Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 22, 2006 C/C Minutes Meridian City Council August 22, 2006 Page 65 of 81 De Weerd: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Okay. Council, the applicant on Item 17 has asked for a continuation. Do I have a motion? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we continue Item 17 to September 26th. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to continue this to September 26th on Item 17. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Berg: Madam Mayor, just a clarification. We are really just tabling a decision on this application, not to get mixed up with continued public hearings or tabling -- De Weerd: That's correct. Berg: Okay. De Weerd: I guess at that point, depending on what we hear back from ITD, we may need to open the Public Hearing or not. Okay. Berg: Thank you. Item 18: Item 19: Item 20: Public Hearing: AZ 06-028 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.43 acres to an R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential) zone for Touchstone Place Subdivision by Horizon Development - 1187 East Fairview Avenue: Public Hearing: PP 06-028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 2 residential lots (proposed to contain 48 Multi-Family units) and 2 common lots on 4.43 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Touchstone Place Subdivision by Horizon Development - 1187 East Fairview Avenue: Public Hearing: CUP 06-021 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a multi-family development consisting of 48 multi- family dwelling units (8 plexes) on 2 lots totaling 4.43 acres in the proposed R-15 zone Touchstone Place Subdivision by Horizon Development - 1187 East Fairview Avenue: De Weerd: Okay. Items 18, 19 and 20 -- and I am sorry I kept going back and forth to Item 16. I just wanted to let the neighbors know what was happening next. Meridian City Council August 22, 2006 Page 66 of 81 Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: On 18, 19 and 20, we received a letter today from Pamela Ferry that represents a trust that is involved with these two properties -- with properties between these two properties, I believe, and according to her there is -- they were not notified or something. I don't know. And I'm sure that somebody within that got -- got a letter. De Weerd: It is a part of the public record. We will let the applicant, if they received a copy of that, and see also if staff has had an opportunity to preview that as well. I will open the public hearings on Items 18, 19 and 20 for AZ 06-028, PP 06-028, and CUP 06-021. We welcome Councilman Rountree back. And I will open these three public hearings with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Touchstone project and you do have a letter before you from Pamela Ferry. I did give the applicant a copy of the letter when she arrived at the hearing and we have briefly discussed it. It is not a new issue, so it is one we are familiar with and I think we can shed some light on as my discussion -- or my presentation continues. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Canning: The project is located on the south side of Fairview Avenue across from North Jericho Road. It's approximately 1,300 feet west of Locust Grove Road. Excuse me. The application includes annexation, zoning, preliminary plat -- it's a two lot plat. And Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development. And the need for the plat was generated by the fact that they are connecting a public roadway through the property. So, this is accessed primarily from a public roadway. The applicant is requesting annexation and zoning of 4.43 acres to R-15. They are asking for preliminary plat approval of two multi-family building lots with two common lots and, then, conditional use approval for 48 multi-family dwellings. These are contained within six eight-plex units -- or six buildings, each of those buildings has eight dwelling units within it. Approximately 10.8 percent of the site is being set aside for open space. And, Will, you just really can't see anything. Sorry. De Weerd: Where do we order these light bulbs? Siberia? Canning: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. The two lots as shown here are here in this -- the road comes in and kind of makes an L with a dog leg, so this is one lot and this is the second lot for the preliminary plat. I'm going to zoom in -- I have cut off the portion going out to Jericho Road, so that you can see this a little better. It's really a subjective term tonight. What you have here are -- these are the structures -- there is one, two, three, four, five and six. These other things that look like structures are garages and carports. So, there are -- they might all be garages. There are a number of other structures -- they Meridian City Council August 22, 2006 Page 67 of 81 are garages. Yes. Excuse me. Then here is the road coming through the property. The landscape plan -- you can see the open areas. They kind of create a common open area here at the center of most of the units. This one building on the south side of the road -- you can see the open space on either side of it. With regard to how it relates to the neighbors, they have used the garages to kind of muffle the noise and to provide that transition into the property, so you see those on the perimeter of the site. The two properties to the north are shown as commercial. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is commercial. However, the commercial designation of the Comprehensive Plan allows for multi-family development. So, the R-15 zoning is consistent with the commercial designation on the property. The drive aisles -- you come in, they loop and connect back to the public street. This one is a smaller loop. It completes it there. Staff has recommended a development agreement. The unusual or not usual, anyway, portions of that development agreement would be that -- that only multi-family development and allowed accessory uses in the R-15 zone would be allowed on the property. That there be a maximum of 48 units constructed on the site and that a street buffer be installed along Fairview Avenue prior to occupancy of any new dwelling units. And that cross-access to and from the North Jericho Way be provided to the parcel to the west for future development along Fairview Avenue. That's this property here. And they have shown a cross-access location, an easement from Jericho Road to that property. We do have elevations and the applicant has some boards that will provide a much better look of this today. If you will note that they look very different from our multi-family four-plexes that we usually see. There are a number of materials here and different -- again, the applicant has some better elevations. They are three stories, that's why the applicant moved them interior to the property to get them away from the property lines of the surrounding property owners. Wow. You really can't see that one today. This is the -- the Planning Commission did recommend approval at their July 20th, 2006, hearing. Jeff Mack and Sabrina Whitehead spoke in favor of the application. Greg Bastabin spoke in opposition. And Caralee Blough and Marinda Williams commented on the application. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the proposed height of the buildings and the residential condominiums. These are proposed to be condominiums for the units, not -- well, they are just proposed to be condominium units. Key Commission changes to staff's initial recommendation is they did require six foot high solid fencing along the perimeter of the property lines. The outstanding issues before the City Council are the property dispute brought up by Pamela Ferry and, then, just as far as accommodating that dispute as far as getting legal descriptions of the proposed annexation. Staff has met with the applicant several times on this issue. Some of the previous annexation applications are in dispute by these property owners as well. Mrs. Ferry represents the property owners of this -- the property kind of -- the middle property let's call it for the sake of this discussion and there were previous annexations that they allege took portions of their property, so the annexation description matches and completes what's missing. This is kind of -- this is a large part of the missing link along Fairview here. So, the annexation description would include that, but, then, there is still this question about what the proper lines are. To summarize, the root of the problem was that probably one came from the east and one came from the west and there ended up being a discrepancy and where this discrepancy hit was right in these properties. So, you have deed lines and Meridian City Council August 22, 2006 Page 68 of 81 the deed lines don't reflect where the fence lines were. What I think is -- further confuses this issue is that the property owners entered a private agreement to resolve these issues prior to any development occurring and that's what Mrs. Ferry is commenting on with regard to her letter. What it boils down to is this area here is in dispute, as well as a portion of this area also. If you look at the plan for that area, you will see it's the roadway coming in and, then, down below it's a couple parking lot spaces right there. So, those are kind of the two contentious areas. The discrepancy seems to be -- wait a minute. I'm going the wrong way. Sorry about that. Regarding ten feet along here. As the applicant currently has the road coming -- shown coming into the property, it is ten feet from the property line, the green line. So, basically, the road as shown would sit right on the red line. ACHD has said they need to shift it three feet further west, so -- but what could occur and what often happens is that an applicant will build -- and Mr. Inselman can correct me if I'm wrong -- an applicant will build most of the roadway, ACHD will let this property owner -- in this case the middle property owner build the sidewalk on that side to complete those road improvements. So, they could certainly get the half plus 12. They could even get the full travel lane, but they would just be missing sufficient area to get the five foot sidewalk. And that's if this property owner disputes those ten feet or wins in that dispute, then, they would be gaining ten feet of land that they had to build five feet of sidewalk on. So, there seems to be a lot of reason for this middle property owner to want work with the current property owners to resolve this issue. It's really in their best interest, because these folks don't need that five feet of sidewalk necessarily or the other five feet on the other side of it, they are just going to landscape it and it will be there, where the middle property owner would have that available for their five feet of perimeter landscaping for their parking lot or for their -- their landscaping adjacent to the roadway. So, it's really in the best interest of the middle property. De Weerd: Anna, I guess I have a question. Canning: Yeah. De Weerd: Do we have a legal description? Canning: We do currently. Yes. De Weerd: And it's in -- this is in conflict, is that what I understand? Canning: Yeah. These red lines represent kind of the conflict areas. I guess where staff is going is -- it's not fully resolved yet, but when -- when there seems to be an advantage to the folks to resolve this -- a mutual advantage, which there clearly is in this case, if they don't -- it would be a win to this property -- to the middle property owner for this property owner to develop the full roadway and they are wanting to develop this as commercial property. They are not saying that they want it to stay residential or anything like that. So, actually, the fellow that has the property to the west tied up also an agreement to develop this property. It's moving forward very slowly, but -- Meridian City Council August 22, 2006 Page 69 of 81 De Weerd: Okay. I guess my question is since we have a legal description, is this of concern to us? Canning: It is to Mrs. Ferry. I mean there is some question about -- there is an unresolved property dispute here. De Weerd: And can you move forward with this application with that dispute? Canning: I feel they can, because I feel it's in the best interest of all the property owners to resolve it, even if it means these folks -- especially if it means these folks end up building the entrance road and access to their property. So, I don't -- in other cases where it is clearly somebody is disadvantaged by the property dispute, Council has said, you know, you can't do this last plat -- Windsong is a perfect example. You can't do these last five lots until you resolve this property dispute. Those are difficult in that there is never any incentive for the person that may not really have a valid case to resolve it, because it's in their best interest to keep that 15 feet of land or whatever it is. But it's not necessarily in the best interest of these folks to maintain ownership of that ten feet, because, then, they'd have to develop it. So, I think you could move forward. You could condition it on these -- them revolving it. I think they will come to a resolution, because I think it's in the best interest of all the property owners that this project move forward. That's what I was trying to get at and I guess I was just going too slow. Sorry. De Weerd: I just thought I'd help you along. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird. Bird: While you're having questions in -- part of your information, I -- I have problems annexing something that is in -- having disputes over legal lines. As the famous old saying goes, I'm not that anxious to annex something like that and get ourselves in the middle of a deal. I'm sure the county has some records on this and I don't believe they have probably wanted to do anything with it, so we are going to get in the middle of it. I'd prefer not to. I'd sooner see them come in with a clear legal description than a clouded one. Canning: Madam Mayor? To further complicate issues, this property to the west has been annexed and this is one of the disputed boundaries. So, to resolve this question all three properties need to be in the same entity and currently it's the center -- I can't remember if the centerpiece is annexed currently. No. So, really, the only way to resolve the property boundary adjustment is to do an application with an entity. It already can't be in the county, because this property doesn't -- isn't already annexed to the city. Bird: The other one isn't? Meridian City Council August 22, 2006 Page 70 of 81 Canning: The middle one is not. Bird: Then, the one to the west isn't either. Canning: That's the subject application. Bird: That's the application right now. Canning: Right. Bird: Okay. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: And I don't know if this helps Councilmember Bird's concerns, but the city has annexed property -- applications before where there have been some boundary disputes. I mean there is two issues of concern. I mean, obviously, they raise this issue and I think, as Mrs. Canning stated, the city can condition their final approval on getting those issues resolved. I guess I would caution on taking a position that just because there is a dispute you will invite people to simply raise a dispute that mayor may not have any legitimacy just to derail some other consensual annexation and I don't think that's what you would want to encourage to do. And, again, we have done it before where people have been required to clear this up and it's -- the burden is on the applicant to do that. It mayor may not happen. But legally it's -- I think to go back to the Mayor's question, I mean legally you have the right to agree to consensually annex all the property owned by the applicant and if the adjustment has to be made because they don't own five feet that they thought they owned, you can adjust that, but we can fix that. The other issue that the attorney, Mrs. Ferry, has raised is notice and it appears at least from the city's perspective that notice was properly done. The property was posted, proper legal notice in the paper was done. They were -- appeared to have been mailed notice, which they are on the mailing list, they have been mailed notice and the applicant has certified that they have done all the posting and everything they needed to do. You know, you certainly -- if someone -- if someone showed up at the last minute or sent a letter saying even though you think I got notice I didn't and I'd like some time to formulate a response, we certainly have considered that. So, I would just ask that you at least take that into some consideration in your decision on whether you want to go forward tonight, but you certainly want to hear from the applicant, I understand, but that's something at least to consider as you ponder this one. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I did speak with Ms. Ferry at 5:00 o'clock and I had told her that in the past Council has put conditions on it, saying that this needs to be -- this issue needs to be resolved. She was, actually, pretty comfortable with that. She just wants the issue resolved is all. And I think that she Meridian City Council August 22, 2005 Page 71 of 81 could see that there was some benefit and she just wanted to the make sure Council was aware of those concerns. but-- Nary: A reasonable attorney. De Weerd: Councilman Wardle? Wardle: Madam Mayor, thank you. I have two just quick comments. One, the planning director said that, you know, she's made a determination that this mayor may not -- this wouldn't affect -- adversely affect the property owner. I'm a little bit uncomfortable in a matter of a legal description making that determination from our perspective. The one thing that I can say is -- and I have heard staff say -- one of the issues in question is where the potential sidewalk would be. We are considering a family development and we are going to have pedestrian traffic, I would -- my preference would be if we could wait just a little bit of time to resolve that issue and hear the application with that issue resolved, that would be my preference. De Weerd: Yes, Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, as long as -- as long as the resolution could just be an agreement with the property owners, because, again, all three of them need to get in the same jurisdiction before we can completely resolve it. But the ultimate resolution is a property boundary adjustment and that is physically impOSSible right now, so -- Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: If I can clarify my comments. We have had a -- we have had a memo from one of the property owners asking for some additional time. I didn't see in there that we needed recorded -- I think it can be resolved very quickly. I'm not looking to hold this application up any farther; I just -- in my opinion I need to have that issue -- at least some sort of comment or initial resolution. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: My follow-up question would be what would be a reasonable amount of time for that action to take place? Canning: I get the feeling that reasonable for Ms. Ferry is a hard thing. So, I would say at least a month, probably. But you can ask -- the applicant might have a better estimate. De Weerd: We can ask the applicant. Are you done with your comments, Anna? Canning: Yes. Meridian City CounCil August 22, 2006 Page 72 of 81 De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? It's always a challenge to listen through our questions when you have the answer; right? Whitehead: Absolutely. Good evening. I know it's a long evening. For the record, Sabrina Whitehead, Briggs Engineering. Office address 1800 West Overland Road, Boise, Idaho. 83705. I just want to clarify the Public Hearing will still continue and we can still have comments; is that correct? Okay. I'm going to put my elevations up real quick. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Wardle: If I could maybe -- I think maybe we misunderstood the applicant. What we were looking for is comment on -- or what I specifically am looking for is comment on the matter of the legal boundary in question before we hear your presentation, your application to make a decision. Whitehead: And that's fine. I will personally want to defer that to the developer. This has been going on for years and I think that he can better explain the time line and what has been going on, so -- Mack: I'm Jeff Mack from Horizon Development. This matter has been going on for probably the last year. I optioned this property October in 2004. The previous month -- I would say in the last three months we have had two meetings called with Mrs. Ferry. The first one she -- the first one we called. We had a conference call with her, she kept the meetings short due to she had another appointment. Called the meeting for the following week. Everything went to Dick Morup's office, our attorney, and she was a no show to the meeting. We have heard nothing since from her and my attorney has sent letters contacting her about this so we can get the thing resolved. What Anna was showing up here, we are not encroaching on her property at all. There was a -- I believe it was an 18 foot property line dispute from a fence line agreement back in the '40s. So, what we have done, we have brought it back the 18 feet so we could proceed forward and over in this southwest corner here our plat is to the west of that property line. So, we are not encroaching on her property at all. That's why we feel we can continue to move forward with this matter. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: So, the dotted line is the -- is the actual legal description that you put in? Mack: Correct. Meridian City Council August 22, 2006 Page 73 of 81 Bird: And that is the disputed line with her? Mack: Yes. And we have given everything that she's asked for and there was 18 feet from this fence line agreement from right here. It was a -- I believe it was 86 feet from -- there was a pin out here over, which it should have came from here -- no. From here over, which now is from here over. And we have given the 18 feet back, which would adjust the property line to the west of us and shift all properties back. We have complied with every request from Pamela Ferry. De Weerd: Did that answer your question? Wardle: Madam Mayor -- and I guess I -- just my time on the Council I haven't necessarily felt that it's our role to address property line disputes or be the legal body that decides those, understanding that we hear from this applicant that they have been working with this for a period of time, I would wonder if two weeks -- I'm looking at our September 5th schedule. It's doesn't look too onerous. If that would be enough time to allow at least comment or -- that would be my preference. Certainly, Council, if you'd like something else. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I agree that continuing it makes sense to me. I guess also from the perspective that, as Mr. Nary said, we can go forward an annex whatever it is they own to be determined, but I don't know if that necessarily speeds up the process at all for the applicant, to complete an annexation. We still have -- and the applicant still has to wait to resolve that boundary line dispute before any development can occur anyway. So, it seems to be sixes. Which maybe makes sense to me that to continue it, try and get that resolved, with the understanding that that -- that's a hurdle that's going to stall this project indefinitely, I guess -- unfortunately, too. I feel for you in the delays. It doesn't seem to be any benefit to you to have an annexation go forward right now. I am concerned, all things being equal, that we set it out far enough for -- to have an opportunity to get this resolved once and for all. Mack: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Council, anything else? Canning: Madam Mayor, I know it's late, but was the applicant -- did Council not want the applicant to make a presentation on the project? Are you going to consider that at a later date? Because if you're going to ask for changes it would certainly -- they could be working on it at the same time they are working on this property boundary dispute. De Weerd: Council, what would be your preference? Meridian City Council August 22, 2006 Page 74 of 81 Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: It makes sense to me, Anna, I think that all things considered, unless the applicant would just like to wait -- I don't know. If we hear it, we hear everything now and it will probably be fine. If you wait a month, then, we will probably gripe about something and wish we would have said it earlier, so -- that's my thought, would be to -- De Weerd: Well, thank you for your thought, Councilman Borton. Rountree: Madam Mayor that would be my thought as well. Let's -- they are here, we are here, let's do it. Bird: Let's do it. De Weerd: Thank you. We won't put that time on your time. Whitehead: Thank you. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Again, Sabrina Whitehead, 1800 West Overland Road, Boise, Idaho. 83705. And tonight, as you know, I'm in front of you concerning annexation and zoning, preliminary plat for the road, as well as a Conditional Use Permit to a 48 unit multi-family development, which is going to be called Touchstone Place. The current zoning is R-1 M within Ada County and we are requesting a zoning of R-15. We personally feel that this is a great location to have medium density for -- we are not -- more appropriate location than to be located adjacent to commercial, as well as to Fairview Road to the north. The subject property down -- is located from the south is medium residential of R-8. We feel that R-15 would be a logical transition from single family residences to adjacent commercial and to Fairview Road. As staff has commented on page five of the staff report, they think there is a strong argument for saying that the policy set forth in the Comprehensive Plan supports the multi-family residential use on the site. Now, while the Comprehensive Plan supports the multi-family for this area, I would like to note that this is -- while it is a multi-family development, this development is going to be a condominium. Therefore, leaving the development owned by individual homeowners, instead of renters. By having the development retained as condos, it is also going to help allow the City of Meridian to offer to its citizens a wider variety of housing options, instead of offering their traditional home with a yard and garage, you're offering your citizens a lifestyle that will be affable to more -- other people, not just the traditional families. Our development is also offering open green space, with meandering walking trails, community clubhouse, bike racks, playgrounds, designated barbecue park areas to allow the residents a quality of life that the City of Meridian wants to offer to its citizens. Now, I'd like to note the developer has taken great time and consideration with this layout, as well as the private quality of the buildings themselves. Originally the developer was planning on having two story four-plexes that would have been placed along the perimeter of the subject property. On January 5th, 2006, we conducted our first neighborhood meeting. The concerns were the following: One, having the buildings so Meridian City Council August 22,2006 Page 75 of 81 close to their own homes. Two, wanting a solid six foot privacy fence. Caralee Blough requested nonwood, because it distorts. She's wanting to see the fencing to be solid and help protect and secure her dogs. And, three, landscaping around the perimeter of the fence, also offering additional mitigation for buffering. The developer took all these concerns into consideration and went back to the drawing board. He revised the layout to provide a landscape buffer, garages, service drives, placing the homes a total of 62 feet from the existing residences. In order to accommodate these changes the four- plexes were converted into four story condo units. However, the condo units adjacent to Stonehenge was modified to be three stories to help insure the privacy of the residents. On April 6 we held another neighborhood meeting with the revised layout and received favorable responses from the neighbors. The layout that we showed them offers two and three bedroom units, which will have their own two car detached garage. This development is also offering diverse architectural characteristics, as Anna has pointed out, and as I'm hoping that our color elevations show that there is a wide variety of building materials, sloped roofs, and a variety of -- that allows this development to have character and multi dimension. Now, not only does this development offer a variety of housing options, but we have ten percent of the site is dedicated to open space, which shows the open common area meandering walking trails and we also will be having a clubhouse, which I brought an elevation of as well. Just to basically summarize, we feel that this is going to be a quality development and it's going to -- personally, I find it is really exciting, I think it will really diversify Meridian's housing options and we have reviewed and agree with the recommended conditions and I thank you for your time and consideration. I just want to know if we do defer this a month out, I have a feeling it's going to be deferred again. I don't know how hard it's going to be to get an exact date to work with Mrs. Ferry on her concerns, since they have been working over a year right now. So, I'm kind of cautious. We can try to -- my hope is to have it situated by a city council date and, obviously, it hadn't been. So, I'm just kind of -- I'm cautious of putting an extra date on it and not being able to achieve clarification by then. De Weerd: The Council can continue it to a date certain. Whitehead: Okay. De Weerd; If it is not resolved by that time, we just need an update and we can take appropriate action. Whitehead: Okay. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions for Sabrina? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. I do have one other person signed up for the project. Candy Seeley. Meridian City Council August 22, 2006 Page 76 of 81 Seeley: Hi, Madam Mayor, Council people. Candy Seeley. 1035 East Fairview, Meridian. I just wanted to say I'm in favor of the project, but I believe that the developer actually worked really well with us and took into account the different people's concerns that they had about -- regarding the placement of them and the line of sight into their backyards and stuff and it seemed to work out fine after he did revisions, which he actually listened to the people and went back and did revisions, which was really nice, and I just wanted to let you guys know I thought he did a good job. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there any further testimony on this application? Canning: Madam Mayor, I forgot to mention in my discussion that there was an amended comment sheet from Mr. Silva via e-mail yesterday and it did ask for the westerly drive to be widened from 25 to 26 feet, but it did remove the requirement for a third access point, so we will make those changes accordingly. And the applicant just stated that she believes she's already amended that drive aisle width. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. So, I guess, Mr. Nary, the appropriate action would be to continue this, if Council desires in regard to the legality of the legal description. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, it's probably that specific -- that specific reason to bring it back, so that you're not going to re-listen to all the testimony, but just information regarding this boundary dispute, if that's what your desire is, so -- De Weerd: Thank you. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Just for the record, I, for one, am not particularly fond of the letter that Mrs. Ferry sent and I would hope that between now and this next hearing not only that Mrs. Ferry be sent the minutes, but I'm sure the applicant would clearly let her know of this new hearing date, but the allegations in this letter are completely opposite of what we are being told here today and I would hope that the representations in this letter don't cause -- unfairly cause undue delay to the applicant. I'm sympathetic to that and the tone in this letter with regard to there being absolutely zero -- what is the phrase? There has been no response and no attempt to resolve these problems, is the exact opposite of what we are hearing today from the applicant and so that's a concern to me and just wanted that put on the record. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would concur with Councilman Borton and I also -- whatever date we set it for, that will be the date, unless it's something besides a lot line adjustment that we would Meridian City Council August 22, 2006 Page 77 of 81 continue it. It's going -- in my opinion, will be decided and if she wants to be here, she can be here. If she isn't, she isn't. De Weerd: Okay. I guess I would ask staff as well to make sure they know of the date when this is continued to, so we take away that argument. Okay. Council, I would entertain a motion to continue these three public hearings. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: I would move we continue Items 18, 19 and 20 to Tuesday, September 26th. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue these there items, 18 through 20, to September 26th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 21: Public Hearing: MI 06-005 Request for a Miscellaneous application to amend the previously approved Development Agreement (AZ 03-038 and concurrent files PFP 03-007 & CUP 03-071) by removing a provision requiring all future uses on the site to be approved through the Conditional Use Permit process for Mussell Corner Subdivision by Brian Holleran - Northeast corner of Victory Road and Meridian Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 21 has been requested to continue to September 5th. Do I have a motion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we continue MI -- Public Hearing MI 06-005 until September 5th, 2006. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to continue Item 21 until September 5th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 22: Ordinance No. 06-1237A : Amendment to Ordinance No. 06- 1237: AZ 06-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.50 acres from