Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 9, 2008 C/C MinutesMeridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 29 of 66 Rountree: That's my motion. Bird: I second it. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion from Council? Okay. Madam Clerk, will you, please call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. De Weerd: Okay. All ayes. Motion carves. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I was just -- it just occurred to me that if installed inside they don't actually need a CZC, but I think we can figure that out. Item 11: Public Hearing: AP 08-005 Request for City Council Review for an Appeal of the Planning Director's denial of Instant Equity Auto's request for Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval (CZC 08-010) to operate without connection to city services AND denial of an Alternative Compliance (ALT 08-004) request for reduced landscape buffers adjacent to Fairview Avenue and a residential zoning district for Instant Equity Auto by The Land Group -1065 East Fairview Avenue: De Weerd: Okay. Well, thank you. Item 11 is a public hearing on AP 08-005. I will open this public hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Instant Equity Auto project. It's located at 1065 Fairview Avenue on the south side of Fairview west of Locust Grove. The application before you tonight is for City Council review of the planning director's denial of the CZC. Thank you, guys. The proposed development includes a request to operate a car sales lot on the subject property that primarily, with the request to not connect to city sewer, and with reduced landscape buffers adjacent to Fairview Avenue, but there are also some ancillary issues and those are they would also -- do not want to provide cross-access to adjoining properties and they do not want to annex a contiguous un-platted adjacent property. This one's shown as R1-M. And that property is held in common ownership with the property in question. The applicant proposed to convert the existing single family home and detached two car garage fior the auto sales lot. And I have some photos. These are standing at the property lines looking into the property. So, there is from the front. There is from the east side. And that's along the west side looking south and this is on the south side of the property looking north. These are some of the adjoining sites. To the north is developed. To the south is not. This is the view of the site across the street at Fairview. This is the Brood Awakenings and these are the structures you saw on the pictures on the previous slide. This is the west and to the east. I struggled with how to communicate this in somewhat of a clear fashion to Council, because it is a very complicated set of requirements over Meridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 30 of 66 the years, so I thought the best way to present it to you would be by year and kind of give you the history of the project. The project was annexed in 2001. At the time it was -- the proposed use was for a doctor's office. At that time -- I have kind of picked out some of the key issues and what the requirement was. There was a requirement for a conditional use approval prior to any development. All landscaping had to conform to our ordinance. If we are required to have an irrigation system, they are required to have a sidewalk along Fairview. They were also required to remove any wells, septics and to connect to city sewer and water. The issue with regard to cross-access to adjoining properties was not discussed. Driveway has to conform to ACHD policy and a DA was required as a condition of annexation. However, the property was annexed without a DA. So, we have never had a development agreement on the property. In 2003 there was a request to modify the original annexation from 2001. The proposed use at that time was a small retail store. The provision regarding the requirement for the CUP was not up for discussion. So, therefore, that one did remain. They did discuss whether the landscaping needed to conform to ordinance and what Council approved in 2003 was that existing landscaping may be modified to conform with the intent and purpose of the landscape code pursuant to alternative compliance. If the future use of the property is a permanent use in the C-G zone and the building footprint is not expanded or modified, modifications to the landscaping may include additional trees as required and in the irrigation system, if there is not one provided on the site. New construction on and/or the request for a Conditional Use Permit or subdivision of the property will require complete conformance with the adopted landscape ordinance that affected the time of the new application. So, with regard to irrigation system, it said may. Sidewalks were -- Council moved to take out the ACHD requirement for sidewalks along Fairview. Wells still need to be removed, but the septic system did not and they didn't -- they were not required to connect to city sewer with this provision. The applicant shall connect to city water prior to any use of the property. Sewer is currently not available to this site. Applicant shall be required to connect this existing structure to the sanitary system -- sewer system when it becomes available from the south. Expansion of the existing structure or new construction on the subject property will not be allowed unless sanitary sewer is brought to the site by the applicant. Again, cross-access to the adjoining properties was not discussed. The- driveways still need to conform to ACRD policy and the DA required -- the DA was still discussed and mentioned within that 2003 report and, yet, we still don't have a DA in 2003 either. So, in 2008 the applicant came in with an auto sales use, which we have had a code amendment in this time. Auto sales previously in 2003 and 2001 would have been a conditional use requirement, now they are apermitted -- principal permitted use. So, because there is no DA on the property, I was going by code and only code, since we failed to obtain a DA upon annexation. So, I determined that a CU was not required, because it was a principal permitted use, but I held them to all the standards. Therefore, landscaping needed to conform to our ordinances, with the exception that alternative compliance for the landscape buffer along Fairview is still an option, but it needs to meet the intent and purpose of the landscape ordinance as suggested in 2003 and as defined by the UDC. The current proposal for their alternative landscaping on the front buffer depicts 17 and a half feet along Fairview. Twenty-five feet is required. The 17 and a half feet is the minimum allowed through alternative compliance. You can only go down -- you can't reduce it to Meridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 31 of 66 more than ten percent of your lot width. The proposed altemative is to plant two additional trees within that buffer. Furthermore, the vehicle display area immediately adjoins this 17 and a half foot buffer and staff is fearful that this sets an unwelcome precedent in that we continually have enforcement issues related to vehicle display areas, parking within landscape buffers. The application does not state how the proposal complies with the intent and purpose of the landscape ordinance. Where am I? Okay. The imgation system is still required. Sidewalks adjacent to Fairview are still required. Wells need to be removed, as well as septic and connect to city sewer and water. I did want to mention that with regard to city sewer, the city engineer has given the applicant an altemative route for sewer, since the property to the south has not yet developed. He has made available a connection in Fairview at Jericho, which is approximately 160 feet away. Still need to connect to city water. Cross-access to adjoining properties. Driveways conform with ACHD policy and, as I mentioned before, since there is no DA, I was not looking for them to record one at this point.. So, the outstanding issues before Council -- I have formed these in a series of a number of questions to highlight perhaps what your options are with regard to your decision tonight. I think the first question is since a DA was not recorded, should Council direct staff to de-annex this property? The second one would be should the applicant bring is the contiguous parcel to the east for annexation and seek new DA provisions with regard to both properties? If yes, the contiguous parcel could gain access to sewer in Fairview at Jericho and that would be pretty much immediately adjacent. Now, those two hit at the larger picture and perhaps not at the CZC issue that's before you tonight, but certainly are related and are options. Should the applicant enter into a DA with the provisions negotiated in 2003 and if yes should the applicant obtain CU approval for the auto sales lot as required in 2003? Is the altemative compliance proposed sufficient to meet the intent of code and is having the vehicle display area over the septic leach field acceptable. Moving on to another option with regard to tonight's application. Should the city stand by the 2003 provisions without benefit of the DA. If yes, the questions are essentially the same. If the altemative compliance proposed is sufficient, should they have a CU and is the vehicle display over the septic leach field acceptable. And the third question would be should the applicant abide by the 2008 code requirement. If yes, should the city engineer approve the septic system use, particularly with regard to the location of the leach field. Is the altemative compliance proposed sufficient to meet the intent of the code and should staff require cross-access to the adjoining properties. Once again I have provided you with a couple sample motions. A motion for denial in this case would be upholding the director's decision to deny the CZC and the altemative compliance. A motion to approve would be overruling the director's decision and, then, directing me to take action on one or more of those applications. And with that I will answer any questions you may have, Mayor and Council. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Council, any questions at this point? Bird: I have none. Rountree: Need some answers. No questions. Meridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 32 of 66 De Weerd: Okay. Since we don't have an applicant that is not the city, I would ask for the affected party if they have comments. Well, hi. Butler: Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. Young, old, standing, sitting, whatever. It's good to see you. I do have some pictures that I supplied by a-mail to Anna, but because we didn't have a chance to get together I also have these in hard form, so I will provide those to the Council. Holman: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm sorry, could you state your name for the record. Butler: I'm song. Joann Butler. 251 East Front Street in Boise. I apologize. Canning: Madam Mayor. Ms. Butler, I do have your photos. Butler: Thank you. I'll pass these out, nonetheless, because there is some writing on there. With me here tonight are Dan Burrup and Ed Christensen, who own Instant Equity Auto, and presently run their business on Fairview Avenue east of here in the city of Boise and this is a picture of the existing business. They will speak briefly to the Council tonight. Also with me tonight is Mr. Van Elg from The Land Group and The Land Group compiled the application for the certificate of zoning compliance or CZC. Yes, we are appealing the denial of this certificate of zoning compliance and, yes, we are finding facts at fault with the staff report and some of the facts that have been presented to the Council. We appreciate this Council's endeavor in our experience to support your staff whenever possible. In this case I think that our request to have the Council consider the facts and this testimony before you, it may be that staff was only saying to us, look, we can only go so far. This is our interpretation of the code and after that it's up to the Council to review our decision and come to reach a fair conclusion and we are asking you to take that fair and balanced conclusion and direct staff to issue that certificate of zoning compliance. We are here to show the Council tonight that issuing a CZC and allowing the applicant to improve the property will be both beneficial to the public and the private property owner, which is a balance that I know this Council strives for. Issuing the CZC will be consistent with your decision to annex the property in 2001. Your decision to modify the annexation conditions in 2003 and also consistent with your decision to modify your entire zoning ordinance by adopting the Uniform Development Code. In addition to this property -- Anna, could you show the next slide? Is that possible? Which is similar to what -- this is the site that the applicant is attempting to develop in connection with the past approvals by the city. To add to some of the facts with regard to the annexation, our predecessor annexed and rezoned this property as commercial in 2001. At that time it was not identified as a doctor's office, there was no use identified, and the transcript that we provided the Council in our appeal shows that -- that Councilman Borup and the applicant at that time had a discussion there was no identification of the use. And, in fact, there was no identification of a development agreement at that time and I will provide the -- you do have all those transcripts in your -- in your packet. It may have been that there was some intention, but I can tell you that it does not show up in the files or in the findings of the Council. The owner of the Meridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 33 of 66 property, after that -- when Mr. Smith tried to -- that was the contract purchaser of the property in 2001. He did not go forward with the development of the property and so in 2003 the owner of the property approached the city asking for some relief to a couple of the conditions of approval. The request centered on two things. First, it centered on relief from the full landscape ordinance provisions, because of the location of the home and the building on the lot and staff at that time supported that request and so did Council. The Council said that the revised condition of approval will allow staff to approve a new landscaping that meets the intent of the ordinance, but does not require complete compliance at this time. The Council said -- and if we tum to the next page, which is also the last page of the handout, we have the two modified annexation conditions and what the Council said was the landscape could be modified if we conform, as Anna said, with the intent and purpose of the landscape code and I'll explain that, yes, we do and if the future use is a permitted use, which this is, and if the building is not expanded, which is it not being expanded. The Council at that time said we might require additional trees and we are providing additional trees and it will require an irrigation system and we are supplying that imgation system. The release sought in 2003 also centered on the connection to the sewer system, because it wasn't available. Staff at that time supported that request and as did the Council and the Council said that -- and I'm quoting: The proper sewer connection for the subject property is located 450 feet to the south. The original condition of approval would have made the connection to city sewer cost prohibitive. The Council was absolutely right about those costs and it's true that after several months the city engineer did change its position and said that rather than going to the south when that property developed, that we could extend into another sewer shed north into Fairview and extend a sewer main to the east. That would cost 36,000 dollars, as opposed to 1,500 dollars to go to the proper sewer shed to the south. Starting -- and I think Mr. Burrup and Mr. Christensen will probably explain, because they attended all these hearings, beginning in October 2007 we started to have both pre-application conferences and meetings with the staff. And we designed the property as that site plan in the last -- it's also the third page of your packet shows, based on and reliance on those modified conditions that the Council approved and the guidance of staff in those hearings that they would support alternative compliance for the landscape design. I will just give you one example. Our original site plan that we brought to staff showed 25 foot of landscaping across the frontage on Fairview for a portion of the frontage, coming down to the 17 and a half feet for the remainder of the frontage and as Anna explained, we -- that is the minimum that we can reduce the buffer -- the landscape buffer with. At staff s encouragement we were asked to take that buffer to a consistent 17 and a half feet across the frontage, because staff felt that it would be visually more appealing. At that time we agreed to include two extra street trees, 23 extra densely planted shrubs, because of this reduction that we were asking for. By the way, if that is not enough landscaping, we are more than happy to provide more landscaping in that buffer. The rear setback shown in the site plan is 15 feet and at staffs request we were -- we indicated that we would put up an eight foot fence at the rear property boundary. Before I go on I want to -- I want the Council to understand that the actual landscape width that would be required at the rear is not 15 feet, but five feet. Staff confirmed for that in meetings that it would be a five foot distance commercial to commercial buffer. Although staff has identified our rear as Meridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 34 of 66 residential, it's residential in name only and what your code requires is when there is a vacant property, which this is to the rear, even if it is zoned for residential use, the Comprehensive Plan designation provides what the actual use will be. This is in 11-2- 6.3. That's tabled. It says that where the adjacent property is vacant the director shall determined the adjacent property designation based on the Comprehensive Plan designation. So, what we have behind us is commercial property for this purpose. I have had personal conversations with the engineering firm that is working with the owner of that property. That property owner -- I think this Council will remember -- I think, as it got to Council, came to the city with a condominium project and the city rejected that project. That owner is now in the process of pulling together an annexation and a rezone application for the city in which they are requesting commercial. So, what are we asking for? We are just asking for recognition that what the Council did in 2003 was to strike a balance for good planning that supports two things, the public health, safety, and welfare, as well as not putting an undue burden on this particular private property owner. The Council recognized, then, that the health, safety, and welfare of the public was not going to be jeopardized by the continued use of a septic system that is approved by Central District Health. The Council recognized at that time that the public health, safety, and welfare wouldn't be jeopardized by waiting to hook up when sewer was available to the south, which would, then, not put an undue expensive burden on this property owner. The Council recognized that the public's health, safety, and welfare would not be jeopardized if we created a landscape plan for this site that meets the intent of the landscape ordinance and I'm going to read a few sentences from 11-3-6.1, which is the landscape ordinance and this is the purpose and intent section of the landscape ordinance in part. The City of Meridian recognizes that landscaping can be a significant expense to business people and residents. At the same time landscaping improvements improve the appearance and attraction of commercial areas. The intent of these regulations is to achieve a balance between the right of individuals to develop and maintain their property in a manner they prefer and the rights of city residents to live, work, and shop and recreate in healthy and attractive surroundings. And that's what we think are altemative compliance that the Council in 2003 said that we could come back and go through, that's what we think we have met. We think we have met that intent and purpose of your landscape ordinance. I actually think with a very straight face we can all look at this and say that's a pretty good job, well done, on the site that you saw that exists today. In addition, we also meet the code's criteria for altemative landscape compliance. 11-5-B-5-B-2 says that we have to meet only one of the following conditions. We meet three of six. And if the Council will let me continue, if that's a stop for me. I don't know. Bird: I don't know. Butler: Okay. Thanks. It's the fire department. Okay. Rountree: Nod of heads. I'm in control of the meeting at this point. Zaremba: I don't think that timer sound was related to this. Meridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 35 of 66 Rountree: Go right ahead. Butler: Thank you. The landscape altemative compliance criteria -- we have to meet one of six. We meet three of six. There is a criteria that says that the -- there is some site conditions that are such that full compliance is impossible or impractical or there are site and space limitations that are not usually found. And the site is constrained by an existing building and that is the basis for the original Council decision in 2003 for modifying that landscaping condition. They recognized that that building is sitting there. They said as long as that building is sitting there and its footprint doesn't change, we understand the need to come in and ask for an altemative compliance. We will give you that opportunity to show our staff that you can landscape -- not at the full 25 width, but in a good way until that building is changed. Another criteria -- staff found that they didn't believe that the environmental quality would be improved as a result of the reduction in buffer width and they related that to the fact they thought that that meant we were going to increase the paved area over the septic system that exists. That is not correct. The city engineer absolutely -- and I think Central District Health would do this as well -- requires us to put anon-pervious surface over the septic tank and we are absolutely going to comply with those regulations. I wish I could stop there and just say that's all we are asking for, acknowledge that we have done a great job on landscaping, acknowledge that 36,000 dollars versus 1,500 dollars to connect to sewer is too much to ask when something is going to be coming in the not too distant future. But as Anna mentioned, there are a couple other things that have cropped up in our discussions with staff and it made their way into the staff report, although not in the denial letter. Those issue are cross-access, the conditional use application that Anna mentioned, and a development agreement. The issue of cross-access was brought up in discussions with staff and it's a laudable goal. If this community wants to try to assist ACRD reduce the access points along Fairview and to benefit the pubic that is a laudable goal. I question whether or not that particular --the city can require two private property owners to agree to cross-access and, in fact, we found that an impossible condition to meet. Some of you may know the property owner to the west of this. They would not even entertain a concept of cross-access and, in fact, when that property owner finally, either on contract or whatever -- somebody else went -- that's in Ada County, by the way. They went to Ada County for an approval and Ada County has approved it and at that time that application was sent to Meridian, Meridian did not comment and did not make any recommendations to Ada County, including no recommendation for cross-access. So, we really question why this is an issue for us where we were put in a position where we can't deal with a next door neighbor and, yet, that next door neighbor is not at the same time asked to deal with us. With regard to the -- De Weerd: You will need to summarize, please. Bird: Okay. Two things. Conditional use. We need to make a very strict legal distinction here. The condition of approval that was in 2001 and 2003 calls for a conditional use for a planned development. That is an animal that is no longer in existence in the city. This is not a conditional use that was required, it's something that's no longer required. And I have to say that I have had clients and I have been in Meridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 36 of 66 hearings where your staff has said when somebody has tried to invoke conditional use for a PUD, that staff has said please don't go down that worm hole. If we do that we will have to go back and address many other applications. De Weerd: Ms. Butler, that's not a summary. Butler: Okay. That's one. Finally, development agreement. It wasn't an issue in 2001 and 2003, but if staff and the Council are saying we would like you --and we were never offered the option of that. If you are saying to us we want you to put into writing that you will develop as you have told us here and record that document, I have no problem with that. I don't think it gives you anymore comfort than your decision itself, but we would certainly do that. De Weerd: Your time is up. Butler: I'm asking you to, please, direct the staff to issue the certificate of zoning compliance. We will stand for questions and other people may speak to the Council as well. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none at this time. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? Rountree: Madam Mayor? Go ahead, David. De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Would you have an opinion as to the remaining useful life of the septic system that's there? Butler: I can't answer that, but I think our client can answer that. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Madam Mayor. Joann, you mentioned a couple things that I need clarification on. You said if that's not enough landscaping, we'd do more, and my question to you is how much more? Butler: You know, I'm going to have Mr. Elg probably answer that, who works for the landscape -- The Land Group and the landscape architect at that -- at that firm can probably answer that. I guess from my perspective, since I just had two trees planted today, this is fresh in my mind and they were very clear about keeping them somewhat separated, so they didn't interfere with each other. So, somewhat more is something that wouldn't hurt the existing landscaping. Meridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 37 of 66 Rountree: The other question is related to the sewer hook up and sewer hook up costs and you mentioned two figures and two directions and neither one of them related to the comment that I had heard staff present that there is a potential hook up location, I believe, to the east some 150 feet away. Butler: Our client owns two different parcels here. In order to get their business off the ground -- and they are doing this in two phases and they have applied -- you know, this is, basically, what they have told staff: We are applying for the first phase here. The sewer hookup that you're talking about is on the other side of this second property. Rountree: Excuse me. If you could identify which property that is. Butler: Yes. De Weerd: There is a -- Butler: Thank you. It's closer to Jericho -- Fairview and Jericho is where I understand the hookup is and Jericho is to the east of these two parcels We have -- Rountree: So, we are talking about ownership of both of these parcels? Butler: That's correct. Rountree: Okay. Butler: That's correct. And what we have told staff that we would do -- two things. That when we get to the second phase, in compliance with that 2003 condition of approval, which says if we do new construction, which we would with the second phase, we are going to have to comply completely with the landscape ordinance. That's one thing. But with regard to sewer, if we don't use our existing septic here that 36,000 dollars that I said would be required to be paid just for the development of this parcel. Now, I don't want to stick my foot in my client's mouth, but if it should get to be the point where they are at their second phase and they are closer to that hookup and sewer hasn't come from the south, I'll ask them to address as to whether or not the would, then, hookup to the north. Did that answer your question? Rountree: Spoken like a wonderful lawyer. De Weerd: I do have a question. I guess my concern with reduced landscaping area would be it's still in question what the future right of way width of Fairview is going to be and if this totally takes landscaping out of that scenario, I guess with the landscape buffers we have in the developed areas, if they start eating away into that you still have green left and what we didn't want is pavement, sidewalk, pavement. Meridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 38 of 66 Butler: Right. And appreciate that, Mayor. I think -- here is an answer for you in light of the lack of knowledge I have on the right of way width that ACHD might require my clients in the future -- and my clients may have more information. on that. When our client does come back for the second phase, because of your July changes to your conditional -- to your code, all commercial uses are gong to have to come to you for a Conditional Use Permit and that will mean that you will transmit to Ada County Highway District and at that time you will get the information that you're talking about, so that you know how wide that right of way will be and so that you can impose appropriate conditions on the two phase, so that you are assured of that green-scape that you're looking for. De Weerd: This is one -- just acomment -- editorial comment. This is one reason why I like the expiration -- or expiration of annexations if they don't develop within a certain amount of time. It takes the guesswork out of it. It makes it pertinent to current codes and it answers things like this. Butler; And a development agreement back in 2001 and 2003 would have as well. I can just tell you I just know from the record and going through your files it just was not -- it just wasn't done. Canning: Madam Mayor. Page seven of the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, item number 20, states: The subject annexation .request and zoning designation -- oh, I started in the wrong place. Sony. Page six. Number 17. It is found that if the developer pays for the requested improvements and complies with the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact, number 16, and all sub parts, the economic welfare of the city and its residents and tax and rate payers will be protected, which requirement shall be included in a development agreement, the condition of annexation and zoning designation. Butler: Anna is absolutely correct and I did not see that in there. I don't think that changes the issue. It wasn't done. And so if -- if it had been done, what it would have contained would have been the modified conditions of approval, because the 2001 development agreement would have been modified to contain those conditions. So, I think we are, basically, back at the same place, that we -- the development agreement would have incorporated the conditions of approval and that's all we are asking you to let us live by. We think that we have shown you that we meet your alternative compliance, your intent and purpose, and we are asking you to recognize what the Council did back, then, again. Let us hook up to sewer at a more reasonable cost. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for Ms. Butler? Okay. Butler: Thank you. Canning: Madam Mayor, can I clarify the record on a couple other items? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Meridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 39 of 66 Canning: With regard to the property to the east, you may recall we had the applicant come in and talk to the City Council about annexation. She had promised that she would annex. We had petitioned against the -- to the west. I'm song. Thank you. We had petitioned Ada County with a lengthy response with regard to the proposed site plan, which was largely ignored, as was our complaints with regard to the large billboard that was put in that was -- again, the comments were ignored. It was appealed up to the county commissioners. We commented at that. We have put a note in the file that, basically, says when this property comes in for annexation that they need to abide by -- with all the things that we have requested thus far. So, at this point I have quit wasting my time providing lengthy comments to Ada County with regard to the piece of property. I just wanted to clarify that. De Weerd: It was very fresh in my memory. Canning: Yeah. De Weerd: So, when Ms. Butler said that we didn't comment, I thought, hum, I think I over commented, but -- Canning: Yeah. Butler: I think Anna has underscored the fact that it was not easy to talk to the property owner to the west. Canning: And with regard to cross-access, we don't require that they obtain the permission of the adjoining property owners, we just required that they provide access across their property to those adjoining properties. When the adjoining properties develop, we require the same from them. De Weerd: And we did ask for that on that property. Canning: Yes, we did. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Well, this is a public hearing. Is there additional testimony? Yes, sir. Just in case you wondered, it is three minutes. Christensen: Okay. My name is Eddie Christensen. 1882 North Prestwick in Eagle, Idaho, for the record. De Weerd: Thank you. Christensen: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we are not a major enterprise. It's -- I'm an accountant. He's a stock broker. My partner. We are trying to beautify the city. I mean it's -- we are not trying to do anything wrong or not beautify things in those terms. I don't speak as eloquently as Joann, obviously, but the reality is all we are Meridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 40 of 66 asking for is what we were told and a year ago when we started this project we sat in a meeting with staff and we were told that certainly we could operate in -- on the premises and once that sewer was brought to us from the south, certainly we would connect at that time. In April we were instructed that was -- that no longer applied, that now we had to start from ground zero, basically, as far as we were concerned after all these things and -- and so, really, there were certain things that were told us that we were -- that we based everything upon and why we proceeded and things like that and, ironically, we are back to ground zero and here we are asking for what we are asking for. So, I don't think our demands are outrageous. We are simply trying to do things right. Believe it or not, we are ethical, even though we are auto salesmen. We weren't seasoned in the business, obviously, so we run a good business and we wanted contribute to the City of Meridian and, you know, we took an opportunity and bought that property and, really, the things that we are asking for, you know, I hope aren't too -- too unreasonable, so thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Yes. Christensen: The septic system -- we actually did have looked at. It was pumped out. It was in perFect condition. So, we did have an okay on that. We are as excited to get rid of that thing as anybody, with our existing building. We spent the money that we have had, anyway, we have spent to beautify it and make it better. We had a lot of issues with the roof and things with our existing building in Boise. We have spent adequate money to make it right. We would do the same with this property and to be in compliance and we would be the first ones to hook up were that sewer to come. It wouldn't take six months. We would hook up to it as soon as we possibly could. But in terms of the water, just for the record, we do have water to -- from the street right now. So, water is really not an issue. It's really sewer, so thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Burros: My name is Dan Buenas. 2284 Piazza here in Meridian. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thanks for your time. I know it's late. Just -- I don't want to beat a dead horse, but we did purchase this property, we did hire The Land Group. We did expend a lot of money with the assumptions that were given to us and recommendations by the staff and, unfortunately, none of the members of the staff that were in those meetings with us are here tonight, but it's undeniable that they recommended to us several items and that's really all we are asking for. We are asking for you to give us what they told us we could have. What - as Joann presented, legally appears we should have. And that is altemative compliance on these landscaping. We are happy to put in additional trees, bushes, whatever it is, we want our place to look great and the better it looks the more attractive it will be for our customers. We are happy to do whatever it takes as far as that goes. We were told, in fact, that before we hired The Land Group that we could hook up to city sewer as soon as it was stubbed to our property and we would have six months to do so. And that was told us in -- on more than one occasion by staff and also the altemative compliance on the landscaping. Meridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 41 of 66 Those are recommendations primarily that they gave to us and so we were just going forward with~those. So, I appreciate your time. Do you have any questions forme? De Weerd: No. Thank you. Elg: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Van Elg, 462 East Shore, Eagle, Idaho. I'm with The Land Group. Madam Mayor and Councilman Rountree, in response to your question about landscaping, what you see right there is it's fairly dense as far as trees. I don't know that we could fit another tree in there -- I'd have to talk to one of my landscape architects -- without causing problems with growth if they start interfering or growing together. I'm sure that we could talk about some other lower growing bushes or shrubs if we -- if we needed to, but, again, this is an auto dealership and we don't want to be completely obscured from the street either, so we would be willing to discuss with staff any additional requirements and certainly consider what that might be. If there is -- if anybody does want additional landscaping there. Madam Mayor, you had mentioned that you were concerned about ACHD's encroachment -- future encroachment. They are requiring an additional ten foot of take of right of way there. As we understand it, that's what they need for their planned growth at this point. So, what you see is what I think will be there for quite some time with the -- with the landscaping. One clarification -- I think somebody mentioned that there would be a pervious -- or an impervious surface over the top of the septic system, drain field. We are actually installing an impervious -- or a pervious concrete over the top of, which is something that's -- I don't know if you have seen it, but Sienna Elementary School has got it now, it's the largest pour in Idaho. We have been spear heading that. It's a great new product. DEQ -- the agencies love this product. It allows the water to go completely through. We will scratch off the top soil of this property above the septic system and it will continue to drain just as if it were -- you know, it's a pervious surface. So, it will accept the water. We won't alter that -- that drain field as a condition. So, I don't think that that's going to be a problem. There was a discussion about cross-access and at one point we discussed the fact that this is an auto dealership. Most dealerships will close off their lots at a certain time of night. That's their product. That's their life. They don't want free flowing traffic going through their project during the middle of the night to -- their product could be damaged or keyed or whatever that might be. Of course, that doesn't stop people from going onto the site, but it's a deterrent and so one discussion was made was we would be willing to combine our access with the pool or the coffee house at the time and provide an access right there, but that didn't come about. And, in fact, the billboard was in place there, which really caused some problems with trying to get a cross-access through there. We were told by ACHD that they were going to require -- when that project came through they were going to require them to slip their access. That didn't happen either and no comments were made by ACHD either during the time of the pool and fly applications. So, I think those are the -- I think those are the only issues I -- that I had. If you have any questions I'd sure be glad to answer them, though. And if I didn't answer yours appropriately, Councilman Rountree, I would be glad to -- Rountree: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 42 of 66 De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Yeah. Van, you addressed them. I just wanted to make sure how much -- how much was. So, this landscape width is the 17 and a half feet -- Elg: Correct. Rountree: -- minimum, but you did make a comment that makes me want to ask another question when you said you contemplated a joint access with this -- with this neighboring property, I assume at this location, since your applicant -- or your client owns this, it seems to me that maybe that there, working both, kills two birds with one stone, gives them a little more spot for displays and makes it -makes it, I think, better for them ultimately. Now, I don't know what their plans are, but I'll bet it's auto related or some such. So, anyway, I would throw that out in terms of, you know, take a look at your site plan, you probably could save them some money doing that. The other concern I have is that apparently the sewer is stubbed over here and I don't know if -- it's up here? Okay. It's at the street, but it's on -- it's right at the property line or close to -- Elg: No. We'd have to -- it's in the street. It's -- whatever the corridor is there. Rountree: I'm going to get Clint to -- it's in Fairview? Dolsby: Yeah. Rountree: Okay. Canning: Council Member Rountree, it appears to be 25 or 30 feet from this property line toward the north end of Fairview. Rountree: Okay. Canning: Very close. Rountree: It's very close. Okay. All right. Anyway, I just want to get in my mind where that is, because it seems to me that that's probably ultimately going to be your closest location. I'm not asking you for more trees, I think you got sufficient trees. I agree sometimes you can get them too close, but -- Elg: Madam Mayor and Councilman Rountree, if I could, we have discussed that issue of moving that access over there to center -- between the center of two properties and we can't meet the offset distances from Jericho Road when that builds out. So, ACHD wanted us -- in fact, they'd prefer that we leave it back over there by the coffee house, but we have shown them that this is an acceptable location for us. They have approved -- we have gotten the -- an approval from ACHD today for the access location for the -- Meridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 43 of 66 Rountree: I understand that, but when you access this property, you're not going to meet the offset either. Elg: I'm sure that it will come from -- it will come from this existing access point and/or from Jericho Road when that develops. Rountree: Just use the same one. And, then, in terms of your site layout, as far as cross-access, I understand the desire to not have the access through the site at night. We actually have some retailers in the community that have the same concern and they actually gate their cross-access with others at night, but during the day the access is open and I would say that, again, Anna's comment is we don't require that you have the access, but you make provisions for that access on your property, so at some future date it can happen and I would say just looking at it, it would be in these general areas possibly, that maybe provisions could be made at some point in time in the future that that access could be allowed. We all know the issues to the west. But you're going to want to combine your properties anyway and I don't know that that's an issue. Elg: That doesn't seem to be an issue. Right. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Rountree. I was going to bring up the gate or the chaining myself, so --any other questions, comments? Okay. Hoaglun: Question for Anna if I might, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Hoaglun: It sounded like they talk a lot about the sewer to the south and what I'm kind of divining here is that was a potential development going in in that south property that did not -- and looking ahead that there be a sewer connection they could connect to and, then, when that development did not go through, that kind of took away that south access. Am I reading the tea leaves correctly on that one? Canning: Yes, Councilman Hoaglun, and I'll let the city engineer fill in the details, but I did want to point -- Touchtone Place was approved to the south of this property in July of 2006. Now, that has since expired, the two years is gone, or the 18 months. So, it has expired, but it was approved and it is annexed as R -- is it an annexed piece of property and it's zoned R-15. That would have put sewer about 460 feet away from this property line. Or it currently exists 460 feet. It would have brought the sewer to this property line. Anything else, city enginee-'? Dolsby: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Hoaglun, additionally, once that development goes -- say if this development chose to build asewer -- if they had the money to build a sewer through there, they would likely get reimbursed once that development went through -- once that development went in, that Touchstone Place or whatever ends up going in there, per our new reimbursement policy that we Meridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 44 of 66 are bringing to Council within the next couple months. And the other option for sure that we already talked about was up on Fairview was in a different shed, but we agreed to let them go that way if they would like to as well. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Clint, does that gravity flow from south to the north there in Fairview without going outrageously deep? Dolsby: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Bird, yes, it does. Bird: Okay. Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, did Van have a response to my question? Elg: It was in response to the question about sewer from -- from Touchstone. We have talked with the owner there, with Briggs Engineering, and we have actually discussed the possibility of, you know, how soon can you bring it in, do you -- can you identify where that might be. They just aren't willing to do that at this point, because they are retooling that site, if you will, for a different application, different commercial use, knowing that the original Touchstone piece has been denied. So, we are hoping that that service -- that may come in. In this market who knows when it will happen, but we have got good septic, we are putting pervious concrete on top of it, we have got water. The site can function as it was previously approved I think, so -- De Weerd: Okay. Now, I guess I have a question for you. Are they keeping, then, the house for their sales -- Elg: Yes. De Weerd: -- place and so not any -- Elg: For the phase one. De Weerd: Okay. So, not adding any structures. What is the signage? It's not this tall thing that they have in there. Elg: The other side of the billboard. I'm kidding. No. Rountree: Sandwich board, uh? Elg: Yeah. De Weerd: You know how to get a denial now for that. Meridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 45 of 66 Elg: That might be something that these two better answer. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. If you will state your name for the record. Burrup: Sure. Dan Burrup. De Weerd: Thank you. Burrup: And Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the sign on our existing property at the address of 10221 West Fairview in Boise was, actually, grandfathered in. It was built many years ago and so we can keep it as long as we don't make alterations and we never have. So, in answer to the question of the signage on this new property, it would simply be whatever is allowed by code is what we plan to put up. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Rountree: A question as it relates to the landscaping and an issue that -- that Director Canning brought up. We do have issues with auto sales and propensity to want to park vehicles on the landscape area and if it's not vehicles it's a thousand flags waving and if it's not a thousand flags waving it's a lot of streamers and balloons and whatever. Your sense of your marketing effort and that kind of an activity, because that's not something we want to see. Burrup: We intend to abide by the code, by the laws of the City of Meridian. As you can see and maybe appreciate by the photo of our dealership, I took that photo yesterday, just to -- Van called me in the middle of the day. It's not like we set the lot up for it to look like that. In fact, I would change a few things just by looking at the picture, but that's how we operate. You know, we do balloons occasionally. We don't have any streamers. Those have powerful power lines in front of our dealership that we can't do anything with. We intend to obey the law. We always have. Rountree: Follow up. De Weerd: Uh-huh. Rountree: What's your intent in terms of improvement to the existing structure? Burrup: Basically, we just want to improve -- redo the inside, just remodel, new floor -- I mean nothing to where we are going to take down any walls or anything like that, we just want to redo the building. People who were there prior had made some changes. We are just going to update some things at this point. Rountree: How about exterior? Meridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 46 of 66 Burrup: Exterior there is a little more paint work to be done and whatever signage will be allowed by code we'd like to do. I think that's it. Rountree: Your partner has another comment. Christensen: Eddie Christensen again. De Weerd: Thank you. Christensen: Madam Mayor. I think the proofs in the pudding kind of. I don't know what the relationship is with Boise, we are in no violation with Boise or Ada County with our current dealership. We will not be, simply because -- I can't say that to our neighbors on the east side of us currently in Boise, but we are in compliance -- complete compliance as it is right now. I think that should answer that question and simply, yeah, we want to beautify the property. With what we have to work with right now, you know, cosmetically there is some things that we can do to that building certainly to make it look better. It is phase one. You know, we will have to come in with a new plan for the next phase, .but certainly, you know, we are still growing as a dealership, so it may take some time to put anice -- blow that building off and put a nice big building on there and things like that, but with the proper lighting and signage and beautification of what we have to work with right now certainly we can make it work with decent inventory. We are not a buy here, pay here, dealership, so we sell quality vehicles, that type thing, which enhances the dealership. With the concrete and the pavement that we are going to use -- we currently own Think Green Car Company as well, it's basically a lease that we have on the comer. Our concept is really think go green and so with the next building, the next phase, the reason we are going with the concrete and the drainage and all these things, are simply to - we are going to focus mostly on hybrids and more efFcient cars. It's really a new concept to the valley that we are bringing in. We were on a -- recently interviewed by Channel 6 or 7, I think. They did a big story on us with Intermountain Gas and things doing conversions to vehicles. We have a lot of ideas. I'm kind of divulging some of those now, but it will improve that area dramatically based on what you see right now when you drive by and see the eye sore that's sitting there. So, you know, I guess, finally, in closing, it will be a classy establishment as you drive by as long as we own it, so -- thank you and thanks for your time tonight. I certainly want to get home to my family. De Weerd: Thank you. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I do have an additional question. Noticing from the pictures that are up now, the second building that is on the property is a garage-type building, it appears to be. And so my question is other than washing the cars that are on the lot occasionally, are Meridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 47 of 66 you thinking of doing any repair or maintenance or other kind of work on the cars. You need to be on the microphone. Christensen: Yes. We will improve that as well. It will look similar to the building as you see it now. We certainly wouldn't leave that in the condition that it's in and not change that, too. Structurally we won't do too much in phase one, simply because of the requirements and things that -- as far as that goes, but, yeah, it would be improved as well. The entire facility would be improved with what we own currently with -- in relation to 1065 East Fairview and, then, we would -- Zaremba: Madam Mayor. I wasn't actually asking about the building, I was asking about the use of the building. Christensen: Oh, the use of the building -- Zaremba: If you're going to do any repair on automobiles. Christensen: Currently it's a storage facility. I mean there is not much we can do with it. It's not tall enough to put a mechanical shop in it and that type thing. It would really just be a storage facility. We may park a vehicle in there. We may just park -- you know, put items for detailing and things like that, but in terms of a showroom, no. No. In terms of glass and a nice pretty building with cars, no, it will not be -- because ultimately it will be tom down. Zaremba: Somehow I guess I'm not making my question clear. Christensen: I'm sorry. Zaremba: I'm talking about repair of automobiles. Are you going to do any maintenance or repair on automobiles? Christensen: No. That is not the plan currently. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: I just have a comment when you think green on phase two, you know, I don't think green on car lots, usually, because they are just a bunch of asphalt. So, would love you to think green on phase two. Bird: Paint the concrete. Meridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 48 of 66 De Weerd: Or concrete. Okay. Any other questions, wrap-up remarks? Well, it's not like we have had any public testimony that's contrary to what the applicant has said. Any additional comments from staff? Okay. Council, seeing no further testimony, do I have a motion to close the public hearing? Bird: Everybody satisfied? Rountree: Yeah. Go ahead if you want to make that motion. Bird: I would move that we close the public hearing on AP 08-005. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 11. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Not having been here in 2001 and 2003, just what was your guys' task? De Weerd: Change. Bird: Our intent was to make it -- to make that property look nicer than it does now. Or did then. De Weerd: We could ask that before the 2000, too, to formercouncil -- Rountree: Yes, you could. De Weerd: -- at that time. Rountree: Yes, you could. De Weerd: So, what's your point? Rountree: I just wanted to know if you could explain what your intent was and Mr. Bird did that, so -- Rountree: Madam Mayor, just some observations and comments on what I heard and Anna's questions that she posed to us. I think that in 2001 there was -- there was direction by Council to have a DA completed on this property and I think that's still in order and I would think that we would want to do that and I think the DA ought to reflect that the testimony and responses that we heard this evening and what our current Meridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 49 of 66 ordinances, I guess, would allow. So, going through these questions I think a DA is in order. I don't know that a CU is -- would necessarily have to be for an auto sales lot as in 2003. It's not now. Alternative compliance for the landscaping -- I think they have indicated that they'd do the 17 and a half feet. Not only that, they are doing landscaping in the parking lot and the back property, which I believe is new. They are also -- I will say my desire is that they at least accommodate cross-access on this property, so it could be done in the future. As far as the vehicles over the septic leach field, if they are putting the surfacing down as in testimony, that should be part of the DA and I think that takes care of that particular issue. Should they abide by 2008 code requirements, I think if they are going to modify the building they are going to have to meet whatever code requirements that it's going to require as far as the code requirements and the ordinance from the Unified Development Code. Previous approval by Council was given direction on how to do alternative compliance with some of those features and I think that that should be recognized, since we didn't develop a DA. We have talked about cross-access. I believe as far as hooking up with the sewer, I would like to see that done. And I know it's expensive. The problem with not doing that is, then, it's deferred for ever and ever some more. The problem with doing that with the adjacent property that they own and coming off of Fairview is that they could sell that, then, we don't have it yet again. I understand their difficulty with the development to the south and I don't know how to solve that problem, but some way we need to get that property sewered. I don't have the language for the DA, but I think our intent that that happens within a prescribed period of time needs to be in the DA. I like the effort that the applicant's made to try to make this property look like something and I very much appreciate if they have had any dialogue at all with their neighbor to the west, that, you know, that's penance enough, but we still have some things we got to do. Those are my comments. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: We sit next to one another and I think word for word I agree with Councilman Rountree. Rountree: First time ever. Bird: My first time ever. De Weerd: That's getting scary. Bird: That is. But, anyway, I, too, believe that we got to have a DA. We have got to put a time limit on when we hook to the sewer, whether it's to the south or to the north and I'm like Councilman Rountree, I don't want to see it two years from now. I know it's an expensive process and probably the market out there right now isn't real conducive to it, but we got to have a time limit and that's why a DA has to be. I believe that for cross- access in the DA we make sure that in certain areas, certain widths on east and west Meridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 50 of 66 that buildings are not ever allowed to be built there, so you do have cross-access. Your landscaping I can certainly agree with, but we have got to have -- we have got to have a DA and we have got to have a time limit on the sewering, as far as I'm concerned. And I, too, applaud you for going out there and fixing that thing up and making it -- it certainly would be an addition to what we have got out there now. Thank you. Hoaglun: Madam Chairman? De Weerd: Yes. Hoaglun: I have been given good advice in the past and I intend to follow it tonight is to follow the wise counsel of your elders. Rountree: Careful. De Weerd: I'm not going to comment. Bird: I'm sure your not always going to say that. De Weerd: Okay. Council, if there is no further discussion, do I have a motion? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, before the motion, is the direction from the Council - I think I understand all the conditions you were looking for. In fact, just to clarify, I think the issue of the leach field probably -- Central District Health -- maybe Mr. Dolsby can sign off on what they are trying to do to make sure that it's satisfactory, but -- but do you want us to negotiate with them as to what time period is reasonable to put in that into the development agreement for the hook up to the sewer -- I mean that really is the 36,000 dollar question it seems like that -- and what I think I heard from Mr. Bird is 18 months seems about the farthest out or something less than that, if I understand correctly. De Weerd: Mr. Nary, I guess those questions are more appropriate when we have a motion, so -- Nary: Just trying to help them form in their mind what they want to put in the motion. Bird: I agree with you, Bill, I -- Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Meridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 51 of 66 Zaremba: I agree with what has been said, but I guess my question would be would we want to see the terms of the development agreement, in which case we need to reopen -- De Weerd: Mr. Bird and Mr. Nary -- Nary: Sorry. De Weerd: -- this question's actually directed to Mr. Nary, so it's important that he listen. Nary: Sony. Zaremba: Would we need to reopen the hearing and continue it to see the DA? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Iguess -- Council Member Zaremba, 1 guess because I don't know the -- I mean they did offer to do a DA. I think the conditions that you have discussed to this point, other than the sewer issue, are things that I think have been put on the record, but because of that provision -- and this is somewhat unusual, that might be probably wiser than you -- than the Council making that motion and direction and, then, we can't reach a resolution and we just have to come back anyway. That might be wiser. But Mrs. Canning has a different perspective, it appears. She seems to be waving over there. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, with regard to the DAs it says that the Council can initiate one as long as it's the subject of a public hearing. It doesn't need to be the subject of an annexation public hearing. So, I think the comments you have made tonight can be rolled into a DA and perhaps what we could do, rather than put it on your Consent Agenda, is to have it as an open discussion for the night once staff has had a chance to work with the applicant and come up with those provisions for the DA, if the city attorney agrees with that thought. Nary: That's perfectly fine. I mean as long as -- I just don't want you to pass something that we come back in two weeks and say we can't reach a resolution with this and they are not willing to sign an agreement. So, however we want to have that conversation back in front of you -- Mrs. Canning's suggestion is good. De Weerd: So, Mr. Nary, does that mean you continue this item contingent on that DA or -- Nary: Madam Mayor, I think that's what I -- what I understood you to say. Did I misunderstand that? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think you have two options. You could continue this item and we can work on the DA provisions for you to consider it at a continued public hearing or you could take action today and, then, we could work on the Meridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 52 of 66 DA provisions and once the DA is ready for Council, we could bring that to you with the negotiated agreements. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: If we don't have a motion and a DA with provisions how are you going to work on anything? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- Bird: I mean I think we need to go forward and make a -- Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, maybe I'm not tracking the same as Mrs. Canning. I think you can either continue it to a date certain and we can bring back what you're requesting in a development agreement or you can move to do that and we will bring it back when we reach a resolution or bring it back in front of you when we don't reach a resolution. So, I -- I think you can do it either way. I don't really have a concern that you continue it to a specific date. Normally, if you make these findings we would bring it back when it was completed, not to a specific date certain. But if you want to see it within a month, that's perfectly fine. De Weerd: Okay. Council, you have heard your options. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I will take a stab at this. I move that we direct staff to work with the applicant to prepare a development agreement that outlines the comments that I stated previously and have been stated by the rest of the Councilmen during discussion and negotiate with the applicant a time element as it relates to hook up with the sewer and bring either a completed and agreeable DA back to the Council for approval or bring conditions that need resolved back to the Council for final decision. Bird: I can -- I can buy into that, if we don't -- De Weerd: Is that a second? Bird: That was a motion? Nary: Yeah, that was a motion. De Weerd: Yes. Meridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 53 of 66 Bird: I'll second it. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Discussion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: What kind of time limit have you got in mind, Charlie? De Weerd: I think from his motion it would be -- oh, to bring back? Rountree: Bring back? Bird: Yeah. Rountree: 23rd. De Weerd:.So, two weeks. Rountree: Two weeks. Is that -- Bird: Is that doable? Rountree: I know that meeting's going to be about 4:00 o'clock in the morning. Nary: I think we have a lot on that meeting. Rountree: It really is getting stacked up. If you could do it -- I wouldn't have a bit of problem if it works out and goes smoothly as a Consent Agenda item on our -- in our workshop on the 9th. I mean the 16th. Excuse me. Tonight's the 9th. Can't do it? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we can't get it -- that means it has to be done Thursday. Rountree: Yeah. That isn't going to happen. Again, if it's smooth and can be pulled together, it could be a Consent Agenda item on the 23rd. If it needs further discussion and clarification from Council, then, it would be -- De Weerd: We could pull it off. Rountree: We could pull it off and look at it on the 7th. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 54 of 66 Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean not to be flip, but it's been seven years on this parcel it appears. I mean I would prefer October 7th, only because I don't think -- I don't think October -- or September 23rd -- I think you have a fairly full agenda and if we have a discussion all we are going to do is move this to the 7th anyway. De Weerd: We have a very full agenda on the 23rd. Nary: So, I would suggest we just shoot for the 7th. I think that gives us time and Ms. Butler's office time to see if we can resolve something. If not, we will just have -- we will be able to have a discussion on the 7th, rather than bringing it up on the 23rd and, then, moving it to the 7th anyway. If we have it sooner, since it is just a development agreement, we can certainly we put it on your agenda on the 23rd, if there is a resolution. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I'm unclear what the status of the original question about the CZC would be during this interim period. De Weerd: It sounds like it's contingent upon the DA. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess what I would suggest -- what I would say is that you have entered into a motion and a direction that is an alternative resolution to the CZC appeal that is on front of you. If we can reach that resolution with both parties, then, that would be the conclusion of the matter. If not, then, on the 7th we would be having the discussion for you to make a decision on the appeal that's in front of you tonight. What we have, basically, done is we just took a side road to see if that would resolve the issues for both the city and the applicant and the planning department and that's what we are trying to do with the development agreement. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, that brings me back to the question I asked earlier. In order to accomplish that, don't we need to continue this hearing? Nary: Mr. Zaremba, you're right, I guess we would need to continue that, because, obviously, it's still an open question and you would have to hear it. So, again, I still would recommend the 7th, because if we are going to have a discussion and we don't reach a resolution on this development agreement and we are going to have -- the Council is going to make a decision on the underlying appeal, you'll probably have more time on the 7th than you would on the 23rd. So, you're correct. Rountree: So, maker of the motion would amend my motion by adding that we open -- reopen the public hearing on Item 11 and continue until October 7th. Meridian City Council September 9, 2008 Page 55 of 66 Bird: Second agrees. Zaremba: And, Madam Mayor, as I always wish to comment, that nobody left the room during the period of when we thought it was closed. De Weerd: Okay. So, the motion is to reopen the public hearing and continue it until October 7th and ask staff and applicant to work on a DA with the comments provided by Council. Okay. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Public Hearing: Proaosed Fee Increases for Solid Waste Collections by Sanitary Services Company: De Weerd: Okay. Item 12 is a public hearing on the proposed fee increases for the solid waste collections by SSC. I will open this public hearing and ask for comments by our SSC representative. Good evening. Sedlacek: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Steve Sedlacek, Sanitary Service, 2130 West Franklin, Meridian,. Idaho. First of all, I wanted to say -- in response to some of the early public hearings we did not intend to create a ruckus at the McDonald's and had we known about it we would have fixed it immediately. We just heard about this issue -- De Weerd: We know that. Sedlacek: -- in the last few days, so -- Rountree: So did we. De Weerd: You heard when we heard. Sedlacek: And thank you for passing that along. De Weerd: We appreciate your response, too. Sedlacek: I have given you a memorandum, dated August 12th. I believe you have that in your packets. It was based on an assumed sequence of events that was supposed to occur with the county commissioners and whether or not they were going to raise their landfill fees. The way this was supposed to work was the county commissioners were supposed to meet with the Ada County solid waste staff yesterday and decide. They met and they did not decide. I was told earlier last week that there would not be a 50 percent rate increase, but it would be a 16 percent overall rate increase and that would be accomplished by raising rates for compacted waste, which is most of the waste stream that we get from residential and commercial customers, 22 and a half percent. So, they play with the proportions of waste and how much each