Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 2, 2008 C/C MinutesMeridian City Council September 2, 2008 Page 37 of 71 Bird: Before I vote I want to take and tell this applicant -- as you know I wasn't for it the first time around and you certainly went back and redesigned this and did a nice job, so -- Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Do we have to -- we have to enact upon the -- De Weerd: You have to do Item 10. Bird: I move we approve VAC 08-003 and include all staff and applicant comment. De Weerd: And that motion was to vacate the piece of number six that has been discussed; correct? Bird: Yes. As in the note. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Discussion, Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Just to clarify. We are not revising how the note refers to Pine Street. Bird: No. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Madam Clerk. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 08-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.06 acres from the RUT & R1 zoning districts in Ada County to the C-G zoning Meridian City Council September 2, 2008 Page 38 of 71 district for Overland Village by Relo Development - 3330 East Overland Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: VAC 08-001 Request for a Vacation of the existing right- of-way of S. Rackham Way for Overland Villa~ae by Relo Development - 3330 East Overland Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Items 11 and 12 are public hearings on AZ 08-001 and VAC 08-001. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Overland Village project. It's located on the northeast comer of Overland Road and Eagle Road and the annexations before you tonight are annexation and zoning -- I said the annexations before you tonight, didn't I. The applications before you tonight are annexation and zoning and a vacation. The highlights of the proposed development include the annexation and zoning of 9.06 acres to C-G zoning and, then, approval of the commercial zoning would allow the property to develop with retail office and restaurant uses in the future. The applicant has not submitted a subdivision application at this time, but intends to do so at a later date. However, the applicant has submitted a concept plan for how the subject property may develop and elevations for what the future buildings will look like and staff has reviewed both the concept plan and the elevations and has recommended a DA to the Council. The DA should include at a minimum the following: The site and buildings on the site shall comply with design review and these are shortened to make this conversation a little less lengthy. The applicant must substantially comply with conceptual site plan and building elevations. They will construct a minimum of two and a maximum of four buildings on the site. No footprint for a single building shall exceed 20,000 square feet and, further, no building shall exceed four stories in height, with a maximum height of 65 feet. Any drive-thru on the site needs CU approval. Direct access to or from this site from Eagle Road shall be prohibited. Access to the site shall be provided from one full access point from Overland via Rackham Way and one right-in access point to the site from Overland Road, as depicted on the concept plan. The Rackham Way access may be limited to right-in, right-out only in the future. A ten foot wide multi-use pathway will be required and the applicant shall construct a public stub street from Rackham Way to the west easement boundary of the Eight Mile Creek to allow for future connectivity to the east and access to the signalized Overland Silverton intersection. So, what that means is that they will stub here for eventual crossing of a bridge that will come down to this signalized intersection. Any work or improvement within the floodway or floodplain shall require a floodplain development application with Public Works and Five Mile Creek, which runs along the north boundary and the Eight Mile Creek, which runs along the east and north boundaries of the property, shall be protected through the development process. Improvements along the creeks are encouraged as development amenities. The requested vacation tonight is for approval -- would allow the applicant to do a land swap with ACHD and to reconstruct Rackham Way to Overland Road further to the east. Currently it is in this location and they will relocate it to the east. I do have some elevations for you. The Commission recommended approval at their -- at their June 5th Meridian City Council September 2, 2008 Page 39 of 71 public hearing. They also conducted hearings on February 21st, March 20th, May 1st, May 15th, and June 5th. Summary of the public hearing. Tamara Thompson and Gary Allen spoke in favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition, commented, or provided any written testimony. Key issues of discussion by the Commission included the necessity of a bridge across the Eight Mile Creek to provide connectivity to and from the parcel to the east. The disproportionate share of the cost of a bridge for the subject property in comparison to larger adjacent properties. And possibility of putting a sunset clause on the road trust for the cost of constructing a bridge across the Eight Mile Creek in the event that that property to the east doesn't develop within a certain time period. The key Commission changes to stafFs recommendation were to modify the DA provisions to allow buildings up to four stories in height, instead of three, and up to 65 feet. The written testimony since this staff report. You have received a letter from Gary Allen with regard to DA provision K, which reads: The applicant shall construct a public stub street from Rackham Way to the west easement boundary of the Eight Mile Creek to allow for future connectivity to the east and access to the signalized Overland - Silverstone intersection. The applicant shall submit a road trust to ACHD for half the cost of construction at the bridge over the Eight Mile Creek to provide interconnectivity between the subject site and the property to the east prior to the first occupancy being granted on this site. So, they are asking that the last sentence be struck. Outstanding issues for City Council, that is -- the primary one I just mentioned. There is a secondary one. If Council supports the Commission's recommendation to allow buildings up to four stories in height, up to 65 feet, the Council may want to see revised building elevations, since only one and two story buildings are shown on the elevations that they have submitted. I have also wanted to let you know about the condition of approval from the fire department and it ties to the road trust issue. The fire department has been very concemed about the full access for the realigned Rackham Way being potentially shut off in the future and them having only right-in, right-out access to that property and that's why they have advocated for the road trust for the future, hoping to get that bridge. So, they are a little bit concemed about the -- the road trust potentially going away, as stated in Mr. Allen's letter. And with that I will answer any questions Mayor and Council may have. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I don't know if these elevations and design details are something that's just out there that you can extract off your computer, but I think they are strikingly similar to the ones we saw last week for the comer of Victory and Eagle and probably my same favorite store. And I'm not too crazy about that, but I think the DA stipulation talks about shall comply with design review. I would like to see that language and we can talk about it as we go through here, but reflect that it -- it be consistent with the -- the new design guidelines, even though they may not have been passed at this point in time. Meridian City Council September 2, 2008 Page 40 of 71 De Weerd: Okay. Any other -- or any questions for staff at this time? Okay. Applicant? Allen: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Gary Allen. My address is 601 West Bannock in Boise. I'm here representing Cameron Investments, which is the assignee of the original applicant in this case. They are the actual owners of the property. We agree with all of the conditions of approval that have been proposed, save the one that staff mentioned. I'm going to spend my time talking about that. This is a -- first of all, this is a -- if we could start with this. This is a site where a development is appropriate and the city wants it. The development area of the site is 4.77 acres to 9.06 acres and includes the right of way on Eagle and Overland to the center line. So, this is a small park e if you see up here, this is a -- there is an 85 acre undeveloped area all around here, all of which will be served by the accesses we are going to talk about in this area. So, some preliminary planning has been done for the surrounding properties, but there is nothing yet proposed and all of those properties are -- have already been annexed into the city. If I could get the next slide up, please. Can you go to the next -- there we go. The site plan. The development is appropriate to the area and to your plans. It's consistent with your Comp Plan goal of mixed use commercial in this area. The site is large enough for the proposed uses and if you could put the next one up. This shows you how the right of way will be moved here. This corrects a defect in the original construction of Rackham Way, which was done by ITD. It moves the Rackham entrance to align with the Silverstone entrance across -- across Overland and it's now an appropriate distance from the Eagle -Overland intersection where previously it was outside of standards. ACHD has approved the access scheme and I'll discuss the details of that in a moment. We have already talked about the elevations a little bit. There was a question about that. We think this project will be an asset to the city and the area. This is the same architect as the project you saw last week at Victory and Eagle, but these are just -- are conceptual ideas. Could you put the -- there we go. These are just a conceptual idea of what the buildings could look like. Obviously, we need to go through design review and meet your standards and that process and so that's where issues about the design can be resolved. We think the uses will be appropriate here, small retail shops, potentially a bank with a quality commercial design that will be subject to your design review. We have large landscape setbacks, multi-use pathways, and the park and ride that's already on Rackham Way will remain. Could we go back to the vicinity map now. The difficulties with this site are the accesses. Because of the -- could we go all the way back to the overhead. There we go. You can't get any access off of Eagle Road because of the proximity to the freeway entrance there. On the north you have got Five Mile Creek running across there. There is an existing crossing there that -- it makes it -- and because of the way that -- the culvert's constructed there and under Eagle Road, they are undersized and so it increases the size of the floodway behind them, so it's going to be very difficulty to increase that entrance -- that entrance there, so you have got access constraints, but you do have an access up to the north property. On the east side you have got Eight Mile Creek. The property runs -- boundary runs right up the edge of the right of way, but there is no part of this property that is part of that Eight Mile Creek right of way. And, then, to the south you're close to the Overland -Eagle Meridian City Council September 2, 2008 Page 41 of 71 intersection and so the only access that's appropriate is the one that will be here at Rackham and, then, here at the -- where the existing Rackham is there is a right-in driveway that's proposed. If I could -- we could go to the site plan now. That's one click. Thank you, Anna. But despite all of these difficulties, ACRD has gone ahead and approved the proposed access and let me explain the access proposal. There is an ACHD -- a letter from ACHD in your packet that talks about what happens at Rackham Way in terms of restrictions there, which is kind of at the heart of what we are talking about. This relocated Rackham Way is proposed as full access interchange, without -- and ACRD has no plans to change it from that and they have said in a letter that it would be your restricted only if ACRD determines that full access poses a safety hazard and that a connection is provided at the light at Silverstone Way. So, ultimately, down here there will be a development up here that will allow something to come over and connect into here. I'll talk about that a little bit later as well. Aright-in driveway is provided here to take some of the pressure off of Rackham Way and, then, you have this access to the north, which is a -- which is off site, but via an existing crossing of the Five Mile area to the properties to the north. Furthermore, we have agreed to provide a stub street to our property line here off of Rackham to the Eight Mile right of way boundary to provide a possible future connection to this property to the east. This is a separate ownership from the other side of the canal. So, the remaining issue that we have got is that the fire department asserts that access may become difficult for emergency vehicles if ACHD places restrictions on Rackham Way in the future. If you could go back one. I want to go back to the aerial there. So, here is what we have for fire department access now. Your primary responder is down here in this area, can come up here in this way to the site. The secondary responder comes this way, down Eagle, up Overland, into Rackham and the tertiary responder comes up Overland from Boise and into this area. So, the fire department has access through all of those areas and all of those meet your response goals. So, the heart of the issue is that the fire department would like an access to this property from the Silverstone light, which is here. Now, we'd like that, too. But the problem is that our property's not adjacent to that light and there is -- no development's been proposed on the adjacent properties. So, the solution that we have -- after meeting several times with the fire department, is to require the applicant to place money in the ACHD road trust, sufficient funds to construct half of a bridge across the Eight Mile Canal here to this lower property that is south of the Five Mile Creek and because -- but the problem is because of that expanded floodway that you have got there, because the other culverts are undersized, the bridge would cost approximately a million dollars, making Cameron's share 500,000 dollars or over 100,000 dollars an acre. Now, we very seriously take the -- we take the fire department's concerns very seriously and have tried very hard to resolve this, but we do believe that the fire department's request is unreasonable, because ACHD has agreed to maintain an emergency vehicle access and you can see by the letter we have provided in your packets that they say even if they think there has to be restrictions on Rackham Way here, that they are willing to insure that there is a left-in access allowed for the fire department. So, we think that there is -- you know, that there has been a good accommodation there and, frankly, the fire department's approach kills the project. We cannot afford 100,000 dollar an acre additional cost and nor could any other project that you could imagine that would be on this property. So, as set forth in our letter, here Meridian City Council September 2, 2008 Page 42 of 71 are our problems with the fire department's approach. First, it far exceeds our proportionate share of the benefit of the bridge. We feel we are already doing our share. If we could go to the site plan. By relocating Rackham Way -- some of this doesn't serve our project at all, especially up here. We still have to rebuild that road and, secondly, we provide a stub street to the east, which meets your normal policies of what our obligation is as the property owner. Now, any crossing that's built here or across the Five Mile is -- serves the entire 85 acre undeveloped area there; of which Cameron is only about five percent, yet we are being asked to pay 50 percent of the cost. Now, it's also unduly burdensome a we can't bear that 100,000 per acre cost and it's unfair to impose it when other properties get far more benefit. Now, if we could look at the -- slide number five, which is the master plan for the area. So, even though there aren't any developments -- submitted development plans, we think the property -- the area around here is going to develop something like this, so our property is just this little comer here. And so we have provided this part of the road and we think that what's very likely to happen is that the owner of this property will build a crossing across Five Mile, instead of across the Eight Mile and that, then, the connection is going to come up here and, then, access will be provided here. Anything that happens here is, you know, pretty much up to this properly owner here and they would have to see a significant benefit in this area in order to consider doing that, but they already get at it -- you know, good access this way. It's going to be hard to justify that million dollar cost down on this area. So, we think that it is unnecessary to set aside that kind of property when we don't -- you know, when it may be totally unnecessary. There are also practical problems with the approach. The road trust is not designed for this. We can't insure that the money would be earmarked for this and not used for something else. There is no provision for a return of the money for payment of interest if it's not used and no deadline on when the money has to be spent. So, for these reasons we ask you to approve the project with the conditions proposed by the staff, but that a portion of section 10-A-1 K of the conditions of approval be deleted and we have provided the specific language in your handouts. So, with that I would be happy to answer any questions that you have. De Weerd: Council, questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: I guess, Anna, can you go back to the site plan. Yeah. That's good enough. Do you know the problem that you will inherit here? This is the -- a Park & Ride -- where is it, right in here? Rountree: Right there. De Weerd: That whole road is part of the parking lot, so -- and I don't know if you have been out there and seen that, but how do you -- your development will be accommodating additional cars by taking that away, unless they just -- Meridian City Council September 2, 2008 Page 43 of 71 Allen: By parking -- people park along the side of the road, is that what you're saying, Madam Mayor? De Weerd: I mean it's almost full. The roadway. In addition to the parking lot. So, because of that Park & Ride, those cars are going to park somewhere. Allen: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I -- you know, I assume the owner is going to police the parking within their parking lot and that -- you know, so maybe that means that their -- ACHD ought to be accommodating some expansion of the lot, but I think this gives us abetter opportunity -- I mean, first of all, it fixes the alignment of that road, which is a big problem. I mean it's way too close to the intersection now for an uncontrolled intersection and, you know, to the extent there are -- there is too much demand for that parking -- Park & Ride lot, this gives a better chance to regulate that. So, it's -- so, it goes to appropriate places and, then, if there is, in fact, too much demand, then, you know, ACHD or ITD should consider expanding the lot. But, you know, if -- we understand that that's our neighbor. De Weerd: Okay. Well, I'm not sure if that's the answer I was looking for, because as a taxpayer I kind of like that we don't have to expand that parking lot and they can just use the road to park. So, I just wondered if you had considered the problem that you would be inheriting and how you would deal with it. I like the fact that it's accessible. Allen: Well, there is more road -- there is more road after -- when we are done. I think there is some of it that is too narrow for on-street parking, but -- but I think that might only be up in this area. So, there is still -- I believe there is still on-street parking and -- for parts of it. I mean it's not fair to ask this property owner to bear all of the burdens of, you know, whatever overburdened parking lot there might be there. We do believe there are development frights. There are three parcels in here now, (mean -- but we think it's not good for anybody if we don't move the road. So, you know, I think that we have done what we can and we have done our part to try and accommodate things in there. De Weerd: So -- but have you had a conversation with ACHD on that? Allen: This is the first I have heard of that issue. We -- ACHD has approved the road dimensions and access scheme that we have proposed, after rigorous review I will add. De Weerd: Well, apparently no one has been out there, because we have pictures that certainly we could share with you tonight if you so desire, that that is a full facility. Allen: It was very interesting, because Rackham Way used to be called Huber Way and so Commissioner Huber had a great deal to say about the whole history of this area and Commissioner McKee used to work in the Silverstone project. So, she had a lot to say about it and they were both very happy to see the road moved to the location that we are proposing. Meridian City Council September 2, 2008 Page 44 of 71 De Weerd: Okay. Council, anything further? Bird: I have none. Rountree: Madam Mayor, there was mention of a right of way swap. I guess to clarify that, that has to do with the swapping of ownership of the current Rackham Way alignment? Allen: Right. There is -- Rackham currently comes down approximately here. That right of way would be traded for this right of way and that's a good deal for ACHD and, you know, this property has a fiber optic line under it. We can't use it for structures. And I think they wind up getting a little more property out of this. But it's reasonably close, so that's how that would work. Rountree: And, Madam Mayor, I have a question for Tom. Where is Kyle when you need him? Bany: He's got the night off. Rountree: Are there any base elevation difficulties on this site as it relates to that current culvert just north of this site along that access road and have we reviewed it from that perspective? Barry: Madam Mayor, Mr. President, Members of the Council, we have not reviewed it from that standpoint. I don't believe that there are any issues, but we would have to look into that more closely. Rountree: And I would think that we would want something mentioned in the DA about that, because if there are some issues -- because we do have some new elevations in that particular area. Allen: You're talking about flood elevations? Rountree: Flood elevations. Allen: May I respond to that? Rountree: When I'm through, sure. So, anyway, I think we need to look at that with respect to what we might put in any approval we might do. Allen: Madam Mayor, Council Member Rountree, there has been a flood elevation study prepared for both the Eight Mile and Five Mile Creeks here. It was in the record of ACHD. It hasn't been approved by FEMA yet, but what we are doing is consistent with that study. Meridian City Council September 2, 2008 Page 45 of 71 Rountree: Madam Mayor, I -- either Tom or Clint respond to that. I assume it's the same study we just were apprised of last week? Barry: Mr. President, I just wanted to remark, in the development agreement, we have recommended that any work improvements within the floodway or flood plane of this property shall improve -- or, excuse me, shall file a floodplain development application with the Public Works Department, which also require the study that you have just mentioned. Additionally, we have also made mention of the fact that improvements along the creek -both creeks here are encouraged as development amenities as part of the project as well. So, we would expect to see that incorporated in a proposed development agreement. Rountree: And I'm aware of those last two bullet points, but I'm not so sure we might not want to have a stronger word than encourage. If we haven't reviewed it to any great detail. Bany: Okay. We will make sure that our review is diligent and respond accordingly. Allen: Madam Mayor, I do have a copy of the map that I can place in the record. Not -- I don't think we object to strengthening the language a little bit on that, but just so everybody's got the information, I can give you a copy of the floodway map study that was done. De Weerd: Okay. Go ahead and give it to the clerk. I guess, Anna, I did notice on this site plan is an attached sidewalk. Do we really want an attached sidewalk on Overland and Eagle? Or am I reading this wrong? Canning: Madam Mayor, you are not reading wrong. It was recently constructed. De Weerd: The sidewalk was constructed? Canning: That's what Mrs. Wafters has told me. She's second guessing herself now. She will look it up. When they widened Overland Road and did the intersection improvements, we believe they constructed a seven foot attached sidewalk and that's what you're seeing. De Weerd: That's one sidewalk that's not going to be used. Okay. Any other questions from Council? Okay. Thank you. Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Johnson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Bill Johnson, Deputy Chief, Meridian Fire. As to some of the fire department -- as to the fire department's concerns there is as we are coming into this project some of the comments on that letter from ACHD talks about athree-quarter access or a crossable median. The problem with that is as that fire apparatus comes through the intersection and we take control of the light from the direction we are coming on, if any cars that are westbound on Overland, as soon as one Meridian City Council September 2, 2008 Page 46 of 71 gets stopped, they can't back up to open that intersection up for us, so the only way to access it would go clear down to Silverstone and tum around and come back. And do a right-in tum. Conversely, you will notice the deputy chiefs comments 31.5, it's in the staff report, you know, that if they do put a median down through there, our only access from Fire Station Four would be to go through the Silverstone and Goldstone complex completely, winding around. Engine 301 or the ladder truck would have to, then, access the same way going further down Eagle Road another half mile and coming back around, whereas if we get the access through Silverstone, it's a controlled intersection, Silverstone and Overland, then, we can come into the project and these commercial projects do -- especially with some of the stuff I have heard potentially proposed or stuff that we see in commercials, do increase our call volume into those areas and that could be of concem, especially with the stacking of traffic, as I know you have been out there at all hours of the day and seen that intersection back up without us taking control of an opposite going light. De Weerd: But, Chief, I guess I would ask in an emergency situation would the police ticket you if you did aright-in or if you went into aright-in? I would imagine you'd still have access. Johnson: The problem with the access is crossing the westbound traffic, because they would be backed up bumper to bumper on cars and getting through those cars, you know, we would be, basically, going across five lanes of traffic going against us and you get one semi in that tum lane, we are now blind and if the semi stops and another car sees that, hey, there is a shot to move up and they come flying up, that becomes a concem, not only for fire, but EMS and also law enforcement responding into that area. De Weerd: I see your point. Okay. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I have a clarification on the sidewalk issue. I apologize. There is an attached five foot sidewalk currently, but one of the conditions of approval is for the applicant to install a ten foot multi-use pathway consistent with the pathways plan, because this is such a high volume intersection, really, and the only place to safely get folks across is at the intersection. So, they would be increasing that five foot sidewalk to a ten foot sidewalk. But it would still be attached, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any additional testimony? Does the applicant have any final remarks? Allen: Thank you. Madam Mayor, Gary Allen. 601 West Bannock. The first thing I'd like to touch on is what exactly did ACHD say and in your packet there is a letter from them that discusses what restrictions they would consider here and we think this is about as good a commitment as you're going to get from ACHD is a lot of discussion about this and so let me just read that paragraph. It says in order to insure adequate Meridian City Council September 2, 2008 Page 47 of 71 emergency response to this area, ACHD's staff will coordinate with the Meridian Fire Department to assure that any access restriction devices to be installed at the intersection of Overland Road and Rackham Way will allow for emergency vehicles to turn left into Rackham Way from Overland Road, such as athree-quarter access, meaning left in only or a mountable median. This left turn access will be maintained at least until a public connection across Eight Mile Creek north of Overland Road is achieved. So, I think one of the concerns the fire department has had is the idea of a mountable median, whether they are really mountable or not and I think that's a legitimate discussion for your department to have with ACHD at the time that happens. I mean I think it's very unlikely here, if not extremely unlikely, that ACRD would put in something to try to accommodate the fire department that they didn't want or that didn't work or that harmed your vehicles. So, we think that there is a clear commitment from ACHD to allow for that left in emergency access. I don't see how --and, you know, I don't see how you're ever going to have to cross five lanes of trafFc to get in there. I think that that -- you know, you got to cross two lanes and, then, you have got a -- you have to be able to get through the turn bay and I -- two lanes going away from the light, going to the east, so I think this is adequate. ACHD thought it was adequate. We all thought it was adequate until we walked into the Planning and Zoning hearing to discover that the fire department still had concerns, so -- but we think that there is as clear a commitment as you can get that -- that that left in at least is going to stay open. It's going to be full access, you know, that -- the plan is for full access, unless there is a problem or until you have the light available down at Silverstone. So, we think that that's as good of access as most places get and certainly meets all of your code requirements. I just want to touch briefly on a couple of things to make sure I was not unclear about how we discuss the flood issues and the floodway versus the floodplain. What we are talking about in terms of bridge span here is the actual floodway. The channel where you would expect the flood to be, where you cannot put anything in it -- any sort of structure within it and that's what's depicted on the map that you have and so this property is very unique in that way and it's kind of surrounded by these restrictions. And, by the way, that study has been submitted to your staff and is under review. And I wanted to clarify the parking issue along Rackham Way. The road is going to be wider throughout its length than it is now. I was trying to remember. There is a very small section of this road that is 25 - 29 feet, so there is -- but it's only down to the first driveway. So, beyond that the road is wide enough for cars to park along both sides. We are not relying on any of that on-street parking for our project, all of our parking is provided off site. So, there is actually more parking available for that Park & Ride than there is today. So, that completes my comments and I would stand for any questions. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you. Lavey: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Meridian City Council September 2, 2008 Page 48 of 71 Lavey: I have a comment. Jeff Lavey. Police chief for City of Meridian. You know, ACHD, in fairness to them, has done great things for emergency services, but they have not always done the best for emergency services and so they may try, but they also are not perfect either. But the one thing that we have concerns about is no matter what you put in place, if traffic decides to block it, as in blocking intersections like happens every single day, it doesn't make any difference what sort of median's in place or anything else, the fire truck and the police cars are still going to have to go across multiple lanes of traffic and we are going to have to wait until they break open traffic for us, delaying our response. So, it's great that they want to put that in. We may have to deal with it, but it's only as good as people following directions and once they don't do that, then, you are creating those problems. So, that being said -- De Weerd: I guess you would be out of a job if everyone followed directions, uh? That wasn't any threat or anything. That would be a great ideal world. Okay. Any final comment from the applicant? Allen: I bet you really didn't want me to take you up on that, Madam Mayor. Gary Allen. 601 West Bannock. The one thing I would say about the police chiefs last comment is simply that you can stripe around that Rackham intersection and have a keep clear area. Obviously, some people may slide into that from time to time, but, you know, that's the best you can humanly do under these circumstances and, you know, you're going to keep all of that open and available at least until you get a connection to the light down at Silverstone Way. So, we think this is adequate for emergency access. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council, if there is no further information needed, if you have all you need, you need to close the public hearing. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the public here on AZ 08-001, VAC 08-001. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the public hearing on Item 11 and 12. Do I have a second? Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Meridian City Council September 2, 2008 Page 49 of 71 Zaremba: I will venture an opinion. De Weerd: Okay. Zaremba: There are a number of things about this project proposal that I like. It would be nice to have something go forward. I agree with the realignment of the road. But knowing how busy that intersection and the approach to the intersection is, even now I feel I need to support our safety services in either requiring a bridge or some other way to have access to this and I do see that it can become a problem and -- we give them enough challenges. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any other comments or information needed? Do I have a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I'm not seeing a way to make this work for me, so I will just float this motion, so we can have some more dialogue, I guess. I would move that we deny the annexation request for Item 11. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny the request on AZ 08-001. Do I have discussion? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I guess for the record, my concern is -- and I will go back to my old saying is I'm not in that big a hung and I think there is some significant issues at this site. This is an area that has some access issues and I know there is multiple ownerships, but I think conceptually all the owners are going to have to deal with this issue and put forward some kind of an infrastructure plan that's going to work not only for their future tenants, but for the traveling public in Ada county and in Meridian. So, I think it's probably the right use. I just think it's too soon. And I'm concerned about access. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any further discussion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would echo Councilman Rountree's thought and add to the point that I don't believe this applicant should be responsible for 50 percent of a bridge, but I believe that bridge is necessary. I have been burnt once, I'm not being burnt twice on bridges that Meridian City Council September 2, 2008 Page 50 of 71 should have been done when the application went through. I have a real concern on -- on the access to this property. I believe that -- I believe on this comer I think we have all known that this was going to be a tough one to get developed. We were hoping the whole 90 acres or whatever it is. I think it's about a 90 acre piece with everything there, would come in together so we could -- I don't know how you would even think you could get emergency vehicles in there, because you're only talking about probably ten, 12 cars backed up and you couldn't get in there from the stop light and that happens every time the stop light goes red. So, I -- I don't know, I just can't support it at this point. De Weerd: Thank you. Any further comments? Rountree: Madam Mayor, Iguess -- I would agree with Councilman Bird's comment about the bridge and Idon't -- I agree that it's not necessarily something that needs to be bourne by this applicant, because it isn't a proportionate share, but it is an issue that needs to be dealt with. I think we -- on anything in this location we need to take a real strong look at the floodplain and flood hazard issues and some potential remedies for some of the issues that are already out there and I know there is some suggestion that there might be multiple stories in this particular location, but even if access were a little bit better, I don't know that right now that's something that I could agree to either. So, there is multiple issues with the project. De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Item 12 is the vacation. Mr. Nary, does this need formal action, since annexation wasn't granted? Nary: Madam Mayor, you still need formal action. I mean you can still deny it, based on the fact that no -- no annexation was granted. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, do I have a motion on Item 12? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we deny VAC 08-001. Having denied the annexation and zoning, we don't have jurisdiction over it. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second? Rountree: I'll second that. Meridian City Council September 2, 2008 Page 51 of 71 De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny VAC 08-001 on Item 12. If there is no discussion -- Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Rountree: I would make a comment, though, I agree with what Councilman Zaremba said, we would have no jurisdiction. I don't disagree with the vacation, but since we have no jurisdiction I think we can't act on it. De Weerd: Thank you. Madam Clerk. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 06-063 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C-G zones for Waltman Property (aka Browning Plaza) by Waltman, LLC - 505, 521, 615 and 675 Waltman Lane: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 08-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 commercial /office lots and 1 common lot on 38.21 acres in a proposed C- Gzoning district for Browning Plaza (aka Waltman Property) by SLN Planning, Inc. - 505, 521, 615 and 675 West Waltman Lane: De Weerd: Okay. Items 13 and 14 are public hearings AZ 06-063 and PP 08-011. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a reconsideration hearing and on reconsideration hearings generally I try to treat them as if they were a new hearing. Given that you have had I think five or six hearings on this matter, it didn't seem the appropriate approach at this time. So, I'm going to do a different version. If you want me to go back and fill in details I can do that. I'm going to try and get you up to speed on the points of consensus versus those that are still outstanding. So, this is the Waltman -Browning Plaza project. It is located on the south side of Waltman, east of The Landing Subdivision and directly north of I-84. The applications before you tonight are annexation and zoning of 38.68 acres to C-G and a preliminary plat for 40 building lots and two common lots. There are two concept plans proposed by the applicant. Here is the first one and here is the second one. Both of the concept plans are referenced in the proposed development agreement provisions. The concept plans all depict retail, hotel, offices, and a variety of other commercial opportunities. Proposed commercial square footage is approximately 400,000 square feet of office, hotel, big box retail, and smaller retail spaces and that's as shown on concept plan one. The number of proposed buildings varies, but there -- we have recommended a minimum of