Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 7, 2008 C/C MinutesMeridian City Council October 7, 2008 Page 18 of 90 Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from September 9, 2008: AP OS-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. Item 11, is a continued public hearing from September 9th on AP 08- 005. I will start this discussion with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you did hear this item previously. Just to refresh your memory, it's located at 1065 Fairview Avenue on the south side of Fairview just west of Locust Grove and the application before you was a City Council review of the planning director's denial of a CZC. At the previous hearing Council left the public hearing open and directed staff and the applicant to develop DA provisions to accomplish the following: One was to allow the reduced street buffer of 17 and a half feet as proposed by the applicant. And that one has been accomplished by the DA. I believe Mr. Nary submitted the DA with your packet for tonight. The second one is to document the development commitment with regard to the south property line. There was a five foot buffer and an eight foot fence originally proposed during the hearing. That five foot buffer is committed to. The applicant is now proposing a six foot fence, instead of an eight foot fence. The third item was to allow the septic system as proposed by the applicant with a timeline for sewer connection and to and through the property at a specific date. The septic is done. We have committed to allowing them to use that. The proposed date of hook up by the applicant is 2014. Council had indicated a time frame of up to 18 months. Fourth. The applicant was to provide cross-access to the east and west property. The applicant refuses to provide cross-access. And, then, just as an FYI, the UDC also requires a five foot buffer along the eastern property adjoining any parking areas or drive aisles and they have not provided that. We haven't had an opportunity to discuss that with them before, due to the other outstanding issues, but that his a deficiency of the site plan. And you can see that a little better in the landscape plan and with that I can answer any questions Council may have or Mayor. De Weerd: Council, any questions for Mrs. Canning at this time? Okay. Is the applicant here? Collins: My name is Roger Collins from The Land Group. De Weerd: Can you pull that closer to you, Mr. Collins. Thank you. Collins: My name is Roger Collins. I'm with The Land Group, representing the client, 462 East Shore Drive, Eagle. Is there a question before us? Is there a specific question you want me to -- Meridian City Council October 7, 2008 Page 19 of 90 De Weerd: I don't know if Council has any specific questions. Do you have any specific comments? Collins: One comment that I wanted to address -- we have updated the site plan and provided that with the development agreement to show the five foot buffer in the rear. It also includes a five foot buffer at the east property line. The west property line is actually larger than five feet, except for where the garage is. An existing building. So, it's a little bit smaller than the five foot, but overall we are actually larger than the five foot. The comments that -- in regards to the access, our' client is still very concerned about having access through their inventory of cars. We have provided on the site plan a no build area that in the future could possibly be used for across-access, but they are just not willing to grant the access at this time, but are willing to limit themselves on where buildings can be placed and so forth, so that --that can be done in the future. De Weerd: I think there was also a question of the time frame for hooking up to city services. Collins: Yes. There was a and I wasn't party to the conversation, but I guess there was some conversation with Mr. Nary and he seemed fairly agreeable to that. I'm not sure -- I wasn't here at the last hearing, so I wasn't sure where the 18 months has come from. De Weerd: I think it came from Council. Collins: Did it? Okay. Okay. Council, any questions for the applicant? Rountree: Madam Mayor, just -- you heard the planning director articulate what was agreed to. That's consistent with your understanding? Collins: Yes. Rountree: And that's the position of the applicant? Collins: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions from Council or the applicant? Thank you. Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Good evening. Andrus: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Richard Andrus, 251 East Front. I'm here, actually, on behalf of Joann Butler tonight. I believe she was at the hearing last night -- last time and the conversations between her and Bill Nary -- unfortunately, it looks like Ted Baird is filling in for -- De Weerd: No. That's fortunately. Meridian City Council October 7, 2008 Page 20 of 90 Andrus: Fortunately is filling in for Bill this evening and so we are -- I guess we have the second level on both parts. Just to address some of the matters that were brought up, the six foot fence along the rear of the property line, I believe there had been discussion about an eight foot fence. The city ordinance -- actually, the height limit in the ordinance is six feet. The client in this case may be willing to do eight -- an eight foot fence still. I know that discussion has been out there. But, really, I'd defer to them on that. But the reason why the change was made to six feet is so that it would match the requirements of the ordinance. Also in Section 5.1.2 of the development agreement that was provided to Bill earlier, to clarify the landscape buffer along the rear of the property, we'd request that the following language be added. The landscape buffer along the rear property shall be five feet wide. I know there had been discussion about that, but it -- it isn't clear based on the paragraph here that that's the condition that will -- would be included. As far as the cross-access goes, I know it's presented as the -- the applicant in this case is unwilling to grant cross-access. It's a little more nuance than that in this case. I'm sure you're all aware that they plan to have an auto dealership on this lot and it creates of substantial burden in that setting to have public access across the drive aisles of -- of the dealership. In this case neither the applicant, nor either the properties on either side have requested this access. There is a billboard on the adjacent property that makes it somewhat impractical and the adjacent property also already has access off of Fairview. So, just the practicality of it is we -- we wonder why cross-access is -- is actually needed in this situation. There was an extended conversation between Bill and Joann regarding the city's authority to request that cross- access and I mean if you have questions on that I guess I could, you know, go a little further into that, but I think just from a practical standpoint across-access doesn't make sense in this situation. As far as the timing of the sewer, I read through the transcript -- Idon't recall 18 months as being a timeline that was discussed.- Maybe it was. But the timeline that was put in the development agreement was one that -- the feeling from both parties was that would be a workable situation. I think that's all I had, so -- if you have any questions I will stand for questions. De Weerd: Great timing. Council, any questions for the legal counsel? Rountree: I have none for Richard. I have some for Bill. De Weerd: Thank you. Andrus: And, hopefully, I didn't put words in Bill's mouth or Joann's mouth. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any further testimony? Canning: Madam Mayor, the height limit within the commercial districts is eight feet for fences. It's six feet for residential districts, but -- De Weerd: Thank you for that clarification. Okay. Council, what would be your preference? If we need to get further information from Mr. Nary, we can set this further on the agenda, or you could continue this item to another meeting. Meridian City Council October 7, 2008 Page 21 of 90 Baird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Baird. Baird: If I could inquire about the nature of the question I might be able to field it. De Weerd: Okay. Baird: Bill did brief me on his discussions with Joann Butler. De Weerd: Thank you. Baird: And he is on his way, so by the time we are done talking he might be able to confirm whatever the question is. De Weerd: Okay. Counsel? Mr. Rountree? Mr. Bird? Rountree: Madam Mayor, my questions relate to the discussion on the connection for the septic system and the cross-access discussion, both I think critical issues. Baird: Uh-huh. Well, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, with regard to cross- access, we think the city is within its rights to require it, so we are in disagreement with the applicant regarding that. With regard to the sewer, was there a specific questions that you had? Canning: Madam Mayor? Rountree: Well, what Baird: There are some staff over there that might be able to chime in as well. Rountree: I guess my comment on that is I recall some discussion of a shorter period of time than six years -- on the order of a year and a half. So, I don't know that we gain much headway there. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the applicant had proposed the 2014 date within their development agreement. We didn't have much discussion. I did have Mr. Parsons verify as to what -- to go through the minutes and verify what date Council had looked up -- or had suggested at the last hearing and it was up to 18 months. So, there wasn't all -- a discussion about it -- or that I am aware of. Mr. Nary cc'd me on most of those a-mail discussions, so I don't believe we discussed it one way or the other. It's what the applicant proposed. Baird: So, Madam Mayor, I believe to put that another way, that's totally within the Council's discretion on when to require that connection. Meridian City Council October 7, 2008 Page 22 of 90 Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Just in the administrative process, is there a tickler system of whether we discuss 18 months or six years, as they are requesting -- is there some way that a flag would come up at that point for somebody to check on it? Canning: Madam Mayor, Council Member Zaremba, we don't have one right now. I'm hoping to make greater use of our GIS system to kind of at least flag properties, so that if someone goes and researches the site they would notice that -- that there was a commitment to connect to sewer services at that time. Zaremba: Thank you. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I have a question for Anna. On the matrix you built for just us -- Canning: Yes, sir. Rountree: -- the various years, the second to the last item is a DA required as a condition of annexation and in 2008 you say no, but that's really a mute point, is it not? Canning: Yes. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, as I presented that matix mix to you last -- at your last hearing, what it was is I was looking at 2008 as there is not a DA in place, what are the requirements, just based on the Unified Development Code. So, that's what the 2008 column represents. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Rountree: Madam Mayor, Anna indicated we had a copy of the DA, but I don't find it in my packet, unless it's hidden in the minutes somewhere. So, I don't know what the language in the draft DA reflects, if it reflects our guidance in terms hook-ups, our guidance in terms of cross-access and fencing and that sort of thing. So, currently Richard might have to -- Andrus: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I have copies if you'd like to take a look. It's -- I think section five is the pertinent section. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this does appear to be the last version that Mr. Nary forwarded to me. Meridian City Council October 7, 2008 Page 23 of 90 De Weerd: Anna, who is it prepared by? Mr. Nary? Canning: Mr. Nary sent our template document to the applicant and they modified that document and sent it back to us and, then, I think we had acouple -- we had commented on it one or two rounds. De Weerd: So, that's why there is a six foot fence, rather than the staff suggested eight foot? Canning: Madam Mayor, it was never a staff suggestion to my knowledge. It was just a previous commitment made by the developer. Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, a question for Anna and maybe Public Works. If I recall from our discussion at the last meeting on this issue, the sewer line on Fairview was -- was how far away? It was -- Canning: Four hundred and twenty feet. Hoaglun: On Fairview and that was out in this general direction? This was Fairview and it was out -- was it through this property, which they own, but they are not developing, is that -- Canning: Correct, sir. Hoaglun: -- correct? My recollection is were we talking about -- I had asked -- south that did not go through at the connection right through here for the properly is developed, is that -- correct. Okay. And if I remember right, then, there was a development planned here to the time and that's going to be a much shorter m to connect into, if and when that is -- that Canning: Again correct, sir. Hoaglun: Okay. Madam Mayor, you say -- and this is kind of what confused me. In this draft DA it says sewer is currently 420 feet away from the applicant's south property line and -- and I think this right now is much farther away. I think this right now is much farther away. I think if that development went in it would be coming up. That was where the proposed development was going to be coming in, but the sewer line out here, that's 420 feet away, is that -- Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Hoaglun, I believe you're correct, there is an error there that it's not the south -- applicant's south property line, it would be the applicant's east property line. Is that correct, Kyle? Northeast? Hoaglun: And right now, Kyle and Anna -- if I may continue, Madam Mayor, that -- the current sewer line, then, is probably somewhere down here and they were going to be bringing -- once that was developed, whichever way they were coming in, I don't know, Meridian City Council October 7, 2008 Page 24 of 90 but, then, that would be sewered throughout that property and, then, they would just attach through there, so -- Canning: Yes, sir. There is a stub street right there. Hoaglun: Okay. I see that. Thank you. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think we may have gotten confused. We are going to rewind. It is 420 feet from the applicant's south property line. So, the distance to the hook-up -- their possible hook-up in Fairview is shorter. Christensen: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Eddie Christensen, 1882 North Prestwick, Eagle, Idaho. I guess some of the confusion for simple people, like my partner and myself, is a year ago -- over a year ago when we purchased this property, members of the staff are the ones that told us that we could hook up to that specifically in meetings. We have it documented. They told us that we could hook up from the south as soon as it was brought to us. There are plans for a storage facility to go in there, you know, thus you're looking at an eight foot fence and that type of thing. I mean, you know, at one point they may want to put a higher fence, I don't know, but, you know, it's frustrating, I suppose, for us a year later that we are still discussing the sewer issue when, literally, we were given that instruction and, then, in April there was some changes in the staff and, then, they came back and they said, well, now we are saying this. And I mean those are the facts. We were instructed and told that that's what we could do. So, we proceeded with everything else and -- I mean, ironically, you know, we sit here today and we are still discussing the sewer issue, when we have every intention of hooking up or did once they brought it to us, but, you know, I'm not going to cry a sob story over the 30,000 dollars that it's going to cost to take it from the street versus the south side, but those are some major issues right now and getting it paid and doing what we want to do, it makes it -- you know, and beautify the city, if you will. So, I guess we just struggle at this point where it is an easy -- easy fix at that point to tap in and we will absolutely at one point, you know -- but that's why those were put in the -- in the documents that you have there with the times and all of that, but I just wanted to clarify that, you know, we haven't really touched on that, but I mean from the beginning I just don't know if there is a level of accountability or we just take it, you know, and we address as it is today, but literally we were -- that was the instruction we were given initially, that it was -- it was anon-issue -- well, there was a septic tank that at that point we could connect and, then, there were some changes, so any other questions? De Weerd: You know, unfortunately, the staff, nor the city, can control what another owner does on their own property. If they had slated it and told the city that this is their intentions, you know, they are just as good as what you tell us and we can communicate what is -was -- is what is passed onto us and I don't know if that holds us liable for what someone else tells us. We can pass that information on to you. Where you do have control is bringing the services through your own property and I do know that the preference of this city and this Council has been to hook up to municipal Meridian City Council October 7, 2008 Page 25 of 90 services. Septic systems are not environmentally good planning, especially when you have a municipal service that is within your reach and when it's within your reach it certainly is the preference of the city to do so. Christensen: And I appreciate that. De Weerd: And you asked and so I thought I would tell you. Christensen: Right. I do appreciate that. I guess -- I guess the property should have never been annexed, then, with the septic on it; is that -- is that correct? De Weerd: Those are -- are annexed with the intention that they will be connected and that's why Council put the time frame on it, because oftentimes the adjoining properties don't necessarily do what they say and in your particular case you are the adjoining property owner, that you can deliver that service to this other parcel. Christensen: Okay. I have nothing further. De Weerd: Thank you. Any other comment from -- yes, sir. Burrup: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Dan Burrup, 2284 Piaua here in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Burrup: Just to follow up on some of the things that my partner was saying, the cost to connect is a burden at this time. The market is not what it was a year ago when we bought this piece of property. You know, we are -- we are just trying to keep our costs as low as possible. We do understand the need to connect to sewer. We are having to do so and we feel that 2014 -- not it's January 1st, 2014, so it's not quite six years. It's a little over five years. We are agreeing that at that time if the development to the south does not come in, we will go ahead pay to have that sewer connected from the north. That is what we are proposing. That is what I greatly assume was agreed upon between Mr. Nary and our attorney in drawing up the development agreement. Eighteen months simply just is not enough time. You know, last month when we had this hearing it was a closed hearing and you guys -- and Council -- you brought up this 18 months after we couldn't say anything. You know, we honestly felt like we were somewhat blind sided by that, simply because there was no discussion of that beforehand and so the 18 months just simply is not enough time. If we were going to be having an 18 month time frame, we might as well just do it now, because it would cost us more to have to dig it up within that short of a period of time. It's going to take us six months just to get it developed to what we see there now. So, it only gives us a year operation and we'd have to dig it up again. So, simply it just doesn't make sense. Our philosophy has always been to start small and grow and as we have grown we have -- and as we have expanded we have bettered everything that we have done. We are not afraid and we are not saying we don't want to tap into sewer, we want to build a new Meridian City Council October 7, 2008 Page 26 of 90 building on here, we want to make -- beautify this place even and that was the other part of our whole application is that when we do build a building, perhaps in two years, three years, whenever that may be -- if it's before that five year time frame, obviously, we would be -- we would need to connect to the sewer at that point. So, that's what we propose is -- is the five year and two or three months, whatever it is, time frame, just to let us get our feet underneath us, get our business going, and in five years we can tap into it if we haven't already. As far as the cross-access goes, it just simply is not practical for an auto dealership. Most of the time auto dealerships seal off with chains or barricades their entrances at night, because of the damage that can happen and we are fearful of that and the effects the cross-access could be. So, I appreciate you hearing us out and if you have any questions for me I will be happy to answer. De Weerd: Thank you. Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, I do have a question. In the discussion from the last hearing -- and I read it here again, you're looking -- if the septic system were to remain and be in use, there was a pervious material put over it. Is that more expensive than just hard asphalt? Burrup: Yes. Hoaglun: Significantly more expensive, slightly more expensive, because I'm not familiar with that type of surface. Burrup: Roger with The Land Group could probably answer that better than I can. It is more expensive. I don't know how much more. Part of the development agreement it states that we will use pervious concrete over the top of the septic system that exists, so that it can drain. It will drain just as if there was nothing put over it with that. We actually plan to build the whole lot out in a green way. As far as the lighting asphalt when we do a building, we want to do a green building. That's our focus, but a so, yeah, we are planning to do pervious concrete at this point throughout the whole thing, especially over the septic. De Weerd: What is your maintenance of that surface? I know that they recommend maintaining it every -- twice a year. So, that it continues to drain, instead of getting plugged up. And I guess that's been some of the down side of those type of surfaces. Burrup: I would like to defer those questions to Roger with The Land Group if I may. I do know that they cannot be sealed like asphalt, because, then, you just plug it up. As far as the maintenance, I don't know. Everything I have heard that they have been successful. But if there is anymore questions for me, I will answer those. De Weerd: Council, anything else? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council October 7, 2008 Page 27 of 90 De Weerd: Yes. Zaremba: While you're there I would address the cross-access issue. One of the reasons that we require it is that on major arterials we are trying to have less reason for anybody to have to drive out into the street to get from one property to the next. Uses are not permanent, but accesses, either their existence or lack of existence does tend to become permanent. You could be wildly successful and in a few years need to move to a bigger property and, then, we are stuck with a piece of property that it doesn't have cross-access and that's uncomfortable for us. You mentioned how you normally would chain off your entrance driveway, it would be my assumption that you could make a cross-access to the property line and chain that off in the same way, which could, then, be removed if the use changes. That would certainly be a preference to me. Is even that a possibility. I'm not saying that the cross-access needs to be used, I just think it needs to be permanently available. Burrup: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Zaremba, we have indicated to our counsel and, hopefully, the conversation from there to Mr. Nary and staff was that we are not opposed to allowing potential future cross-access. It would -- we don't -- we don't need to say that we are never going to allow it. Our concem is during -- while we have cars parked for sale we really can't have people driving in through to get to other places. We have accidents on our lot very frequently by people trying to maneuver between tightly parked vehicles. It's just the way it is. And to now have a business potentially next door to us and somebody trying to come through our lot mostly a lot faster speed than what we would like to have, accidents will happen. Damages will occur. And we can't have that. If we can have an area for cross-access, I believe that as long as we can still park cars there and we do not have to allow that access while we are in business there, I don't see a problem with that. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, my personal opinion would be that if you park cars in front of it and left it chained 24 hours a day as long as you're in business, that's not a problem for me. I -- I can just see atime -- because the adjoining property, particularly the one to the west, is such a small property, they will probably lose their access to Fairview if they ever change their use. And if you're still operating as a used car lot, then, that's probably not an option, but if the uses change at about the same time, we would want that available and as you have offered in I guess responding -- we are probably saying the same thing. I have no concem that it be usable at the moment, you can park cars in front of it, change it, but it just needs to exist. Burrup: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, a concem just came to mind that I know we have addressed before and that is that there are future plans for Jericho Road to extend along the east boundary of 1139 Fairview, which is to the west of us -- or to the east of us there. Our fear with the cross-access as well is that if we agree to a cross-access, is that going to force us to lose our access on Fairview on 1055 Fairview? If we have across-access agreement, would that not, then, say that -- that they tell us we are going to take our access through 1139 Fairview off of Jericho Road? And that's, quite frankly, something we are not willing to risk, that we would ever lose our Fairview Meridian City Council October 7, 2008 Page 28 of 90 access, it simply would not work. A car lot would not work without Fairview access. So, I guess what we would be willing to do would be to allow cross-access, as long as we can still park cars there and as long as it doesn't impede future access issues to Fairview off that parcel, we are entitled to now. De Weerd: I don't know. I guess it baffles me and I guess it's kind of frustrating that you have two pieces of property next to each other under single owners that are not interested at this point to master plan, to at least give an idea of how these two parcels will have a relationship with each other and, you know, we do try and learn as we make mistakes and sometimes that's why we are emphatic about doing things a certain way, because we have seen them fail. And access points, cross-access, access agreements and connecting the sewer are -- those are all things that we have leamed some pretty nasty lessons from and that we won't bore you or anyone else in this room with, but, you know, I guess my question is I don't know what you have planned for next door, but I imagine you do and is it going to be compatible with this and, you know, I guess to staff, can we require across-access if they ever get a building permit? I mean that's -- that's one way to trigger that you have to design when you have along-term plan for this or if you're going to do a higher and more impactful use for this piece of property, that that's when you have the integrate it into your plan. I think a DA can do that. It helps with your temporary use and it makes you plan these things into your long term use. So, again, we are not interested every application at recreating or re-inventing the wheel. We do try and take lessons leamed and apply them, so that we do have a better community and every access out onto Fairview, which is an extremely busy road, is another accident waiting to happen and I'm just saying that on the -- because I know Lieutenant Overton would if I gave him a chance, but -- and it's -- it's not to be preachy or anything else, but that is why this Council pays attention to some of these details, because we are responsible for the public safety, not just those of your customers that are going to go in and out of your property, but those that they have a potential to hit, so -- and that's why these details matter. Burrup: Absolutely. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I understand where you're coming from. I understand your concerns. You know, in this hearing -- in this short hearing this is the sum of 13 months now of meetings with the staff in Meridian, with our legal counsel, with our development group and so can't bore you with all the details that we have from all of that, but we have -- we have a master plan in mind. We actually have shown that master plan. But, staff basically said we are not interested in seeing it, because we have to apply for a new CZC anyway, so we can't --they could not take any consideration whatsoever as to our master plan, because we were not developing 1139 Fairview at this time. And so we do have aplan -- I don't -- perhaps, Roger, do you have it with you? We don't -- but the plan is is to make it all one master plan. We propose to ACHD, we propose to staff, one, consolidating the three accesses that exist today between the two parcels into one access, we have proposed it. Quite frankly, right now we have 1139 Fairview up for sale and the reason for that is because we wanted to insure that we had Fairview access for 1065 Fairview and -- and by selling 1139 it eliminates the potential of having to connect through Jericho for that whole parcel. We feel we have been very reasonable in giving up two of the three accesses Meridian City Council October 7, 2008 Page 29 of 90 and consolidating one access for that whole entire piece. One building and the rest parking stalls, well lit, with clean inventory that will look very nice. That is our master plan for your mind's eye, but I -- I cannot -- I cannot delve into that now, because we have always been shut down on the thought of presenting the whole big picture. We - nobodywould let us. So, we are trying to do it here. That's our business now. I mean it's on one half of an acre. We keep it very clean. We keep it -- we are very meticulous. We have --our inventory average year old is about four years old. So, it's not old clunky cars. We -- the plan for this dealership is, actually, to be -- think green car company. Want to focus on hybrids and the alternative fuels. We are going to do a green building, as I mentioned. Everything is going to be green. So, that is the master plan for what it's worth. We are not trying to ask for anything that we don't feel like we are entitled to. We feel like we are giving up quite a bit in order to have the one access, but that's why -- De Weerd: So, sir, in your long term plan will you be able to provide cross-access? Burrup: In the long term plan we - we will. My only fear is we don't want to lose Fairview access. We need one Fairview access point, whether it's right-in, right-out, as mandated by ACHD or whomever, we have to have Fairview access for our master plan to work at all. And so if we can take one access off of Fairview for the two parcels and one access of Jericho, as detailed in prior approvals that you have made for the property behind us to the south, we will be happy with that. De Weerd: Welcome, Mr. Nary. Nary: Thank you. Canning: I think, Council, did you have questions for Mr. Nary that Mr. Baird would not -- was not able to answer? Rountree: My question's been answered. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Mine has, too. De Weerd: Okay. Burrup: If I could just add one more thing. If we -- if we knew that our master plan would be approved and that we could do that, I'm quite confident we would take the property off the market. We do want to go forward with our plan. De Weerd: Well, certainly, it's my preference for a master plan, but legally I never know what I can ask for. So, that's what Mr. Nary and Mr. Baird are for, to keep the electeds out of problems. But, you know, in -- from a staff perspective, they can -- they can tell you what is in our plan and what the parameters that they have to operate under. Ours Meridian City Council October 7, 2008 Page 30 of 90 are a little bit more vague and that we have public safety, we have other considerations that this Council does have the authority to ask and I can tell you sometimes we stump the staff in what -- so, if they didn't tell you that, they were being nice. Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, I just wanted to find out -- and maybe Roger can tell me this. The reason for my question on that pervious surface, if it's a substantially higher cost, you know, if you look at connecting to the sewer and, then, you don't have to do that -- you know, if the dollar amount -- you know, if that's a savings and, then, you can apply that to sewer, connecting the sewer is expensive when you got to dig those lines out. The value to your property to the east, does that -- having a sewer line connecting to that property adds value to that property, if you're looking to sell. If you're looking to develop, it's already in, it's part of the infrastructure. I know in this market in this day and age it's the way the finances are, that's difficult, you know, every penny counts. It always does. And more so today. But that was just something -- I don't know of the cost differential is that much where it would save you money to go with the hard surface, not go with the pervious surface, allows you to put that money into -- into the sewer connection, allows that value to be added to the property to the east. You know, just something I was just kind of curious to explore. Burrup: Well, just -- just to answer that briefly, that's -- that's part of the reason why we are just asking for five years. You know, originally -- and, again, you know, you already went over this with my business partner, but we were told that we would be able to operate off of our septic indefinitely, until sewer was provided and, then, we would be forced to tap in within six months of that. That was said on three different occasions with meetings between your staff, our development group, us, among many many people. So, we went through our whole process, only to be denied at the end, because of sewer, which was the thing that was resolved from day one, before we -- before we ever hired anybody to do any development agreement. And that is the reason why we are only asking for five years. If five years from now we haven't connected, we will connect, because we feel like that would be enough time -- who knows how long we are going to be in the economy that we are in. It just isn't feasible right now to connect and 18 months isn't enough time. Eighteen months we might as well do it now, but to do it now I think is pretty much a deal killer for us. We -- as far as the cost goes, in the development agreement it states -- it states that we will provide that pervious concrete over the septic area. So, we are only talking an area maybe 20 by 20. The cost differential is not going to be that great. We are looking at 1,500 dollars to connect from the rear, if it was provided by the south, 35,000 dollars if we have to connect to the north right now. Hoaglun: Thank you for that. I appreciate it. De Weerd: Okay. Burrup: The plan, too, just to -- just to lay one more thing out there, we do plan to take the old structures down ultimately and put up a new building that would go to the rear of Meridian City Council October 7, 2008 Page 31 of 90 the property and towards the center between the two parcels, ultimately, would be the goal. So, any other questions? De Weerd: Thank you. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would have a question for Public Works, perhaps, and I don't know if off the top of your head you would be able to say how -- how close to this property is the city's nearest well? Or is that even an issue? If the septic tank is operating correctly, do we care? Radek: Madam Mayor, Mr. President, Councilman Zaremba, the closest well is -- Well 10 is about a half mile away. There is not anything that's very close to it and I don't think that's a major concern for us. Zaremba: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further from Council? Rountree: Not at this point. De Weerd: Okay. Any clarification on the surface? Hoaglun: No. He answered that adequately. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anything -- any final comment from the applicant? Okay. Staff? Council, any further questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. If there is nothing further, do I have a motion to close? And, remember, if there is any comments, discussion, let's do it before we close the public hearing. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I'm just going to make a comment. The way the DA was drafted and the conditions that are set forth, it's not acceptable to me. The reasons being we have a history of some seven years on this property of promises and I think Madam Mayor explained that we have learned from experience, not necessarily mistakes. In that time we have had at least two applications, promises to get things done. We have yet to see them get done. We have a commitment of some five years from now, six years from now, something might get done. That's not acceptable to me. We need to get it done. As a Council, we have taken some strong positions about if you're part of the city you're going to be hooked up to our infrastructure. We have made Meridian City Council October 7, 2008 Page 32 of 90 some exceptions with some pretty strong conditions that at a time certain you will. I think those strong conditions our still applicable in this case, whether it's 18 months or two years, depending on what the timeline might be. In all honesty, if we were to approve this with a five year period, my guess is that it would get lost and some 30 years from this point in time when their septic system failed, somebody would realize that they should have been hooked up for the last 25 years, so -- and that's nothing against staff, that's just what I have seen historically. These things get lost in the file cabinets. So, that -- right now that's where I'm coming from. I can approve this if we change the conditions of the development agreement. I have heard from the applicant that if we do that it's a deal killer. So, it's kind of lose-lose for them which ever motion that I might put forward after we close the public comment period. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I, too, echo Councilman Rountree's thoughts, because we have both sat on the Council long enough to see things like this happen. I can assure you we are going to get hooked until the system does go bad, if it's 20 years from now or if it's one year from now. I think we got to -- to definitely make sure we -- in our agreements we provided, within a reasonable distance, sewer hook up and water hook up and condition of annexation has always been that, so I could -- I could probably live with two years, but I certainly can't live with 2014. De Weerd: Okay. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Me three, plus the cross-access. Hoaglun: Yeah. Madam Mayor, two years is acceptable to me. Having the availability of the cross-access I think is important, knowing that they can block it, it's -- but it's for a future time when that use of the property changes, things can change, but two years is as far out as I can go on sewer. De Weerd: Okay. Final comment from applicant? Burrup: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- De Weerd: If you will state your name once more. Burrup: My name is Dan Burrup. I would just like to ask Mr. Nary what the conversations were between him and Joann Butler for the last 30 days. We were led to believe immediately after the Council meeting on September 9th, I believe it was, that Meridian City Council October 7, 2008 Page 33 of 90 five years would be a reasonable time that we could negotiate. We invested one more month of attorney fees, development costs, all these things to be told the same thing again today and we were led to believe after that meeting that five years would be very doable and over the last 30 days the development agreement has gone back and forth with the five year and three month timeline and not once has any concern ever been brought up to us. Why are we -- why are we still dealing with this today is what I want to know? Nary: Madam Mayor, could I respond? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Nary: I don't know who told you any of that. I spoke to Ms. Butler in the hallway on September 9th. She told -- she was bothered just like you said about this hook up time period. I told her you can propose whatever you want, it's up to the City Council. They told you 18 months when we were sitting here a month ago. She wanted five years. I said propose five years. She wrote that provision in the contract when she sent it back to us last week. I spoke to her on Friday. The only comment staff made was to make sure the hook ups were right, but Ms. Butler's always known or should have always known that was the sticking point -has always been with the city, because it's never been a discussion point that it has changed and certainly myself and the Public Works staff and the planning staff can't speak for the Council. They clearly gave direction a month ago. Ms. Butler should know that all that you were doing tonight was proposing an altemative to what the Council had suggested and whatever that altemative is is still their discretion to make that decision and that's what they are telling you. Burrup: The other item is this property was annexed, I believe, in 2003. There was no development agreement given at the time for it to be hooked up to the property. That was something that your staff and many people in the city have tried to find how something went wrong back then. I don't how. All I know is it wasn't my fault. All I know now is that we are willing to work with you -- we are willing to put this sewer in in five years, if we haven't done so sooner. We are willing to do all that. But we need more than two years. You know, the economy isn't good right now. If it was like it was a year ago, I think we would be happy to do it right away. But, quite frankly, we can't do it right now. And, you know, we didn't miss this development agreement, there is nothing that ever said that sewer was going to be brought to the property when it was annexed in. Something got missed by the previous owner of the property, by the City Council, by staff -- everybody. But it wasn't us and so we are trying to work with you as far as all that goes. Any other questions? De Weerd: No. Thank you. Okay. Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move we close the public hearing on Item 11. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council October 7, 2008 Page 34 of 90 De Weerd: Okay. 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: We have had discussion. Do we have a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I believe I have heard that there is not any wiggle room with this agreement at this point as it relates to at least the sewer hook up, so I propose a motion that after hearing comments -- public comments, staffs comments, I move that we uphold the director's decision to deny the CZC for 08-010 and at ALT 08-004, as presented in the hearing this evening, for the reasons of not being able to reach a timeline for connection to the sewer that's acceptable to the city and cross-access agreement conditions. Hoaglun: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Discussion? Okay. Hearing none, Madam Clerk, roll call. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 08-004 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 318.74 acres from RUT to R-4 (69.72 acres), R-8 (192.20 acres) and R-15 (56.82 acres) for Oakcreek by Norpac, LLC -east of North McDermott Road, west of North Black Cat Road, south of Chinden Boulevard & north of Ustick Road including the southeast and northeast comers of West McMillan Road and North McDermott; and near the southwest comer of West McMillan Road and North Black Cat Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 08-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 139 lots including: 118 residential lots and 21 common lots on 30.72 acres in the proposed R-8 zoning district for Oakcreek by Norpac, LLC -east of North McDermott Road, west of North Black Cat Road, south of Chinden Boulevard & north of Ustick Road including the southeast and northeast comers of West McMillan Road and North McDermott; and near De Weerd: Okay. Items 12 and 13 are public hearings on AZ 08-004 and PP 08-003. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Before you tonight is the Oak Creek project. The site is located -- apologize for that map. It doesn't depict it too much -- very well as far as the property boundaries, but it is south of Chinden, east side of McDermott Road, west side -- west of Black Cat Road and north of McMillan Road,