Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 20, 2008 C/C MinutesMeridian City Council May 20, 2008 Page 11 of 53 by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing an effective date. De Weerd: Okay. You have heard these three ordinances, that are very entertaining, read by title only. You do have the option of hearing them read in their entirety. Is there anyone who would like to have them read? Thank you. Council, seeing none, do I ~ have a motion? ~ Zaremba: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we approve ordinances number 08-1361, ordinance 08-1362, and ordinance 08-1363, with suspension of rules. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Items 10, 11 and 12. If there is no discussion, Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Ro11-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTIDN CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. Item 13 is FP 08-010. We do have a letter from the applicant agreeing to staff comments. Any additional comments from staff? Okay. Council, any questions? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Seeing no questions, I move we approve Item 13, FP 08-010. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 13. If there is no discussion, Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Cail: 6'ird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from April 22, 2008: AZ 08-003 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.06 acres from RUT to R-40 (10.56 acres) and GC (1.15 acres) zones for Reqency at River Vallev (REVISfD) by Meritlian City Council May 20, 2008 Page t2 of 53 Mason & Stanfield - 2500 North Eagle Road: Continue Public Hearing to May 27, 2008 Meeting Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from April 22, 2008: CUP 08-004 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development in a proposed R- 40 zoning district for Reqencv at River Vallev by Mason & Stanfield - 2800 North Eagle Road: Continue Public Hearing to May 27, 2008 Meeting Item 16: Continued Public Hearing from April 22, 2008: VAR 08-002 Request for Variance to UDC Table 11-3C-6 for a reduction in the number of parking spaces required for multi-family dwellings in covered carports or garages for Regency at River Vallev by Mason & Stanfield - 2500 North Eagle Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 14, 15 and 16 are continued public hearings from April 22nd, AZ 08-003, CUP 08-004, and VAR 08-002. We did open the public hearings on April 22nd, but we have not heard the presentafion. Canning: Correct, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. You will have to forgive me tonight on the presentation. I don't know what's coming up next. I usually have two monitors and the overhead. I have the overhead tonight. So, it may not be as smooth as usually. Not that it's smooth. Okay. Going on. This is the Regency at River Valley project. It's located at 2500 North Eagle Road, approximately a half mile north of the Fairview-Eagle intersection on the east side of Eagle Road. The applications before you tonight are for annexation and zoning, Conditional Use Permit, and a variance. This is the revised site plan. I believe we have a colored version. There we go. I'm going to let the applicant go into the details of the site plan, but I am going to hit on some of the highlights of fhe proposed development. The annexation request is for one commercial property with a C-C zoning -- actually, that's not colored on fihis site plan. Be in this area that adjoins Eagle Road. And one multi-family property with R-40 zoning. The Conditional Use Permit is for the multi-family development. The applicant is proposing 204 mulfi-family living units within nine apartments buildings, a clubhouse, swimming pool area, a putting green, several gazebos, an entry water feature, pathways, extensive landscaping, and a playground area. About 18 percent or 1.91 acres of usable open space are provided wifihin the site plan. The gross residential density of the development is 19.3 dwelling units per acre. With regard to the requested variance, it is for the requirement to cover the required parking spaces. The UDC requires 360 covered spaces and about 48 uncovered spaces on the site, for a total of 408 spaces. There are seven garage structures depicted on the plan generally along the west and south edges of the property and that contain six parking spaces each for 42 enclosed spaces. And, then, there are 253 carport parking spaces provided that come to a total of 295 covered spaces. And, then, there is 113 open stalls provided, for a total of 408. So, they meet the required number of parking, it's just that not all of it is covered. And you may remember this application. Part of the reason they are unable to cover some of the parking is because of an easement along the South Slough. We Meridian Ciry Council May 20, 2008 Page 13 of 53 do have elevations. Oh, look, they are all on one sheet. There are four different building elevations, plus the clubhouse. There is -- that's the clubhouse. Here are the garages. And here is some exampies of other projects, I believe. So, there are four different building elevations, plus the clubhouse elevations. The structures are all proposed to have brick veneer, masonry, stucco, stone veneer, and fiberglass reinforced asphalt shingles. All of the structures are two to three stories in height and have the same architectural design and appearance, but are different in size based on how many units they contain. So, that was just four different versions of the apartment buildings. Plus you have the clubhouse and the garages. There is the one single story clubhouse structure proposed. It does have the same construction materials as the larger units. The Commission recommended approval at their March 20th, 2008, Public Hearing. Lars Anderson from Bach Homes and Scott Stanfield from Mason Stanfield Engineering spoke in favor. No one spoke in opposition. Andy Wilks representing Center Cal spoke -- aommented. And there was also written testimony from David Kleiner, who was the property owner to the south. And Andrew Wilks who has an option on a portion of the property to the south. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the addition of an emergency access driveway to the site from Allys Way. You can see that added. Allys Way is on the east side of the property. You can see that access now. Support of the request for annexation of 1.5 acres with C-C zoning designation if the variance request for temporary access to Eagle Road is withdrawn and the applicant did withdraw the request for the access to Eagle Road. Removal of one of the multi-family structures is order to provide covered parking as required by the UDC for multi-family developments. The request for a variance for a reduction in the number of covered parking spaces required, the encroachment of strucfiures and landscaping within the easement for the Stokesberry-Downey Lateral along the south boundary and the proposed relocation of the lateral and easement further to the south. And the final issue of discussion was allowance for a five foot wide mulfii-use pafhway through the site within a public use easement and signs identifying it as a public pathway if a ten foot wide pathway is constructed along Allys Way and East River Valley Road as approved by the parks department. So, the key Commission ahanges to staff's initial recommendation were they required an emergency access only driveway to Allys Way. Required a multi-use pathway on the site in accord with parks department comments. They removed the temporary access request variance to Eagle Road, as I mentioned before, and they recommended approval based on the applicant and North Meridian Irrigation District reaching agreement pertaining to the relocation of the Downey Sub Lateral. The outstanding issue before City Council -- the Commission was supportive of the requested variance for a reduction in the number of covered parking spaces required. Staff is not supportive. If the parking variance is not granted, a new site plan should be submitted. Staff is unable to make the findings that the variance -- for fhe variance. Written testimony since the staff report. You received a letter from Mr. David Kleiner for the April 22nd, 2008, hearing requesting three things be added to the development agreement for Bach Homes. The first one was that Bach Homes be required to reimburse Kleiner family for half the right of way at fair market value. That you defer approval until the Kleiner family finalizes the property boundary with Center Cal and the 60 acre park. And that you require Bach Homes to discuss location of access drives to minimize adverse impacts and fhat Kleiner should be free to Meridian City Council May 20, 2008 Page 14 of 53 present alternative locations for fhe Bach Homes driveway. You. also received a response from Mr. Lars Anderson, dated May 13, 2008, objecting to the reimbursement for the right of way and committing to additional construction beyond what is normally required by ACHD and also objecting to the delays associated with the boundary negotiations and potential access points. I have to say that Kleiner proposal to -- regarding the reimbursement for half the right of way -- there are times when staff gets stuck in between those kind of agreements and this felt like one of those where we were going to end up having to try and determine whether they had negotiated for fair market value or not and so I-- I was hesitant to see that kind of condition placed upon Bach Homes, just because it's often difficult to determine when fihat kind of condition has been met. With that I will answer any quesfions that Council may have. De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff at this time? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Rountree: No. None right now. De Weerd: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. And if you don't mind, I am going to stand up. I have a back that's killing me. Anderson: You're welcome to. Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, my name is Lars Anderson. I'm with Bach Homes. We are located at 11650 South State Street in Draper, Utah. 84020. We are here tonight and we thank you for listening to our proposal. We are here tonight to, once again, present our site plan to you and ask for a Conditional Use Permit, annexation, and a variance. We have been here a couple years ago, if you recall, and we have changed the site plan significantly since then, with comments from the staff, comments from ACHD. We have also had comments from NMID and we changed the site plan to accommodate all those comments. The one variance we are now requesting is because the covered parking is in the easement for -- we call it the South Slough, some people call it the Finch Lateral. It changes. I don't know. We have it labeled as Finch Lateral on the plan. We also have some issues regarding the -- the Stokesberry Lateral on the south part of the property. In the staff report it's called the Downey Lateral and we have come to an agreement with NMID how we would shift that, so no structures will be in the easement, only landscape and the ten foot wide multi-use pafhway. And we have also met with fhe parks department to clarify any issues fihere. We even met with the garbage guy and changed the dumpster locations to accommodate them. So, we feel we have done everything we can to accommodate everyone fhat's involved wifih this project or will have involvement with this project, including offering the cost to construct the entire East River Valley Street to the junction of Allys Way and Records Road. So, with that we -- I stand for questions. We will have Scott Stanfield answer any technical questions you may have. De Weerd: Council, any questions. Meridian City Council May 20, 2008 Page 15 of 53 Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: If Lars would -- or Scott, either one, just explain the technicalities as it relates to that easement and why it's not possible to cover. Anderson: They don't allow any structures in the easement. They are particularly worried about it, because fhey like to burn along the canal -- to worry about any structures burning. Of course, they are also worried about the cars there, but we are working through those issues with them, but they definitely don't allow any structures, because they feel they will have to come in and maintain the ditch in some fashion and sfiructures would prevent them from getting any equipment there, where cars can be moved, structures can't. So, we have covered all the other parking, except as you see in front of the clubhouse where staff has recommended that we don't cover it, because, A, it's on a half circle and, B, it's in front of the clubhouse. And we have a drawing of fihe clubhouse we'd like to show you that shows why we don't want to cover the parking in front of the clubhouse. This is an actual rendering from our plans of how it really will iook like. Those are actual architectural plans, as well as our layout and we are doing the water feature and everything else. This is a very accurate rendifion of it. De Weerd: Flip that so people can see it as well. Anderson: Oh, to the audience? De Weerd: Yes, please. Anderson: We'd also like to show our pool area, which wasn't part of the presentation, and that is also an accurate rendering of the pool area that we plan to provide. These are not where we construct fhem and sell the units, these are owners -- we keep fhem. We have ten units across the west. We haven't sold any of apartment complexes yet and don't plan on selling this one. We plan on building them and renting them out and maintaining them ourselves. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: I guess I have a question as to timing. You know, the road is not constructed, the access has -- as far as I know is not totally through the vetting process with ITD and ACHD. What is the timing of fhis? Anderson: Okay. We have gone to ACHD and were put on the consent agenda on May 9fh, I believe it was. Or 10th. And received approval of our access locations, as well as our crossing of Allys Way and for the proposed location of East River Valley Street. So, we have gone through ACHD's process and they have agreed to it. The Meridian City Council May 20, 2008 Page 16 of 53 time frame for us in the -- I forget the date. It was January 8 when the -- when Councilmember Zaremba indicated that the dedication of the right of way should be immediately and that's key for us, because if the dedication of the right of way happen immediately, fhen, we can start constructing the road, so we can begin development as soon as possible. We have been -- like I said, waiting for several -- finro years at least to develop this and we'd like to move on. That was the Center Cal application. Thank you. De Weerd: And as far as signalization, I know that was a concern the first time you came through, so that we knew -- you have 200 plus units that the people will be able to get in and out safety. Is that -- what is the timing of that traffic signal? Anderson: Our traffic report we turned into ACHD, they approved it, and in fihe staff report -- the revised staff report fhey included fheir findings which said that our traffic won't have a significant impact on the intersection. They are charging us one-eighth of the cost of the signal, so that ACHD or ITD, however they work that out, can come in and build fhe signal later. However, they are not saying the signal needs to be part of it as part of our project. They are saying as other development occurs they will need the signal. So, we are paying for our share. De Weerd: Well, I know, but as I think was part of the -= or what I vaguely recall was part of the discussion before, it is our concern fhe safety of the public and I think that signalization is a big factor in patting that many units and that many cars with turning movements during that. So, I guess it -- have they given you any indication, ITD, on when fhat signalization would be availabie? ~ Anderson: They have indicated -- we have met with ITD as well. They gave to us the plans for the entire intersection, we incorporated those plans, including the striping plan for East River Valley Street that shows a raised median up and to our first entrance and they indicated that as soon as the remaining development occurs, that they will charge the rest of the signal cost to those other developers and, then, will put the signal in at that point. We are being charged one-eighth again. So, from ACHD's point of view, they said we will have less fhan ten vehicles per hour and they say that's not going to be a traffic issue leaving up to the firaffic engineers to decide that and that was the finding they agreed to. De Weerd: Ten vehicles per hour for 204 units? Anderson: Yes. That's what fhey came up with. That's what fhe traffic engineer came up with and that's what fhey agreed to. De Weerd: Yeah. I think we will ask Christie to respond to that one. Anderson: That was our understanding. Maybe she has a more technical answer that could help with that. Meridian City Council May 20, 2008 Page 17 of 53 De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Rountree: On that issue, a couple. Lars has indicated conversations with ACHD and getting permission from them, but the access would have to be granted by ITD. Do you have authorization and access agreement with ITD? . Anderson: We started fhat process and because we don't own the land and it hasn't been dedicated yet, we are not able to get that access agreement. So, our application was tabled and they are waiting until that -- until East River Valley Street is dedicated. Rountree: And that's my next question. If you don't own the land and at least what I read there is not a whole lot of interest in selling the land -- or you're not interested in buying fihe land, you, in good faith, said you would build the road, it seems that we kind of have in impasse there or you have an impasse there. I'm uneasy with that situation right now. Canning: Madam Mayor'? Rountree: Anna. Canning: Maybe I can go through some of fhe timing. When the minutes were amended the ofher day, it had -- we are changing the -- from in agreement to immediately, fhose minutes change you made for January, that affected two provisions of the development agreement. One was with regard to fhe Kleiner north property that this adjoins and, basically, what I would take from that immediately to me means upon approval of the DA. Having no other time reference, that would be the very first actions you take. So, they -- the Kleiner north property is required to dedicate right of way when they come in for annexation. So, the minute they come in that right of way is available and could be constructed by Bach Homes. That gets a little bit to the Mayor's timing question as well. I don't know when ITD or ACHD typically obtains those fees. It's probably when the first preliminary plat comes in. The first preliminary plat would have to come in the conditions of approval for the Center Cal and Kleiner properties, have fhat plat as one of fhe very first items that needs to occur. So, I think that they would be able to get the money for those -- those light improvements. The other issue I wanted to remind Council of is fhis is the half mile mark, so it doesn't require a variance from us for this location and they are. lining up exactly across the street and that's why the right of way shifted onto the Kleiner's property fully is because on fihe west side of Eagle Road it was shifted southward a little bit. So, I hope that clarifies a few of those issues. No? Rountree: Well, Madam Mayor, I'd comment on that issue. It's a big if and given the history of that particular piece of property it could be another generation. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members oft he Council, yes, it could and clearly they are access is contingent upon that property being annexed at this point. Meridian Ciry Council May 20, 2008 Page 18 of 53 Rountree: And a request to do such. Canning: Well, you have already approved the annexation. It's just the DA. Rountree: But have they approved the DA -- Canning: No. Rountree: -- with those stipulations? It may never happen. Anderson: So, the worst case scenario, the way we understand it, is they would be, then -- then, the annexation to took place January 8th would be void? Rountree: It wouldn't be finalized. Canning: 11 would be void after one year. Anderson: So, I guess, yes, we are reliant on fhat being built. We did change our site plan to face River Valley Street. Originally, one of our first site plans we faced Eagle Road and asked for access on Eagle Road and that is why we also had the variance request for access on Eagle Road and I guess we are -- Rountree: My comment's no reflection on you all. It's a problem. Anderson: Yeah. Well, I guess worst case scenario, we would like to -- if it came back to fhat, we could revise our site plan and come in off of Eagle Road, but that, as you all know, is worst case scenario, we would not like to have another access on Eagle Road. Bird: We wouldn't give you one. Anderson: Yeah. So, essentially, we are landlocked without that dedication of the right of way, which is why we are so -- we needed Councilmember Zaremba to clarify those , minutes. Zaremba: Well -- and I have -- my -- Madam Mayor. As I'm remembering the discussion, fhat was the intent, was that they immediately dedicate, so that you are not landlocked and prevented from getting anything. The rest of that argument -- or fhe rest of the discussion at that time was fhey didn't know how soon they were going to get there. And we, as a Council, were saying whether you get there that soon or not, fhe first thing you're going to do is give over that right of way. Anderson: And when they give that we are ready and willing to build the road. Zaremba: So, if I may pursue a quesfiion that kind of goes around that. Are you -- do you have any question about where your property line is with them? They seem to be questioning that. Meridian City Council May 20, 2008 Page 19 of 53 Anderson: No. We have had Scott Stanfield go out and survey the area. Scott, do you want to add anything to that? Okay. We are going to turn some time over to Scott to answer those questions, if that's okay with you. Zaremba: Okay. De Weerd: Thank you. Yeah. And, then, we will ask Christie after Scott to comment. Stanfield: Scott Stanfield with Manson Stanfield Engineering, 314 Badiola in Caldwell, Idaho. Got a list of things and I just added one thing to that. As Lars indicated, we had our ACHD meeting a couple weeks ago and it was on consent agenda. The staff report listed certain series of conditions, which we can comply with all of those, so, there is no problem, in our opinion, with fhe highway district. Nampa-Meridian Irrigation Board did give us conceptual approval of relocating the Stokesberry Lateral, aka Downey Sublateral on our -- along our south boundary. That was a key issue in this site layout. Without the ability to locate -- relocate the Stokesberry Lateral along our south boundary, basically, all fhose buildings along the south boundary would be gone. So, a huge impact. We did not get plan approval. My goal with Nampa-Meridian was not waste time and efforts on their engineer reviewing the plans and the details, but go to a board meeting with fhe actual board members and show them our concept and get fhem to bless off on the direction we were heading and they were pleased with that. We have even offered to put a root barrier along fhe north side of the Stokesberry Lateral that would allow us to put in heavy -- heavy landscaping on the north side of the Stokesberry Lateral. They have never seen that before and I think they are excited to see fihis as a test case, to, hopefully, move forward in the future to allow landscaping to occur next to fiheir laterals. So, we are making a lot of ground with Nampa-Meridian, again, directly with their board and they seem to be opening their eyes to some forward thinking concepts, so -- De Weerd: So, that's the secret, go directly to the board. Stanfield: Yeah. Go to their board. Call a special meeting and go to the board. De Weerd: Note taken. Stanfield: Yeah. We are -- we are doing our part by providing an ingress-egress along the commercial side right here, so that neighboring property owners north, south, and south, can utilize fhat as a backage road. That seems to be the trend along state highways. You'll see an application a little bit later for this right here, but, again, we are -- we are more than happy to provide an ingress-egress. Not much we can do beyond that, because we don't control this parcel and we don't control this parcel. But being a good neighbor we felt that was necessary to provide that opportunity. We think we have mitigated all of the Council reasons for the previous denial, with the exception of the covered parking and Lars addressed that. Nampa-Meridian is real adamant about no structures wifhin that Finch Lateral, aka South Slough. That slough, if you look at it, it's Meridian City Council May 20, 2008 Page 20 of 53 more like a drain. It does not have the appearance of a lateral. So, they are concerned about angles of repose, whether it's open or closed, and angle of repose and washing out and future repairs and maintenance on that. So, they are just real gun shy about that Finch Lateral. That was also brought up in our special board meeting as well and they -- they closed the door on any structures within fhere. So, we hit them with two items. Successful on one and failed on the ofher one. So, that's why we have to keep that variance request on the table and that is the only variance request. I think our first application we had covered patio -- the parking -- or the patio for each unit, which we are now providing. The Eagle access to temporary roadway, which we eliminated. And, then, we had the variance for the covered parking. So, we are down to just one. Commercial area to the west. Bach, they are not commercial developers. That's just a concept. That's in no way what they plan on putting there. The current plans are just to sell that off and let somebody else deal with access. They just aren't in the business of doing commercial projects. But it's part of the overall parcel, so we had to include some -- some mechanism. The ACHD staff report -- and I know Christie's here, so she can elaborate on fhat, but as I recall', the original hearing wasn't necessarily River Valley Road, it was the lack of ACHD's input and ACHD's commission's and ACHD's staff on our impacts to the traffic. We had no TI'S. We had no commission report. We had no staff report. From I what recall. This time we had that and there is nothing that I found negative in the staff report. So, we have gone and beyond what we did in the first round, which is a good thing. In fact, that's why we tabled this from last month, because ACHD staff acted on the report and everything was fine between us, but ACHD commission didn't act on it yet. So, we thought we needed to wait and clear that hurdle, unlike we didn't in the first go around almost three years ago. We discussed that Center Cal had a condition for their immediate dedication of this with their development agreement. Bach is perfectly aware that if they don't move ahead we are stuck. But we have to move ahead. We are at a point where we have felt we have waited long enough and fhere is a lot of activity to the south and, hopefully, things will come together. But if they don't, Bach won't get access and they can't build the units and they are perfecfly aware of that risk. They could always come in with a variance request for a temporary access, but, then, they are at your mercy again and you made it clear what would happen at that point. So, we just wish you would approve us tonight, knowing that we are all trying to work together and come to a joining point down the road. Regarding fhe south property line, there is no -- to my knowledge there is no issue on the south property line. The south property line is where it's at. At issue is the alignment of River Valley Road and that's, really, not an issue. It shifted to the south all ready right here and I cannot shift back~to this quarter section line to the north, because this section to the west is already built and constructed. So, it has to be shifted to the south. If you remember, our first concept three and a half -- two and a half years ago, had it centered on our property and we were quickly pointed out after there through the neighborhood meeting wit~h Center Cal last year that the intersection had to be shifted to the south. So, no property line discrepancy, in my opinion, no right of way location. I mean it is where it is. Our concerns with Center Cal were that if that north right of way line is shifted too far south of our south line, that a spite strip would be created, thereby, blocking our -- blocking our access. But that was taken care of in their -- in their annexation requirements and development agreement conditions, that no spite strips be Meridian City Council May 20, 2008 Page 21 of 53 created. So, I fhink that's the property line issue. I don't think there was an issue regarding ownership lines, it was just where River Valley Road is going to be. Some other things that Bach changed was the elevations used.~ I think Councilman Rountree will remember better. I think your concern in your mofion to deny or support the denial was lack of material types provided, lack of roofing type, facades, and Anna went over describing fhose, so I won't be redundant. But some of you were also concerned about these end units just being a-- just a massive wall. We have added this little pop out here and this roof structure here to kind of break that visual effect up. So, we think we have accommodated that. And Lars already showed the pool area. I think there was concerns about what that final detail would look like. And that pool area, if I could maybe show that one more time, Randy. This is -- believe it or not, this is real close to what that's going to look like. The landscape gurus took this plan view from our colored elevation and did a 3-D rise of it, with these brick cabanas and the putting green area, what you see is pretty much what you're going to get and it looks resort style, in my opinion. So, we have added quite a bit more detail in the pool area. The clubhouse is right back in here and you have seen fhose elevation views and the plan views in your packet. So, quite a bit more detail on this round. And with that I will try and answer any quesfions. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Rounfiree: I have none right now. De Weerd: Thank you. Stanfield: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. There were no others signed up to tesfify. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Where did Christie go? Rountree: She knew it was her turn. She left. De Weerd: Scott, did you have any comments, any further detail on the traffic counts? Stanfield: I'm going off my memory. Maybe Lars will take a cue and dig it out. But I believe he's correct. It said ten vehicle trips per hour. Apartment complexes are unique. They are not all in the morning, they are not all in the afternoon coming home. Apartment sfyle living is quite a bit different, believe it or not, than the single family unit type living. There is professions here, there is laborers, fhere is a whole mix of people in a nice apartment complex. So, your traffic counts are spread out all throughout the day is what the IT manual indicates and I think that's where ACHD got that. And I hear Lars thumbing through the report -- De Weerd: Well, Christie's back, so -- Meridian Ciry Council May 20, 2008 Page 22 of 53 Stanfield: Okay. If she can elaborate on it. the staff report from what I was thinking from to ten per day per unit, but looking through there for the traffic counts on an hourly basis. So, those were initially low, the way I read a single family unit, because we are used the IT manual there is some justifications De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Zaremba: While he's still there, just -- this is kind of going backwards, just a clarification of what I fihink has been said on the parking spaces. With the exception of right in front of the clubhouse at the main entrance and the parking spaces that are in the easement for Nampa-Meridian, every other parking space has some kind of a cover. Stanfield: Yes. Zaremba: It's either a garage or a carport. Stanfield: Yes. This north boundary, no covered along here. Kind of shaky. I took an allergy medicine Singular and I just found out that they have a new warning label that it causes hand tremors and that really made me mad, so -- Rountree: Just as long as it's not the Council. Stanfield: No. It's the medicine. It's Singular. It's a new warning that they have. My pharmacist told me about that. I said that's where that came from. De Weerd: You should see me on muscle relaxers. Stanfield: It's driving me up a wall, but -- if's probably going away. I bagged the Singular and went to Alavert. Yeah, this will be left open right here. This -- and when we talk fhe lateral, no covered parking on the lateral, let's make sure we say the Finch Lateral, because we are providing on the Stokesberry, aka Downey, a garage here. This is left open for the view corridor to the clubhouse. This is closed. Of course, these in front of the unit are closed. So, fhey -- to repeat, the only open are along the Finch Lateral and right in the entryway. Yeah. And the brown rectangles are carports. The different colored brown rectangles are garages. Zaremba: So, fhe answer is there are no other parking spaces available that you could add covering to. Stanfield: Correct, Councilmember Zaremba. Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council May 20, 2008 Page 23 of 53 De Weerd: Thank you. Christie. We want to make sure you don't get bored coming to our meetings. Little: Ghristie Little. I represent Ada County Highway District. 3775 North Adams Street in Garden City. De Weerd: Thank you. Little: First, let me just read to you a little bit of the traffic study -- impact study that was in our report. And this was taken from Hales Engineering. Our traffic engineer reviews the traffic studies that come our way and reviews the findings and if there is major questions or concerns or deficits, we keep going until we get fihose. But, generally, we provide the executive summary and with regard to the trip generation, generally speaking, apartments do have a lower trip generation rate per unit than single family dwellings do and with this particular apartment complex project, the daily trips for -- were projected at just over 2,000 vehicles per day. The morning peak hour trips, which is the too busiest hours of fhe morning, are 157 vehicles per hour. The evening peak hour trips, two busiest hours in the evening, are 189 vehicles per hour. And, then, we have also got trips for weekends. But that's how these trips are broken out. That's how our model is run, using p.m. peak hours. So, that's the same information they gave us there. What were your other questions? De Weerd: Oh, I was just hung up on the simplified ten trips per hour. Little: Okay. Zaremba: That would be the average of the entire 24 hours. De Weerd: Yeah. That's the average. But peak hours are kind of fhe pique of our interest. Little: And that is -- Madam Mayor, that is how levels of service are calculated and warrant analysis are all based on the peak hour trips. So, we are not looking at the lowest volume of the day, we are looking at the peak hour trips. De Weerd: Uh-huh. Little: And, unfortunately, there is not a lot of information about the signal at River Valley. In this staff report it does say that ACHD is requiring that the applicant provide a road trust for one-eighth of the cost of the signal. These signals that are shared between ACHD and ITD are somewhat difficult and the fact that ACHD doesn't control when fhe signal goes in and ACHD is expected to fund the signal regardless of the ITD leg. So, there is -- it's not just the applicant raising the confusion, it's just -- that's just what we are faced with. Meridian City Council May 20, 2008 Page 24 of 53 De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Questions for Christie? Rountree: Oh; Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Rountree: So, the conclusion, based on the peak hour traffic, there was no signal warrant at this time? Litt1e: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, there wasn't, based on the background traffic. The traffic study did not take into account the specific proposal for the Kleiner property. There was some generalities put there, but it wasn't -- if's difficult to ask people to do that when we have got all of these question marks out in the air. So, with just the background traffic and this application, a signal wasn't warranted. I would anticipate if you put the two together, of course, fhen, it is. It just wasn't evaluated that way. Rountree: Okay. De Weerd: When is it going to be evaluated that way? Little: When the Kleiner property comes in -- well, first of all, I mean just off the top of my head, I know fhat a signal won't be warranted with just the apartment complex. So, my.guess is that when the Kleiner property comes in or anything adjacent to this site that would be a large trip generator, we would see that, then. Canning: Madam Mayor, might I ask for clarification? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Canning: Do you do that analysis at the time of preliminary plat application or does it have to be actual building? Little: Madam Mayor, we would -- when we get a preliminary plat application, we would review that warrant analysis, then. Oftentimes it's a phased approach, like you have seen with past developments in Meridian, you know, after the 200th lot or after so many trips. So, we do track it by phasing. It would just depend on what they plan to come in with first. De Weerd: I guess -- and, I don't know, maybe our police department can more comment. It concerns me having trips have full turning movement in this -- on Eagle Road. You know, I guess that has always been my greatest concern is putting more turning movements in a road that our police and fire already spend a majority of their time on. So, are those considerations when you're doing fihe determination on if a lighted intersection is required at that time? Meridian City Council May 20, 2008 Page 25 of 53 Little: Madam Mayor, generally with signals related to new development, it's specifically related to the engineering standards, engineering warrants, based on fhe ITD manual. But common sense plays a part in there, too, obviously, and, you know, I was just reading in fhe staff report here, even -- you know, the staff report spelled out the need for ACHD and ITD and the city to work togefher to address those concerns and fhose needs. I think it was just us making the reiterations that Eagle Road isn't under the jurisdiction of ACHD and there is not a lot we can -- we can offer. So, I think fhat was our way of suggesting that the city could jump in with concerns as well. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I could make a comment on what Christie said. We don't know where ITD will weigh in on fhis. I have a suspicion where they will, but they could, as part of their access granting, require a signal. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: And that would be as a result of a combined study with this project and the application for the current owner. Zaremba: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: It would be my. guess that even if ITD did require the signal for the access, fihis applicant's participation in that signal wouldn't change from the one-eighth that they have already committed to. Rountree:` Probably not. Zaremba: It's just a matter of timing on the signal I fhink. Is fhat correct? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Okay. Anything further from Council? Zaremba: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Yes. Zare:mba: This is kind of a sideways question, I guess, but there was a time when we had a discussion about putting a deadline on development agreements from the time it was acted upon by the Council to when fihe applicant was required to sign it and I know we talked about six months, but I don't remember whether we ever really resolved that. Do we have a deadline on DA's at this point? . De Weerd: One year. Meridian City Council May 20, 2008 Page 26 of 53 Zaremba: One year'? Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? Do you have wrap-up remarks? Anderson: First of all, are we clear, fhen, on the traffic report? De Weerd: If you will just restate your name for the record. Anderson: Lars Anderson with Bach Homes again. De Weerd: Thank you. Anderson: Do we feel like we are clear on the traffic -- on the traffic impact study, then? I appreciate Christie from ACHD clarifying that and we have the same numbers that she did after I looked at the traffic report and we appreciated that. I would like to comment just briefly on the timing of the signal. It is really out of our control and we are pretty small compared to fihe rest of the development around there and are willing, again, to follow through with any of ACHD's requirements and pay for that one-eighth of a signal. They have given us fihe opfiion, as you probably can read in the staff report, to also add the crossing going over the Finch Lateral, in lieu of using our money towards that, because they are very interested in Allys Way continuing all the way to the north as well. So, they are giving us two options in the staff report and we haven't chosen one or the other yet to them that are equal. So, we will -- I guess we will decide that at a later time when we get closer to our final plat. Stanfield: Mayor, Members of the Council, I just don't want to get hung up on this -- oh, Scott Stanfield. On the right way. Rountree: It's not the medication. De Weerd,: You were hearing voices. You were. Stanfield: Yeah. The right of way. Again, that all has to come together. If Center Cal and fhe Kleiners are moving ahead with their development agreement for that portion, that means they are moving ahead wifh a project. That means the light, in all likelihood, is going to have to go in. That means now we have the opportunity to build that roadway, which means now this signal is going to be there, because there is a reason for it to be fhere. And without Kleiner's development agreement, that tells me they are not ready to develop, that means there is no signal. .That means we are not going to get the right of way, so they are not going to finish their development agreement. So, I think that will really take care of itself once that DA moves forward for their DA number finro or whatever they called it on fihe north side. So, it's not like we are jumping in. We are building this and, then, we are waiting. The key is that DA and they certainly are not going to pull fhe trigger until they are ready. So, I hope -- I kind of hope that helps. We are just trying to do everything simultaneously and not miss our window of opportunity and wait for them and come in and -- come in five years later. Meridian City Council May 20, 2008 Page 27 of 53 Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: As we continue the discussion, more and more of my recollection fills in as well and I think the upshot of the discussion where we finally made the motion that they would dedicate this immediately and get that into it, was fhat they were proposing a phasing plan that started from their south and went in like five phases until they got to where this was going to be and they had made the request fhat they not do anything about this easement or dedication or roadway and knowing that the alignment had to be where it was, that that's what generated the saying, you know, this needs to be the first fhing you do is get this dedicated, just for this purpose, so that this property, one, didn't need access to Eagle Road and, two, wasn't held up by a neighbor who was developing in phases from the soufh. So, hopefully, that DA will get done quickly. Stanfield: Correct. And that was my recollection, too. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further from the Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Question for Anna. On the covered parking, is there an alternate compliance and there are -- some of the fhings that they are proposing with respect to pathway down the drain and a pedestrian crossing and those sorts of things, as opposed to providing covered parking, was that taken into consideration in the staff s analysis and is it fair to take that into consideration? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my -- I believe fihat the alternative compliance is not available for parking standards and fhis is a parking standard. It's available for shared use and -- and alternate fimes of use, but fhat's the only part of the parking provisions that were open to alternative compliance. It's not like a landscape chapter where the whole thing is fair game, there was -- we didn't have alternative compliance for parking standards. Rountree: Madam Mayor, follow up. If you would refresh my memory on the requirement.for.cbvered parking. Canning: The requirement is if it's a one bedroom unit, you have to have one covered and one can be uncovered. If it's a two bedroom you have to have two covered. Rountree: And to accomplish what end? Meridian City Council May 20, 2008 Page 28 of 53 Canning: Why do we require the covering? Well, we -- when we were drafting the Unified Development Code we had a developer of several successful apartment complexes in the Boise area come and talk to us and about what are appropriate standards for multi-family developments and he felt that that was really one of the key ones was having the covered parking. I think it was generally that the -- fhe quality of the development and the kind of presence it makes in the community was much higher than if you don't provide the covered parking. Rountree: And that's my recollecfion as well, that it -- it tends to not create a situation where you have trailers parked and RV's parked and derelict vehicles parked out in the open and kind of in places that are not seen. And do we have parking requirements in our ordinance fhat would take care of a portion of that on private property or could we add something to that effect to the DA if we were to consider the variance? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a conditional use before you as well. You could just put it in the Conditional Use Permit for the multi-family development would be the cleanest way to go. Rountree: Madam Mayor, another -- another piece -- a piece that I'm concerned about and to you all, you have done an excellent job of listening. I think you have picked up on what -- I know what I said anyway and I think everybody else, possibly. But this, whole issue of your asking us to give you an entitlement with annexation, an entitlement that could very well -- well, will go with the property, but you may never be able to consummate the deal here and, then, it flips and, then, we have an entitlement and some leverage, I guess, with the DA, but it still could get into a situation where we could be in conflict. My quesfion to Anna with respect to that, can we -- could we condition as part of the development agreement or fhe conditional use the duration or timing of the annexation, that if there is a failure to annex the property to the south and complete the access, that at some point in time the annexation is null and void? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that's why I walked around to Mr. Baird a bit ago and his -- he was reluctant to see Council go that way. The more appropriate course of action may be to just continue it. And I would even say week by week to see what's happening on fhe Kleiner property. I had expected to see movement one way or the other on that a couple weeks ago. If it's going to happen, it's probable going to happen soon. I don't -- if it's going to fall apart, ,it's going to happen soon also. So, that may be the -- a course that the Council could consider as well. Rountree: I guess, Madam Mayor, my issue with that is that this will be a multiple term for me that are not necessarily consecutive, but I can go back about 15 or 20 years and it's going to be real soon now. The history is not good. That's my problem wifh this, is fhat we could be, like I said, anofher generation away from something happening there. Not that the desire to do something out there isn't there, but we just have some issues wifh getting agreement. Well, anyway -- so, there is hesitancy on the part of Mr. Baird and legal to attempt to do that and if you could help me with that -- Meridian Ciry Council May 20, 2008 Page 29 of 53 Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree, the statute just does not provide for a condifiional annexation. Once you're in, the entitlement's there, the property is endowed with it. You can initiate deannexation proceedings, but you can't condifion that into your initial approval. That's why it seems to be that staff is suggesting that the access is a concern, that that be resolved before you make the action of granting the annexation, because that's the hammer that you have to require the applicant to solve fhat problem. De Weerd: Mr. Baird, I guess my question, fhen, would be can you annex it on that contingency of the year -- year's time and, then, make the contingency on the conditional use, that it stay under single ownership. If a new owner were to come in, the condition use is null and void? Baird: Madam Mayor, certainly the conditions on the conditional use you could implement, but the annexation would stand. It would be a property that's inside your city and -- De Weerd: But I guess in that year's time, then, you could initiate the deannexation -- I don't know. I'm just trying to find -- Rountree: Madam Mayor, let me explore another angle here. Now, fhis dialogue is all kind of along the lines that there is a possibility that somebody's going to move to approve this, but could there be a motion to approve the annexation and hold the ordinance until such time as the access agreement situation is done? I mean we have an applicant, apparently, that's willing to take, in my opinion, an extremely large risk. Now, we can take care of their risk real easy by saying no. Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree, a couple of things come to mind that I don't want to give you legal advice in an open session. I guess what I'm getting at is once you make a decision on the record, fhe party that has that in their pocket ~can take acfion to force you to consummate and if they are ready to --. Rountree: There is a fime limit. Baird: Yeah. Yeah. So -- Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Baird -- just a minute, Mr. Bird. B'ird: Go ahead. De Weerd: Can maybe this be continued for a week and you can bring back some options to Council to consider'? ~ Meridian City Courncil May 20, 2008 Page 30 of 53 Baird: Madam Mayor, that's an excellent idea. These fhings just come up and they do hinge on the statutory language that we might want to take a little time to digest, look at the case law -- De Weerd: Maybe the appiicant has some ideas they can work with staff on as well. I guess instead of us trying to create something that might not work for us or might not work for you, it might help to have a week to consider the different choices. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of fihe Council, if Council decides to go that way, I would ask that you just leave the Public Hearing open for the question as timing of the improvements and fiming of annexation, rather than the project itself. Unless you have concerns about the use. If you have outstanding concerns about the use, certainly, leave it open, but if not, if we could close that portion that would be helpful. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Madam Mayor, my concern is about the access issue and the fiming of that and the entitlement if we do something without that. So, I would be interested in exploring that particular issue and, then, making a decision yea or nay. De Weerd: So, you can continue it on -- on fhat basis. Rountree: Well, that's my position. I don't know about fhe rest of the Council. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: I agree with Councilman Rountree. That's the focus of my concern and in regard to the other issues, I think I agree with counsel and applaud the applicant in the changes fhat were made. There is many of them that we have seen and I appreciate it and understand in particular the reason also for fhe variance, I just throw out the comment that I'm supportive of it in light of what we have heard and the justificafion and the challenges fhat the site's provided. So, the focus of my concern also is the timing of that access to Eagle. I'm concerned about annexing and entitling a property without any access or control to have access. I appreciate the applicant's comments on that risk, but I would be inclined to continue -- if a week's enough. It might be a couple. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd; Mr. Bird. Bird: I have a problem, like the other Councilmen, approving a nice development that's landlocked and that's what they basically are is landlocked. I don't think a week from now you're going to have a decision whether that road's going to be available or not. I don't know if we ever are and I don't know. how we are going to figure that out. I Meridian City Council May 20, 2008 Page 31 of 53 applaud you, you guys went back and did everything we asked, you did a beautiful job, it's a nice project, I just wish there was a way we could get you a road down there. But I don't know if we can do it in one week or finro weeks or what and have some answers. I don't know. De Weerd: Well, I think Director Canning suggested maybe a week by week, but at least we can get some answers to fhe access and some recommended -- or some options and I know I don't have my crystal ball with the Kleiner piece right now, but we can see where we are at next week and work with the applicants on the timing of this, so -- any comments from the applicant? Anderson: Our comments are we specifically waited until Center Cal's approval of their annexation for us to even make applicafion and we have been waiting, as you know, several years and, then, last month we were continued again. So, this is a continuation already tonight and our fear is being continued again. We -- because our -- we want to be annexed, obviously, even if the -- a road -- the right of way is up for discussion, that's already been approved -- their annexation was approved in January 8, so we feel like we have already got Center Cal on the hook, so to speak, to dedicate their right of way and so we are following the process every step along fhe way and that we not be confinued, that we get our annexation and our Conditional Use Permit and our variance, so that contingent -- if you can put it in the development agreement, confingent on Center Cal's development agreement dedicating that right of way, we would be okay with that. We understand your position that you can't force someone else to develop, but if we could at least get approval on our piece, then, we don't have to come back for that and we can wait for a-- the development agreement to be approved on the Center Cal property or Kleiner property, however you want to call it. Yes. Again, we are moving ahead at our own risk. As you can see, we put tens of thousands of dollars so far besides the cost of the land into it and so we are anxious, of course, to move ahead and we feel like the apartment community is needed in the city, that we will -- as soon as we build it we will lease it up quite quickly, because it's a-- it's a need -- multi-family housing is needed in fhis area. Thank you for your time. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, what's your direction? Rountree: Madam IVlayor, I'll throw something out here as soon as I find a date Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: While Councilman Rounfiree is looking at dates and if there is -- might be a discussion on continuance, I guess I would ask the applicant -- I don't know, did you travel up here from Utah? Anderson: Yes. We -- our office is in Sait Lake City. Meridian City Council May 20, 2008 Page 32 of 53 Borton: So, I'd ask you if there is a continuance, is there -- one way we can go is, you know, set it out a ways so you're not making plans to fly up and back every week and, then, if something gets resolved, put it on an earlier agenda. I'm just trying to accommodate travel schedule, so you're not coming back and forth. Anderson: Yes. Of course, if we are not continued, which is our hope, that would allow us to proceed with the process of platting and -- De Weerd.: I think you're going to be continued. Anderson: Yeah. We will come back as needed. It's an important project to us. Rounfiree: At this point the 27th is pretty shy of activity, unless you can tell me Olive Tree is going to take all night. Okay. So, the 27th would not be bad. The 3rd at this point is even lighter, but it certainly will fill in. De Weerd: I think staff can probably have the information back to you next week. I don't know about the Kleiners, but if's a day-by-day process there. Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: This, again, is a sideways question, but there have been -- the 27th is an election day. There are no city offices up in this election, but there have been times in the past where we did not have a City Council meeting on an election day. De Weerd: Oh, who aares. Zaremba: Is that an issue or not an issue? De Weerd: Is there anyone on Council fhat cares? Baird: Madam Mayor, if I could chime in on that. We took a quick look at the statutes. There is no statute that prohibits you from meeting. . If there is a concern about keeping people from the polls, you can go on record requesting that we not start any public hearings until 8:00 o'clock on that particular night. That will allow you to get your staff reports out of the way and possibly take a short break. Zaremba: Thank you. That would work for me. Rountree: Given that information, I would move that we continue the public hearings on Items 14, 15 and 16 until our next regularly scheduled meeting on May 27th, directing staff to provide us some research on annexafiion, entitlements, and if fhere are any methods in which an appiication of this type could be conditioned and to accommodate the unknown aspect of access. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and second. All those in favor of the motion -- Meridian City Council May 20, 2008 Page 33 of 53 Borton: Madam Mayor`? De Weerd: There is no discussion on these kind of motions. Borton: Oh, Okay. De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. Any nays? Did I hear all ayes? All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. You need additional -- Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: Just a question to try and make sure no one's time's wasted. One of the components which seems to be a huge challenge is the execution of the DA on the Kleiner property and without fhat we might be indefinitely stuck and if that doesn't occur within a week or a month, while we might get a lot of information, are we going to be in a position where we can actually take action? Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, what I understand the direction to legal staff is to see if there is some tool that would allow you to take action on this application wifihout having that -- Borton: Okay. Baird: -- in place. Again, our off-the-cuff response is that we believe the statute doesn't give us some tools, but I think given a week to reflect on it, do a little bit of extra research, we can come back and definitively give you some options or tell you that annexation is your -- your only hammer. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, ,Mr. Bird. Bird: I need to ask a question, Actuaily, in a DA we can put stipulafions whatever we want in it. A DA is what that is for is to put stipulations and to control development. I-- I don't know. I hope that next week, whatever comes back, we at least act on it, we don't jack fhese people around for another year. Rountree: I agree. Zaremba: That was my intent as well. Do something next week. Meridian City Council May 20, 2008 Page 34 of 53 De Weerd: Uh-huh. Stanfield: Is the Public Hearing still open? Scott Stanfield -- De Weerd: Well, no, we just, actually, continued it, but if you have a question for clarification. Stanfield: I just want to throw one more option out while Christie's here. We are forgetting about this, Allys Way. I think there is an eighth of a mile or a quarter mile gap. If this falls apart, Bach has spent so much money on interest on this land they are probably not going to walk away from it. We could concentrate our resources on building this gap, instead of this gap. Rountree: Okay. We give you a week to explore that. Stanfield: Yeah, Just another tool in the toolbox. De Weerd: Yes. Rountree: Good point. De Weerd: Thank you. Well, this is continued, Item 14, 15 and 16, until next week. Thank you. Item 17: Continued Public Hearing from May 6, 2008: TE 08-003 Request for approval of an 18-month Time Extension to obtain the City Engineer's signature on fhe Final Plat and commence the use in accordance with the conditions of approvat of AZ 05-016, PP 05-023, CUP 05-024, FP 06-011, PS 07-003 and TE 07-004 for Umbria Subdivision (aka Silver Oaks) by Ten Mile Development, LLC - north side of West Franklin Road, approximately'/ mile west of North Ten Mile Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 17 is also a continued Public Hearing from May 6, 2008. I will ask staff, Anna -- who is not here. Oh. We will take a five minute break. Rountree: There she comes. De Weerd: That five minutes was very fast. We are still on the record. Okay. Item 17 is a continued Public Hearing on TE 08-003. I will ask for staff aomments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, fihis is a continued Public Hearing for Umbria, also known as Silver Oaks. It is located at Ten Mile and Franklin just west of the future church site and this is a time extension for final plat and Conditional Use Permit approval. I think I have a picture of fhe plat fhere. Sorry.