Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 8, 2008 C/C MinutesMeridian City Council July 8, 2008 Page 15 of 40 Rountree: I move that we approve Item No. 8, MFP 08-004, with the condition of adding an additional tree and the condition as just stated by the planning administrator with the applicant working with ACHD on landscaping and i~rigating and fhat maintaining ACHD's right of way along the relocated canal and fihe installafion of the detached sidewalk. i Bird: Second. i De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Do you need clarification? ~ Canning: Madam Mayor. Did -- did you just indicate that the applicant is responsible for constructing fhe detached sidewalk? ~ De Weerd: Yes. That's what I thought you said. ~ Canning: Okay. De Weerd: Yes. Thank you for the clarification. Okay. Hearing no other aomments, Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll? ~~ Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Bortqn, yea. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. All ayes. ; I MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from June 24, 2008: AZ 06-063 Request for Annexafion and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C-G zones for Waltman Propertv (aka Brownina_ Plaza) by Waltman, LLC - 505, 521, 615 and 675 Waltman Lane: '~„ . ~ Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from June 24, 2008: PP 08-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 commercial / office lots and 1 common lot on 38.21 acres in a proposed GG zoning district for Browninq Plaza (aka Waltman Property) by SLN Planning, Inc. - 505, 521, 615 and 675 W. Waltman Lane: ~ De Weerd: Okay. Items 9 and 10 are continued public hearings on AZ 06-063 and PP 08-001. ~ Borton: Madam Mayor, I will recuse myself from -- Meridian City Cowncil July 8, 2008 Page 16 of 40 ~ De Weerd: Okay. This item was continued for specific information requested by Councilman Rountree to staff's updated staff recommendafions and it is not for the testimony, as I understand. it, Councit: Bird: That's right. Rountree: That was correct, Madam Mayor. We wanted a summation of the comments and/or conditions and issues and concerns and commitments on fhe part of the developer done by planning staff and they have submitt ~d fhe July 3rd letter to us and I think Anna is going to go over that for us. I Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'd :also like to note that you have received written testimony since our last hearing from Donna Aldridge, so I just wanted to make sure you were aware of that. It isn't quite visible, is it? Okay. I will try and be brief, but as we got into this, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we did realize that fhere was a lot of confusing and contradicting provisi'ons and just stuff that needed clarifying, so I'll try and go through it quickly and I will only hit on the ones that I have comment bullets on. If Council has addifional commenfs, I can go back and get those. With regard to the existing animals, if's kind of silly, ~ we put in another horse, just because horses are pack animals, but that's really not~ a big concern to either party I don't fhink, so -- the applicant shall improve Waltman Lane adjacent the site and off-site to the end of the split corridor improvements per the half street sections attached in Exhibit 1. We did want to note that the fire department'~ noted safety concerns that the proposed half street section does not have enough capacity to accommodate projected traffic volumes, including people coming through from ~the south end of Linder Road. And I think tha# the fire department has looked this~ over again and may have a modification to their initial statement and it's -- I'm getting a nod of the head, so I'll pass this on. J Niemeyer: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, today Deputy Chief Silva went over and met with Anna and planning and clarified that the road width would to be two 12 foot travel lanes and if that is fhe case -- and Anna can confirm that, we are okay with the street width, then, as far as concerns on that. , ~ De Weerd: Thank you. Canning: Okay. Now, moving down to -- and that was the only outstanding concern on that one from staff's point. I think the applicant has some statements regarding that one as well. Going to Item No. 10. We do have -- we have the statement: However, construction traffic for fhe purpose of infrastructure, sewer, water, and roads improvement shall be allowed to use Waltman Lane ; prior to the completion of the Waltman Lane - Meridian Road - Main Street intersecfion and we just wanted to note there that the -- the appiicant does need to be a,ble to do those infrastructure improvements along with the -- at the same time that construction is going on for the split corridor. So, we put that in there. We couldn't prevent them from ever doing any construction traffic on Waltman, because that's where ;he utilities need to come from. ~ ~ i :i Meridian City Council July 8, 2008 Page 17 of 40 So, that was just a clarification, not an outstanding concern. With regard to number 14, architectural design elements on the structures shall continue all the way around the structure, similar to the example provided by the applicant at Target included as Exhibit 2. And my quesfion to City Council was does City Coun~cil want to include reference to upcoming design guidelines as well. It wasn't mentioned at the hearings, but I just wanted to provide that for your consideration. Going d:own to number 17. Except for the potential hotel site at the southwest corner, offices ~shall be constructed along the west and northwest boundaries of the site as a transitional use to the exisfing residential uses, unless fhe adjacent uses are changed into nonresi'dential uses. And the applicant has requested this be replaced by the prohibition of eertain uses listed in provision number 19 and we will get to that one shortly. So, th;e applicant wants to strike this comment or provision. De Weerd: Before you move on, is -- would that be your -- Canning: Our recommendation? No. De Weerd: -- recommendation? Canning: No, it would not. De Weerd: Thank you. Canning: Conditional Use Permit approval is required for a11 restaurant and retail uses proposed along the western and northwestern pro:perty boundaries adjacent to residential units and, again, the applicant requests that'~his portion be stricken out and that the CUP only be required for sfiructures over 100,000 square feet within a hundred feet of the residenfiial district. And, again, you know, I guess staff's opinion was, even fhough those folks along that western boundary didn't participate much in the hearings, that putting a 100,000 square foot building up against that residential buffer, even with listed prohibition of uses, fhat's just a big building and I think that it should require -- you know, if it's 99,000 square feet, that's still a really big building. I mean we were talking during the hearing process of much smaller buildings o4n the lines of 10,000 and less. So, I think that that's a big change. So, we are not reco,mmending approval of that one either. Residential uses approved through the CUP' process along the north and northwest boundaries of the site are not allowed to have outdoor seating areas within a hundred feet of the residential property, unless the atljacent uses are changed into nonresidential uses. And this condition seemed to have lost its meaning through the multiple concept plans, so staff reworded it to try and meet the original intent. We kind -- we kind of worked with the applicant on this one and thought they were in agreement, but fhey would like to see this one modified as well. What we did on a number of these coming up, you will see that they say for concept plani~ one, so we tried to distinguish between the two concept plans here. So, for concept plan one, all structures along the west and northwest property boundaries adjacent to existing residences, shall be limited in height to two stories and shall have a minimum setback of 25 feet adjacent to the existing residences, unless the adjacent uses are changed into nonresidential, with the i~ Meridian City Council July 8, 2008 Page T8 of 40 exception of the proposed hotel. If the hotel is built at the southwest, as depicted on the concept plan, the 25 foot setback -- and I'm not going to go through the rest of that, but it, basically, keeps what was in fihe concept plan one a;nd, then, for concept plan two, appropriate setbacks will be determined at the public hearing for the preliminary plats and condifions will be placed on the plats accordingly,~ No development agreement modification shall be necessary. And the applicant pro~poses that this requirement be replaced with provision number 21 above. So, 21 is the CUP for 100,000 square feet. So, really, all the -- the kind of protecfions for the neighborhood with regard to concept plan one, the applicant's asking to go back to just the requirement for the CU for 100,000 square feet or more or within a hundred feet of 'a residential district. And, then, number 25, for concept plan one, no rear loading areas, delivering areas, trash areas, or infirusive lighting shall be permitted adjacent to exisfing residences. And, again, the applicant proposes this to be stricken in lieu of the pe~rimeter wall required along the boundary. And that's number 32. We did go back and~~ look at both concept plans and we recommended cutting down the minimum numbe~ of buildings to ten. Staff is proposing that this change be consistent wifh both concept plans. If the applicant -- number 35. If the applicant chooses to develop consistent with concept plan one, constructs a maximum of five access points to Corporate Drive as shown on the concept plan number one, unless the development ;agreement is modified by the developer once actual users are identified. Then, if th'e applicant chooses to develop consistent with concept plan number finro, appropriate access points shall be determined at the public hearing for fihe preliminary plat. And, again, the fire department noted safety concerns that all intersections should have a 90 degree approach to improve visibility for all vehicles and that's because concept plan number two shows some odd intersections, but we can address those when they have a more finalized idea of what the road layout will be. So, I think that, you know, the fire department was right in raising that concern, but I think that we get that straightened out through the normal process. And that's all we have for now. I know that~the applicant does have -- has provided a comment letter that goes through a number'of these one by one. I can -- I'll leave this up, so you can see it as he goes through his rebuttal. Can I answer any questions -- '~ De Weerd: Council, any questions? Canning: -- of Mayor and Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: I guess, Council, I have a question for you. ' Rountree: No questions. Bird: I have none. De Weerd: I know staff's continued to refer to rebuttal~ but I didn't know that this was only kept open for this particular report, so do you want `ebuttal? Meridian City Council July 8, 2008 Page 49 of 40 Rountree: Madam Mayor, my preference would not -- if we are not going to move forward with this, we don't need rebuttal. If we are going to move forward with this, I believe what we have in the report would be the basis for any favorable vote. So, I don't -- I'm not inclined to change it. ; Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of fihe Council, I thought my recollection was that you would ask for Mrs. Canning to basically incapsulize all of the points that had been previously made and that fhis new report, then, was ~prepared with those amended changes. I think it's incumbent to allow the application ~the ability to rebut. They have filed a written letter, so I don't know if you need additional testimony to that, but I think they do -- are entitled to at least be able to put their comments on the record that are in opposition to this new report, because there is some ~different information that they, obviously, disagree with. So, if you think they are sufficient with the written, that's fine. Otherwise, I do think they are entitled to at least put that on the record. De Weerd: Thanks for clarifying that. Rountree: Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would not disagree with what they have got. If'ithey want to testify, that's fine. But we kept -- we continued this public hearing strictly for this one deal, but being the applicant, they should get rebuttai time if they want it. De Weerd: So, you want additional information to the ietter? Canning: Madam Mayor -- Bird: A copy of their letter -- Madam Mayor, if they want to, if they feel the need to testify, I have no problem with that, but if -- I don't need if~. ; De Weerd: Okay. Mrs. Canning. I 'i Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there'~is -- the applicant has provided a number of comments that are basically new information. If -- if there is a split in Council regarding whether or not they want additional testimony, you could just limit it to -- based on these items, rather than bringing up new suggestions or new standards. - . I Meridian City Council July 8, 2008 Page 20 of 40 De Weerd: Well, if they bring new information, I'll have to open it up to all public comment. So -- and, Council, you can't split, so -- there ~s three of you. So, what would you like to do? I have heard from one. He would like to hear comments from the applicant in the form of rebuttaL ~ Rountree: And one that said no. ~ De Weerd: One that said no and so it's up to Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I felt that the purpose of our asking for the continuation was to see in writing many of fhe things that we discussed about and to cla:rify for us and for the applicant what our answers to some of those questions were. I think the clarification is for the benefit of the applicant, as well as for us, and I think it would be fair for the applicant to address those, limiting his testimony to only those subjects, not supplying any new information. ~ De Weerd: Okay. So, I would invite the applicant to, please, provide that rebuttal, but if you do enter -- if you do interject new information, I will open up the public hearing for additional public comment, then. ~ Nickel: Madam Mayor, thank you. Shawn Nickel, 6223 North Discovery Way, Suite 200, in Boise. De Weerd: Thank you. Nickel: Representing the applicant. It was my recollect~on that you were going to allow us the ability to speak. I think Council Member Rountree's comments were to make sure we were not accepting -- or not accepting conditions that we couldn't live with, otherwise why -- why approve the annexation if if's sornething that we are not going to go forward with that. It was my recollection was that we wanted to have that ability, so I appreciate that. . De Weerd: And you do not have the ability, but if you entertain -- if you enter in new information, I will open this up again. Nickel: Okay. And I'll just leave that up to you as to whether I'm giving new information. I'm going to go through specifically fhe conditions that are proposed by staff based on our past meetings and what brought us to this point. So, I hope I can do that. Madam Mayor, Council, there are 37 conditions proposed by staff, of which ten of those we would like some clarification or modification on. Beginning with condition number three, fhe developer -- fhe developer that this applicant is working with, that has spoke in the past, may very well come back and construct this as a. shopping center and may very well build the secfion of Waltman Lane from our eastern boundary to the new intersection. However, in the event that this center ~does not go with that second concept plan and is developed lot by lot and building by building, as is indicated in the first concept plan that we originally approved and becau~~se of the anficipated traffic that i Meridian Ciry Council July 8, 2008 Page 21 of 40 has been analyzed and condifioned by ACHD not to require these up front improvements on Waltman, we would like to propose a triggering mechanism for that -- fhose improvements to Waltman to allow up to 150,OOq square feet or -- make sure I phrase this right -- to allow 150,000 square feet of office and retail ~before the -- before fhat triggers the Waltman ~improvements on that one stretch or if a big box comes in with that first phase or any phases, that would trigger that Waltman improvement. In other words, ACHD is not requiring -- based on the veh'icle trips that we have been conditioned through ACHD, those are in place and have been recognized by this body, without fhat section of Waltman being constructed. De Weerd: So, you wouldn't do any improvements on~ Waltman until 150,OOD square feet? , Nickel: That's what we are proposing or until a big box -- or if the big box is -- of any size is proposed in that first phase. , Zaremba: Madam Mayor, that isn't the way I understoo i the previous discussion. De Weerd: That's new information. I haven't heard fhatF comment, so -- Nickel: So, we have testified at the last two or three meetings that we understand that fhat -- at some point Waltman is going to have to be~lbuilt, but it's not a condition of approval with ACHD. In other words, our traffic analysis and their traffic analysis has a set point where the second access to Corporate has; to be built and fihat is what is conditioned and so -- ; De Weerd: I guess -- ; , Nickel: I guess what we are concerned about is we come in with our first building and it's 10,000 square feet and it's a dentist office and it's built off of Waltman Lane. In order to build that one denfiist office we have to const~uct the entire Waltman Lane improvement. So, that's our concern is that we got to have some firiggering point where it's feasible for fhe developer to build Waltman Lane~ up front and have the square footage needed -- necessary to make the project work. ~So, I don't know if fhat's -- ; . Rountree: I don't need to hear anymore, I'm -- ~ , De Weerd: I guess I remember a conversation about Corporate, but not about Waltman. So, I must have zoned that part out. Nickel: 1 guess -- I mean -- and to clarify, we are not talking about our on-site improvements, we are strictly talking about fhe eastern boundary of our property to the new intersection, so fhat the -- that off-site section of W'altman. ~ Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I have to say again, I don't remember anything that triggered in my mind that that was not going to happen before the first building was built. I realize I ~ Meridian Ciry Council July 8, 2008 I Page 22 of 40 ~ Corporate discussion was triggered at some time later, but the existing Waltman is challenged with the traffic of just fhe few people that live fhere right now. i Nickel: Okay. So, that's -- that's regarding number fhree and I guess I'll continue. Condition number seven. The applicant -- condition number seven talks about the no building permits being issued for buildings with -- no building permits being issued until the consfiruction~ of the split corridor -- the intersection of Waltman, Meridian Road, and Main. And what the applicant is proposing is the ability~~of -- the building permit for the first phase of development sometime dur.ing the construction of fhe split corridor. No certificate of occupancy will be issued until completion of the corridor. This will allow a big box development to begin construction immediately, rather than delaying development of the property an additional year -- or up to an additional year if building permits were pulled after fhe corridor is built. Any clarification on that one? No? Condition number ten, which also talks about the phasing and the construction -- the construction traffic as the split corridor is being constructed, if you decide to modify aondifion number seven, condition number ten would also need to be reflected in that. On condition number 17 -- and staff brought up this one;. it currently states: Except for the potential hotel site at the southwest corner, offices~ shall be constructed along the west and northwest boundaries of the site as a firansition~al use to the existing residential uses and we would iike that one -- that one stricken in favor of condition 19, which prohibits the specific uses that we have talked about ini~the past, including the drinking establishments, fuel sale facilities, truck stops, and vehicle washing facilities. Condition number 18. Also we'd like that to be stricken. We `feel that fhat is addressed in condition number 21, which states all structures proposed on the site over 100,000 square feet that are within 100 feet of the residentia'I district or use shall obtain a Conditional Use Permit. So, condition 18 as proposed to you requires a Conditional Use Permit for all restaurants and retail uses prop~osed along the western and northwestern boundary. And, again, that was one reason we were proposing the wall and the extended buffer, landscaping, berm was to ~'provide buffering along those boundaries. So, we could have uses ofiher than sfirictlyl office. And, again, uses in the GG zone that require a Conditional Use Permit we will, obviously, get a Conditional Use Permit for those uses. Condition number 22 would!~ state -- as it's proposed to you: Restaurant uses approved through Conditional Use Permit and we would like that Condifional Use Permit approvai removed from the c;ondition. We believe that fhe restaurant uses, wifh the exception of the drive-thrus, are prohibited, should be allowed along the west and northwest boundaries, again, with those -- with those elements that we put in place, the wall, the buffering, the hours of operation and all that. Would you like me to continue? Condifion number 23 is just a clarification, understanding that the normal or standard business hours would not limit sto~es from having special holiday one day sales, et cetera. Condition number 25, again, `s just a clarification and it talks about no rear loading areas, delivery areas, trash areas, obtrusive lighting, shall be permitted adjacent to existing residences on fhe west end -- fhought we said northwestern boundaries adjacent to -- adjacent to the residential uses. We'd like that clarified that that is northwest on that condition propo:sal of number 25. Two more. Condition number 30, since this is a platted subdivision with individuals uses on each lot, the applicant would request the same wording conskstent with condition number 32 Meridian City Council July 8, 2008 Page 23 of 40 regarding landscaping improvements being constructed along the interstate prior to occupancy of the adjacent building. Staff is requesting that fhe entire landscaping area on the south boundary be built prior to occupancy of the ifirst use, since this is a plat and there is going to be multiple uses and multiple lots, you'd like those lots and those developments to be responsible for building that portion:~of the landscaping. Obviously, we would have a revised or the adopted landscape plan that will follow for consistency. And, lastly, condition number 32, regarding the proposed masonry wall on the west and northwest boundary, the applicant would like to substitut;e a wall -- substitute the wall for a six foot closed vision fence with a 25 foot landscape b~`uffer if the uses adjacent to the residential developments are developed as L-O or office uses. So, again, we are building the wail, the extra buffering, the extra landscaping, berm, for the more intensified uses that we are proposing -- or were wanting to propose or wanting to have in there, like the restaurants, like the retail. If it just develops as office, we would like the wall replaced with six foot solid fencing. That's it. I will s~and for questions. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: On your item 32, wanting a closed -- closed vision fence if it's L-O, so the first development that goes in there is L-O and you sta~rt wifh a vinyl fence and, then, you have finro restaurants, it seems to me that it's a case`where you design for the worst case if you're going to do it, you're not going to have vinyl and masonry block and picket fence and masonry block and vinyl, so -- 1 Nickel: I'll leave that -- I'll leave that to -- to this body, if~ you want -- if you would like to be -- for it to be consistent, that's fine. De Weerd: Any further questions? Bird: I have none. i De Weerd: Now, Council, it seems to be Councilman Zaremba and I's opinion fhat we heard a new comment. It opens up for a public comment and so I-- unless I hear opposition, I will do so. ',~ Bird: Thafs your call. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. I would open this up for public comment based on any comments heard tonight. Yes, sir. Just new information. Nary: Sir, if you want to just use the mike -- you can scoot up, you don't have to stand up there. ~ Meridian City Council July 8, 2008 Page 24 of 40 Cope: I can get up here. Appreciate speaking tonight, although it causes me considerable pain and suffering to get here, I wanted to speak with you again. My name is Duane Cope. I believe some of you may know the name. I have written repeatedly with comments about this Browning Subdivision going ~on -- this Browning conduct in there. ~ De Weerd: Mr. Cope, could we also have your address as well, please. Cope: My address 335 Waltman Lane. De Weerd: Thank you. ~ i Cope: It's on this letter and you will also have it in your desk in the letter, so -- De Weerd: Yes, we do. Cope: But if you want to know, 335. I have been fihere ~about 33, 34 years, so -- at any rate, you folks have had several documents from me. I~~ reiterate those documents here tonight, which I will give you copies of. I also want to say that as far as his putting somefhing in on the west -- or, excuse me -- yeah, west end, feel free to annex it. In fact, I'd like to see it annexed, because of the amount of criminality that has been going on down there in terms of drugs, in terms of poaching the upland game birds and water fowl. In fact, there is one nut case down there that's~~been bragging about poaching upland game and water fowl. He will be, I assure you, meeting Fish and Game. I promise that. Okay. Did the police officer get a copy of this? Can you give him a copy as well, since I have filed a complaint against the Meridian police department. Okay. So, you have copies. Feel free to read it at your leisure. Again, I reiterate go ahead next it. Go ahead and make it into the city. Take your money. Why not. You have been taking it from me for 24 years for nothing. I mean~`nothing. In fact, even my trash is not city. My trash is the 99 account. So, no, you're,~ not even providing trash to me. No water. No police. Not nothing. It will not happen, ladies and gentlemen, and I assure you of this, you're not going to take my well out. I put in three wells. Last one was a year ago. Don't even think about it. Now, with all due respect, I thank you folks very much for your time and your attention. Please go onward with your buffoonery. De Weerd: Thank you. Additional comments? ~ Haddock: My name is Christie Haddock. I live at 650 Waltman Lane. ; I De Weerd: Thank you. Haddock: I am just concerned about not improving VValtman. How am I going to get out of my driveway? I'm right across the street from this. And that's, I guess, my big concern. Five kids. How am I going to get out of my driveway? And -- and I know ACHD's number, I have had to call when we couldn't get off the lane because they were blocking it. So, if we have to call them or, hea~en forbid, the Meridian Police ~ Meridian City Council ~ July 8, 2008 Page 25 of 40 Department, but I'm just concerned about how it's all going to function without roads being in pJace. ~ De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is fhere any further testimony? Yes, ma'am. . Aldridge: My name is Donna Aldridge and I live at 365 V1/altman Lane. I have attended all the meetings and I don't understand the developer -- I Nary: Can you pull the mike down a little, ma'am. ~ De Weerd: Can you pull that a little closer to you? Aldridge: I don't know why the developers have tried to get something through. They are opening up a can of worms and I wrote -- you know, you got a letter from me -- when they opened that road up about 20, 25 years ago, you know, it was a disaster. We had to have the police there. I had to have -- they wouldn't even let me have a-- fhey have no consideration, people don't. And it was a t~otal mess and now fihey want to open up another can of worms, so we can't even get out; of our driveway. It's a peaceful lane. I don't know why they don't just leave us alone. If they want to put in a frontage road in the back where fhere is no people on Johnson's Lane, that would be just perfect, because there is going to be a lot of developers back there, like Sesco, they are going to want to come forward, too, with something when -- ~if you guys get a development through. So, why don't these guys all get together and ,leave Waltman Lane alone and the residents of Waltman Lane, and let us live in pea~ce and if they want to get this development through, they don't want to do what they should do, that they shouldn't be able to get it fhrough. I De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I'm sorry, sir. We would need you on the public record, so -- okay. Would fhe applicant like their final remarks?; Canning: Madam Mayor, before Shawn gets up there, did you want me to comment on Shawn's revisions at all? I can if you want me to. That's -- Rountree: Sure. De Weerd: You probably should before his remarks. Canning: With regard to the condifiion number three --;,sorry. Staff was not in favor of the -- not doing Waltman at the beginning. We do believe it's necessary for a lot of the reasons you have heard from the public tonight, that it, is a substandard road and the fire and safety concerns as well. With regard to number seven, we don't feel it's appropriate for the applicant to be able pull a building permit until the construction traffic is -- until the split corridor intersection improvements are done. We feel that the construcfiion traffic would jwst overwhelm that intersection while they are trying to work on it. It is going to be difficult for the residents to get in and out of there already. Having that additional complicating fihose movements would be -- we don't think it would be ,~: Meridian City Council July 8, 2008 Page 26 of 40 appropriate. And that would reflect item number ten as well. With regard to number 17, I think I stated this as I went through our conditions the first time. I do think it's appropriate to leave some of those restrictions in place f.,or those western properties and northwestern. With regard to -- that was 17 and 18: With regard to number 22, I understand now that what the applicant means is that re'staurant uses approved through the CUP process -- because they were no longer p'roposing the CUP process for restaurants, that's all they wanted stricken from that, I b,elieve. Not the rest of it. And I think that regardless -- that would be okay. So, it just ,says restaurant uses along the north and northwest boundaries, that's sfill is the intent of the -- the provision, the DA provision. With regard to number 25, they just wanted to clarify that it was the north and northwest property boundaries and, again, we did try to make that change universally. We missed that one. We tried to change all the west a.! d northwestern. So, we are in favor of that one: De Weerd: Anna, you skipped over 23. Canning: I'm sorry. Rountree: Same thing. , Canning: And we put the word standard in there to imply that. So, that's fine. That's what we meant by that, that they didn't want to have their Christmas days -- or their Thanksgiving day sale -- the day after Thanksgiving. That's what it is. Have to -- not be able to do that because of the time restriction and I think that most people know that if they have a retail business fhat there is a couple times~ a year when they open early. So, I wasn't opposed to that. Aatually, I think we added that. That was our understanding. Okay. Now you come down to 30. Q'n street buffers we do typically require that with the plat approval, if it's anything other tfian a local street. So, we would look to see that 50 feet of landscaping done at the time of plat approval. With regard to item number 32, I think that Council Member Rountree hit the nail on the head with that one. Even though they may only propose an office use, because it's zoned C-G, that could transition to more intense uses over time, so I think we need to either zone that property up against the western boundary for L-O and, then, they could do a lesser fence, or they should do the masonry wall with the C-G zoning. And I think that that's been a very consistent move by Council on a number of annexations or development proposals that are C-G next to residential. And I believefhat was it. ~ De Weerd: Okay. Council, if there is no questions for,i Anna, I'll ask the applicant for wrap-up remarks. Nickel; Thanks, Madam Mayor. Again, for the record, Shawn Nickel. Okay. So, let's try this again. With regards to condition number three'~- and that seems like the one that everyone kind of rolled their eyes at me over -- and staff did clarify and I just want to get this on the record, that from the very beginning it was not a condition of approval from staff, from ACHD, from Planning and Zoning Commission. It started -- it started at Council and fhe first time we heard it as a recommended condition of approval was finro Meridian City Council July 8, 2008 Page 27 of 40 weeks ago when Council Member Rountree said he wanted that -- he wanted us to come back with that as a condition of approval. Und:erstanding the -- I guess new safety concerns that have been brought to light with the fire department and their need for those -- those two lanes -- and, by the way, you guys all rolled your eyes at me. I'll retract that -- that request and we will make that -- and we will accept fhat as a condition of approval for the Waltman extension off site. We are~~ doing all the improvements on site, all the Waltman, the Ruddy's and all that, we ha~e to condition for Corporate at 8,000 vehicle trips per day, so may as well just finish off~ the rest of the outside street and extend the Waltman from the eastern boundary to the new intersection. With that, though, we would -- we would really like to push for the allowance of that building permit at the time of construcfion to get that big box, if that's what's going to go in there, going prior to -- or -- yeah. Prior to completion of that interse ~tion. There is already going to be construcfion traffic on Waltman to rebuild it. We would like that allowance for that -- understanding that no certificate of occupancy is going to°~be issued until the intersection is complete, we still are not -- we don't want to lose an additional year and potentially a user if they can't come in and get started on that. They are not, obviously, going to take the risk of starting knowing that they can't get the completion until the intersection is completed. But we understand that once ACHD starts that project, they are not going to -- they are not going to stop midway through. So, I think that's a safe bet on that -- on that developer's part. We'd like to keep condition sevenqas I-- as I have proposed. And with the modification of condition number ten to reflectf that as well. I believe staff -- I can't remember if staff had agreed to strike condition number 17 and 18, in lieu of those other conditions. Canning: No, sir. Nickel: Neither one? Canning: Huh-uh. ' Nickel: Okay. Again, we would -- we believe that -- I guess moving -- I guess moving down -- if I can find it. Sorry. Condition number 32 where I-- where I was trying to modify the wall. If we are -- if we are agreeing to -- fo~r consistency sake, to build that wall along the entire boundary -- western boundary, with the understanding that we are doing that to try to provide transition and noise barrier,'~ and buffering to those uses on the western boundary, that condition 17 and 18 should recognize that we should -- we should have those uses allowed along that boundary as permitted uses of retail and the restaurants without going through an additional Condifional Use Permit process. And, then, jumping back up real fast, I believe that was -- staff had recognized the hours of operation and clarified that. And staff had also clarified condition number 25 about that being the northwest corner. And we are fine wifh condition number -- we understand and will accept condition number 30 to build the buffer~along the entire south boundary along the freeway as part of that first permit. I guess ~he condition that we are asking for your help tonight is conditions number seven, ten, 1-7 and 18. Ten we are agreeable to the conditions. ~ Meridian City Council July 8, 2008 Page 28 of 40 De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Nickel: Thanks. De Weerd: Okay. Council, if there is no further quest;ions for staff or the applicant, I would enter a motion to close the public hearing. Rountree: So moved. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on these two items. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTIDN CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~ De Weerd: Okay. Discussion? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would like to thank the staff for what was a monumental effort in organizing and clarifying discussion on a lot of subjects. I am agreeing with staff in the necessity to keep many of these elements in. The few things that Anna mentioned that she agreed with, I could support agreeing, if the other things I would like to see stay as staff proposed. ~ ~ De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments from Council? Bird: I have none. ~~ Rountree: Madam Mayor, I'd second Councilman Zaremba's comments about staff. They did a great job of pulling this together and compliment the applicant as well and with few exceptions generally agreeing to what's been dis~cussed. So, with that -- Canning: Madam Mayor, while Council Member Rountree is pausing, I would ask that on -- if he's pausing to make a motion, that on item !number 14 when I asked the comments does City Council want to include reference to upcoming design guidelines, there was head nodes, but if someone could articulate that in a motion, if so desired, that would be helpful. ! Meridian City Council July 8, 2008 Page 29 of 40 De Weerd: You mean nodding heads is not enough? ; Rountree: You're lucky you got that. Madam Mayor? ,. De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I will propose a motion. I move that we approve the annexation for item nine, AZ 06-063, with the conditions as outlined in the istaff report. With reference to comment 14, fhere would be mention of the future design guides fhat are in draft form at this point with the City of Meridian. That items 23 and~ 25 be -- in the staff report be amended to reflect the concerns of the applicant and ,have that be the basis for the finding in the development agreement to enter into with this annexation. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any d~ cussion? Canning: Madam Mayor? ~ ; De Weerd: Yes. Canning: I believe the discussion was with regard to item number 22, taking out the phrase: Through CUP process. Rather than item number 23. • Zaremba; Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Even thou h it a ~ g ppears that fhere may be some places where we have said the same thing in different ways, I don't mind leaving those in as stated. Part of the issue that we have learned to deal with is that we have an applicant that we can stand here or sit here and make agreement with and -- and we~know how we have agreed to interpret whafs in writing, But we have been bit a few times by property that has been subsequently sold to somebody else who didn't have that interpretation. And I would -- even if it's redundant, I would rather leave the wording 'in, then, take it out. Personal opinion. ~ I Rountree: So, Madam Mayor, I would amend my motion to include that change in item 22 and I suspect the second will agree with that amendm ~nt. Zaremba: Second will agree. i De Weerd: Mr. Bird? , ~ i Meridian City Council July 8, 2008 Page 30 of 40 Bird: Yeah. That's just -- I thought the mofion was made to include all of staff report. That's what I was going to vote on. I didn't know we deleted anything out of the staff report. De Weerd: No. You just agreed with the applicant on a couple of things. L. Bird: That staff report, what she publicly testified. ~ De Weerd: That's -- you're correct. , Rountree: So, my amendment would be in agreement with the amending item 22 per discussion with the planning administrator. Canning: Okay. So -- i Zaremba: And I have would left it alone, but I'm agreeing with fhe maker of the motion. Canning: That's what I was confused about. Okay. And so, Madam Mayor, Members of fhe Council, I'm sorry, Council Member Rountree, did you want the change 23 to state something or was -- ~ ; Rountree: The change to 23 was the change fhat was -- ,I Canning: Already done. ~ Rountree: -- already done. , Canning: Okay. I I Rountree: Okay. Yeah. I De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll on this item. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRI'ED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. I De Weerd: Okay. Item 10 on the preliminary plat. ' Rountree: Madam Mayor? ~ De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. ~ i I Meridian City Council ~ July 8, 2008 ' Page 31 of 40 ~~ I Rountree: I move that we approve I:tem No. 10, preliminary plat PP 08-001, subject to comments received through the hearing process, staff s comments, and commitments on the part of the developer. ; Bird: What option? Zaremba: I didn't hear Mr. Bird. Did you second that? ~ Bird: I said what -- no. I said what option. Zaremba; Oh. Rounfiree: The one that the -- the option was before us as option one. Option two is condifioned in the annexafion that it has to be another public hearing. i Bird: Thaf's right. ~ . Zaremba: I will second that. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 10 with the description as noted. Any discussion? Hearing none, Madam Clerk, roll call. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. ~ MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. ' Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 08-004 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 6 residential building lots and 1 commo4n lot in an R-8 zone on approximately 4.7 acres for Maxfield Subdivision by Cottage Investors, LLC - 3295 E. Falcon Drive: ~ i I Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 08-008 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval consisting of Assisted Living Facilifies containing 5 buildings with 15 beds in an R-8 zone for the proposed Maxfield Subdivision by Cottage Investors, LLC - 3295 E. Falcon Dr~ve: De Weerd: If someone would, please, let Councilman Borton know. Okay. Item 11 is a public hearing on PP 08-004 and Item 12, public hearing on CUP 08-008. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments. You may want to take a moment so Councilman Borton can -- Rountree: Watching a game or something. Bird: I was going to say, is he getting away.