the applicant is willing to withdraw that application, if Council would like that option open as well. De Weenj: Okay. Okay. Council, I guess there would need to be a motion to accept withdrawal.