Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 22, 2003 City CouncilMeridian City Council Meeting July 22, 2003 Page 44 of 78 Corrie: I want to really look at those minutes when we get them back here. Okay. Can we take five -- five minutes, everybody? Five minute break until 9:30 and, then, we will come back and do the next Public Hearing. (Recess. ) Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from July 15, 2003: PP 03-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building lots and 7 other lots on 11.65 acres in an R-4 zone for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by R.K. Development, LLC -west of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road: Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from July 15, 2003: VAR 03-012 Request for a Variance to block length requirements for a block on the south side of Clearbrook Street for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by R.K. Development, LLC -west of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road: Corrie: All right. I will open the meeting back up after the recess. We are on Item Number 12 and 13. One is a continued Public Hearing from July 15, 2003, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building lots and seven other lots on 11.65 acres in an R-4 zone for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision. Item 13 is a. continued Public Hearing from July 15th on a Variance request for a Variance to the block length requirement for a block on the south side of Clearbrook Street for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by R.K. Development, LLC, west of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road. With no objection from Council, I will open the continued Public Hearing on both 12 and 13, take testimony on both the request for Preliminary Plat and the Variance at one time. I will start testimony with staff comments. Brad. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. Since the majority of the background and testimony on this item has already been into the record and there was, mainly two issues that is my understanding were the reason for it to be continued. One was for the consideration of street calming for this long straight entry road and the applicant did submit since your last hearing a street and storm drain plan that has a drawing date of July 16th. This drawing that I have on the screen right now does show what they have proposed. They are showing the street to have a choker at the intersection with -- I believe this is Northwest 3rd Avenue to the north, this is a stub street, so they -- generally about in the center of the project they are showing the public street to choke down and, then, flare back open for this Indiana Rock Street. That was one modification that was submitted. The other issue had to do with the storm water retention ponds and you have received a letter dated July 18th from Stan McHutchinson of Briggs Engineering that was addressed to Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. That does talk a little bit about their proposal to install ponds to store all of the street runoff that would have a slow release into Finch Creek, which is on the south side of their project, also called the South Slough. We have not, to my understanding, received anything from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District in writing stating that they agree to that. Meridian City Council Meeting July 22, 2003 Page 45 of 78 It certainly is not an usual -- it's not unusual that the irrigation would allow a project to allow pre-development flows into one of their facilities and maybe if you need, Brad Watson can speak further to that, but I believe that the applicant Briggs Engineering did get a verbal statement from Nampa-Meridian that they would allow that. They are, I believe, at this point still proposing to have -- have the pond areas be generally in the same locations. They would clearly be required to design them to have the standing water minimized. As you, I believe, saw last time on the photographs, it still does occur that some standing water happens and in some of these it's pretty critical at the design stage to get the grading correct, so that it flows to that outlet point, but I think those are the two main issues. You also did receive a written letter dated July 22nd from a Chris Broer, who had stated his opposition to the development and I guess that's it from staff right now. Corrie: Okay, Brad. Any comments? Okay. Any comments, discussion from staff? Okay. Is the applicant or representative here this evening? Is the testimony you're about to give the Council the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Cook: It is. Corrie: Thank you. Cook: Richard Cook, Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland Road, City of Boise, here tonight representing the applicant R.K. Development, LLC. To address the traffic issue we have knuckled out on two corners of Northwest 3rd Avenue and we put a bulb out across a portion of one of the storm drainage lots and the adjacent lot. This area here will serve very effectively as a traffic calming device and we have run that by Ada County Highway District in a meeting we had with them and they are in agreement with this particular design and Mr. Mills is here this evening from Ada County Highway District if you have any questions of him. The ponds, we are redesigning those ponds to where they will be what we call dry ponds. In other words, we are going to drain everything out of those ponds into the Finch Creek or South Slough at the predevelopment flow rate. We have been in communication with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, had telephone conversations with John Anderson and he has agreed to that and I was hoping to have a letter in my hand before the meeting this evening, but John was tied up in a meeting and didn't get the letter out to us, but I should have it tomorrow. Those were the primary issues that we discussed at our last hearing. With the dry pond development and design, that will solve the mosquito problem and I think that pretty well takes care of the issues that we discussed. The Variance, I'd like to touch on that. The Variance is required, because when the Waterbury Park Subdivision to the south was developed, they were not required to put in a stub street to the north and the development to Lansbury, when they developed. They were required to put this stub street in right here, so we were able to meet or hook up at that existing stub street going to the north into Lansbury Sub. As you can see, coming from Waterbury there was nothing there and probably the biggest reason for that is because this is where the South Slough or Finch Creek runs and they would have had to put in a bridge to make Meridian City Council Meeting July 22, 2003 Page 46 of 78 that happen. That's why we are asking for a Variance, because we don't have any break to the south, other than the three retention pond areas as open space. I understand it's not being counted towards open space for the five percent requirement, but it does break things up as we go along. Plus, we have -- going along the sides of the ponds, we do have the 15-foot wide pathways that hook into the 25-foot wide greenbelt that runs along the slough area here. That greenbelt will have a ten foot wide paved pathway and, then, it will have grass and, then, areas along the side of the path. With that, I will conclude my remarks and answer any questions you may have. Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cook any questions of Mr. Cook? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Cook, I'm wondering on that choker there in the middle of the street -- or in the middle of the subdivision, I didn't see a comment from Deputy Chief Silva, but I'm assuming that street is wide enough for parking on both sides? Cook: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Nary, there would not be any parking in this particular area on the street. Nary: No. I understand that. The rest of it's all parking on both sides? Cook: Correct. We have the standard -- standard street width that will allow parking. Nary: I guess I'm just a little concerned -- and I don't know whether you can answer this or maybe Mr. Mills. You have got -- if you have got vehicular traffic coming east to west down that street, part of the concern is the street is pretty straight. Now you're going to have vehicles parking on both sides of the street, so there is nothing to really tell that driver as they are coming down at maybe an excessive speed that that road's going to narrow about halfway down to slow down. I guess, you know, that was why I liked the island effect you had initially. Then, took out, was because it was a visible barrier up ahead, they can see a visible way to have to slow down on that street. I'm afraid with those chokers, I mean they are real good if you can see them, but here you have got a straight road, cars parked on both sides of the street, you have really no way to see that until you're on it and all of a sudden the road's very narrow. I'm not sure that really solves the problem very well, or least as well as what you proposed initially. Maybe you could address that for me. Cook: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Nary, I don't recall that we ever had an island in this particular street. We have one at the entrance coming off of Meridian Road, but I don't recall having ever proposed a design with an island anywhere in here. Nary: Maybe that was the discussion at Planning and Zoning. Meridian City Council Meeting July 22, 2003 Page 47 of 78 Cook: We had a discussion about putting something in here, but decided that that was a very poor location to try to put any kind of a traffic circle and I think during our last meeting Council agreed with that. During the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting we did talk about putting an island in the center of the street, but it was the consensus of opinion of the Council -- or the Commission, rather, that those particular islands in the middle of a street like that tend to cause more problems than they solve. In this area here, I don't know if it would do any good or not, but I'm thinking that we could probably put in a traffic sign that states road narrows. I have seen that in many areas and, you know, I don't know what else to say, as drivers can be stupid no matter what you do. They can drive over the island, they can drive over sidewalks, you know, they can drive through marketplaces, you know, so I don't know if there is a perfect solution to it or not, but we felt that this vvas the best solution that we could come up with. Corrie: Okay. Any further comments or questions for Mr. Cook? Okay. Cook: Thank you. Corrie: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify for this subdivision? Okay. Anybody wish to testify against this subdivision on the new -- is the testimony you are about to give the Council the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Broer: It is. Corrie: Thank you Broer: Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council, I wish to respectfully state my opposition to the proposed Clearbrook Estates Subdivision on general and specific grounds. I will be between three and four minutes. On general grounds, the biggest investment most Meridian taxpayers have is their home. Corrie: Could I have your name first? Broer: Chris Broer. Nary: Address? Broer: 387 West Woodbury Drive in Meridian. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Broer: The biggest investment most Meridian taxpayers have is their home and yet our property values are falling behind Mississippi, Arkansas, and all but two states in property value appreciation. As you can see in attachment one, Idaho ranks 48th in home price appreciation over the past five years. Attachment two shows that the Boise Meridian City Council Meeting July 22, 2003 Page 46 of 78 metro area would rank only 41st out of all 50 states in home price appreciation over the same five years. I have left copies of these attachments on the back table for anyone that would like a copy. Basic economics and supply and demand tell us that there is too much of supply of new homes being approved. There are a number of ways of limiting supply, which include maintaining .existing agricultural zoning, minimizing density, increasing open space requirements, and limiting new subdivisions. How that supply would be limited would be up to you, but the excess supply must be addressed to protect existing voters and homeowners. Another factor, which diminishes the property values of existing homeowners, is the lower quality of life that they experience when new subdivisions are approved. I agree with the Mayor's concerns when he states in last week's Valley Times that, quote: I don't think anyone envisioned this much traffic. End quote. Every new subdivision approved adds that much more traffic. The City Council has control of the gas pedal of development: If they allow too much building, our home prices won't increase much and that's what's happening now. To quote a Kuna resident at their city council meeting last week, as reported in the paper, quote: I just wish they would slow it down, so we don't end up like Meridian, end quote. On specific grounds, the proposed Clearbrook Estates Subdivision should not be approved for several reasons. First, to count the -- as stated tonight; ten foot wide section of pavement along the canal as their usable space would be in stark contrast to the green, vibrant and pavement free south side open space of the canal that's part of the existing Waterbury Park Subdivision. Second, the proposed standing water and its potential mosquitoes will be right across the canal from our homes in Waterbury Park. Even if permission could be granted for the predevelopment water to run into the Nampa- Meridian canal, all of the post-development runoff any sprinklers in the subdivision and any new rain runoff may collect would wind up in these standing water areas. I'm not sure Central District Health will allow such standing water. Some irrigation districts don't allow any water, even predevelopment, into their system. Experiments to try curbing as an alternative by ACHD were only tried on much larger, ten to sixteen thousand square foot lots. Third, they are requesting a Variance to block length requirements. In summary, I oppose the proposed Clearbrook Estates Subdivision on the general grounds that by adding another subdivision it will hinder the existing property values of Meridian residents from appreciating and on specific grounds over standing water issues and the need for a Variance. I thank the Mayor and the Members of the Council for allowing my input. Cowie: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Broer? Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wish to testify? Okay. Mr. Cook, do you have any -- you got the last word if you'd like. Any questions? All right. Thank you. Council, discussion? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Cowie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess I will kick off the discussion. I am somewhat amazed that Mr. Cook was able to get a response from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. I'm rather in awe. I -- and I do appreciate the fact that we now have a better design for the drainage in the Meridian City Council Meeting July 22, 2003 Page 49 of 78 dry ponds. I guess I continue to be concerned with that -- with granting a Variance. I know a number of things have been tried with traffic slowing or calming, but I think that Councilman Nary had a point with his comments. If you have cars parked along the side of the road people tend not to notice those things and I do appreciate Mr. Cook's comments about drivers will drive over anything if they have the desire to. I have actually seen that happen. I just don't know if we are being creative enough with the traffic calming on that. This is an in-fill piece. I think that the applicant has attempted to do what he can with the open space. Certainly, a pathway is a great amenity and a good open space amenity at that. I'm still kind of undecided about this project, but I do appreciate in that high water table area the efforts that have been made to make those dry ponds, instead of wet ponds. It certainly is going to have a lesser affect on mosquito breeding areas and certainly, I think will have fewer problems through a Public Works perspective than the way it was proposed to begin with. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I'm sort of torn as well. A recognize, as Council Member de Weerd said, this is an in-fill piece, those are very .difficult to sometimes fit the needs of the development and configuration of what they have to work with, so I recognize that's a problem going in. I am very concerned about the street configuration and I'm not as concerned about the -- what's been raised by Mr. Broer as to the mosquito issue, I think that's been taken care of, I don't really think that's an issue any longer. The issue also that he raised -- Mr. Broer raised in his written material. The fact that Idaho -- the entire state of Idaho is 41st in housing appreciation really isn't very relative to whether or not to approve a 36 home subdivision and the fact that the city of Boise is 140th in the country in appreciation actually speaks pretty well for this area. I think that's pretty good. Most of the other cities that finish higher aren't necessarily places that you would want to live, because the reason their housing prices are going up is because there is not a lot of houses to get. It's usually overcrowded and it's very metropolitan and I don't think those are areas that necessarily are really comparing apples to apples, so I'm not sure that that really is compelling. I am very concerned about the Variance to allow this straight block down the middle of this subdivision and the traffic calming I don't believe is adequate. I have driven down Waterbury and I have driven in the past in some of those areas. There are some concerns and I think we are just creating a problem here by allowing that. Again, I don't fault Mr. Cook, I think he's done the best that he can with this property, but I really think that there has to be something more creative to be able to alleviate those concerns. I think one of the things at least that I have said a number of times in looking at these subdivisions as we have seen them come across is creativity really can make the difference here, especially on small, skinny pieces of property like this. This is one that I just am not convinced yet that this is the best that can be done with the piece that's there to alleviate that type of concern. I know we grant Variances fairly routinely on some of these subdivisions. I'm concerned in granting this Variance we are really just creating a traffic hazard that we are going feel sorry for later. Meddian City Council Meeting July 22, 2003 Page 50 of 78 Corrie: Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. Do you want to continue the hearing, Public Hearing, close it, and make a decision? Nary: You spoke first. De Weerd: Mr. Cook has stated that he did what he could with the traffic calming and, you know, if there is no other alternative than what we have today, I don't think we need to continue it. Corrie: Okay. If that would be your wish to Council, I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Nary: Mayor, I move to close the Public Hearing. De Weerd: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Items 12 and 13. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Corrie: The Public Hearing is hereby closed. Further discussion? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess I hate to see all the efforts, in particular about solving the drainage problems for not. I can't support a Variance for -- I don't see that it meets the criteria of the Variance on block length, because I do think there can be something different in design to help break that up, and I guess it would still need a Variance, but I'd feel more comfortable if it had something more obvious to slow traffic down. Really, that's my only remaining issue is I do not feel that I could grant the Variance and so the plat would not be in compliance with our city ordinances. Corrie: Well, without the Variance you wouldn't have the Preliminary Plat. Any other discussion? Okay. Let's -- if you're ready for the question, we will do Item Number 12. Nichols: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I need to caution you on this Variance issue on the block length. The way the block lengths are calculated, there really isn't anything this applicant can do with this piece -- there isn't anything this applicant could do with this piece to make it into two blocks. Because of the subdivision to the south Meridian City Council Meeting July 22, 2003 Page 51 of 78 has no connections across the South Slough and the subdivision to the north only has the one stub street at Northwest 3rd Avenue, so if there was ever acase -- and I'm not saying you have to approve this development, but if there was a case for the Variance, this is it. There is no other way to create shorter block lengths in this piece. That is a separate issue from the traffic calming in the plat. I mean you can still have a long block with a different traffic-calming device. I'd also remind the Council this is not an annexation and zoning piece, this property is already in the city limits, so the issue is the plat and the Variance for the block length. If you deny the Preliminary Plat application, you're required by code to tell the applicant what they must do in order to obtain approval for development on this piece. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor`? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I appreciate -- I appreciate that and, yes, I kind of got ahead of myself that this is something that he can't do anything different. I do think it can be -- the traffic calming can be different than what has been offered and that straightaway -- you look at Waterbury, you know. For example, to the south, that kind of breaking the straight line certainly does slow the traffic down. I guess that was more of what I thought we might be seeing. I know that the piece of property that the applicant has to work with, he is going to lose a couple lots, but the little bump outs just are not -- are not enough, in my opinion. I'd like to see something done better, but the applicant didn't show that he'd like to give it another try, so I guess we can go ahead make a decision on it. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I, too, appreciate Mr. Nichols pointing those out and this I think, as Council Member de Weerd said, I mean I think this rendering really shows what you can do. I recognize it's limited, but if I look at this map, this road is curved to avoid the straight line. This road has an island in the middle of it and this road is curved. These pieces are no larger -- or if they are they are slightly larger than this piece and, yet, they still found something else to get the traffic slowed down and I just don't think that those bump outs are adequate. Corrie: Mr. Nichols, let me ask you a question. If the Council approved the Preliminary Plat, they couldn't do anything, because it takes a Variance. Could they come back on a Variance to that block length and do what Mr. Nary has suggested? Nichols: Mr. Mayor, if I can restate your question to make sure I understand what your question is, are you suggesting that the Preliminary Plat be approved, the Variance be denied, which requires them to come in with a new Variance application with a new traffic calming design? Meridian City Council Meeting July 22. 2003 Page 52 of 78 Corrie: That's sort of what I meant. Nichols: Okay. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think the Preliminary Plat is the place for the traffic calming design, not in a Variance application. The plat itself would have to show the traffic calming devices the Council would approve, because the Final Plat is, then, based upon that Preliminary Plat and any significant variation from it doesn't really tell the applicant what kind of traffic calming device you're really looking for, other than Councilman Nary's comment in terms of islands, that sort of thing. Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Any further discussion? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Did we close the Public Hearing? Corrie: Yes. Nary: Okay. I guess I'll just take a stab at it, then. I would move to deny PP 03-007, the request for Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building lots and seven other lots on 11.65 acres in an R-4 zone for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by R.K. Development. West of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road, basically for -- that the -- I think as Mr. Nichols stated, the traffic calming, the traffic method. The traffic design of this Preliminary Plat we feel is inadequate and a potential traffic hazard and that they need to address the -- as direction, they would need to address the traffic calming measures more than has been proposed in this current Preliminary Plat in providing better traffic methods. I'm not trying to design their project for them, because I look at three different alternatives that are above me, so I'm not a traffic engineer, but there are other alternatives to the traffic that the traffic pattern as proposed is inadequate and they need to address the safety concerns that have been addressed by Council. Is that adequate if we get a second, Mr. Nichols? Corrie: Do I hear a second to the motion? De Weerd: Second. Corrie: Okay. I have a second to that motion. Any further discussion? Okay. Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, absent. Corrie: Okay. Three ayes. Motion is approved. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian City Council Meeting July 22, 2003 Page 53 of 78 Corrie: Item No 13 is -- I guess we have to do the Variance now, don't we. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: And before I make the motion, I would comment I would agree with Mr. Nichols that if the plat had been approved, this Variance is the only method they really can do. It would be pointless to make stub streets to the south to break up the block length, because there is no -- there is no connection to them, so it would be -- unless they provided something else to that, it seems kind of pointless. I would move to deny VAR 03-012, the request for a Variance to the block length requirements for a block on the south side of Clearbrook Street for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by R.K. Development west of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road, and for Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for denial based upon the denial of the Preliminary Plat. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded for the denial of the request for Variance. Any further discussion? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess since we all agree that there is going to be no other thing they can do, if they come back with another Preliminary Plat, then, they are going to have to apply for the Variance again and that -- I mean how -- why? We know a Variance would have to be granted, so they would have to pay another fee. I guess I don't know what my question is, other than we already realize that they are going to exceed the block length on whatever they come back with and so it seems meaningless to make them pay another Variance fee when we recognize that this fits the Variance. Could any future applications on the Preliminary Plat, the Variance -- or a fee Variance -- fee for the Variance could be waived or -- you know, I -- Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I don't have a real objection to waiving the fee. I guess the problem is that if we don't deny the -- if we were to grant the Variance instead, we would only have a Variance and no application and no -- nothing else. We'd have to do something in that regard. Whether or not we waive the fee for a future application -- you know part of it is we don't know exactly what it is they would design. Meridian Clty Council Meeting July 22, 2003 Page 54 of 78 De Weerd: exactly. Nary: I mean it could be any length, so it's really hard to know, so -- and maybe by that time that block length Variance issue won't be an issue anymore. Maybe we won't have the same ordinance that we can address with it, it may be different, so I don't know, so - De Weerd: Just -- Nary: How much is the fee? Hawkins-Clark: Three hundred and fifty. Nary: Yes. De Weerd: It was just a question that I wanted to throw out there and -- would staff have any recommendations on that? Hawkins-Clark: Well, Mr. Mayor, if I -- maybe a question for legal, too, is my understanding has always been that while, yes, the Variance application was submitted in conjunction with a development application, it's not unlike a Conditional Use Permit or a zoning, in that it would run with the land. Is that not correct? I mean if -- so that if it's approved on this parcel of ground, if this parcel now basically has somewhat of an entitlement, if you will, that says this piece of -- this tax parcel has a Variance on it for block length that says they don't have to construct ablock --anew block to the south. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think Brad's right, I think you can have it run with the land, I think you could also put a time frame on it and have it, you know, five years, some reasonable period of time that if no application had been submitted by then, that the Variance is gone. Again, you're looking at a parcel where because of your lot dimension standards for this particular zone, there is -- you're either going to have the road go through the middle or -- or no place. I mean it's -- and so it's going to have to go through the middle and, as such, it's going to exceed the block length. Even I think in the proposals for revision to the block length ordinance this one would still probably exceed what's been considered there. This one is different than some of the ones where they requested block length Variances inside of an 80 acre piece where it's just because of the particular configuration, you know, that they have got a long block. They break it up with pedestrian pathways and some other things, but this one is very different from that, because of its in-fill nature. It could be that I'm missing something, but I don't see where granting the Variance gives up anything with regard to future Preliminary Plat design that you wouldn't be required to accommodate anyway, because of the nature of the in-fill parcel. Nary: Mr. Mayot'? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council Meeting July 22, 2003 Page 55 of 78 Nary: I understand where Mr. Nichols is coming from and I understand what Brad is saying, but I guess I'm not ready necessarily to approve a Variance, although that is the likely outcome in the future, without having some idea what it is. I mean we are almost doing it in the dark if we do it any other way, because -- and, again, maybe that's just the static way we do things, but having it tied to a plat that is proposed makes the future ability to verify that, to look at that, to make sure it's complying. with that, much easier. All I can envision is we grant a Variance now that allows a block length that basically matches no plat, other than just saying you can vary from the block length ordinance, the ordinance changes that may impact this or not, we don't have a way to really address it. I mean I think you're absolutely right, Mr. Nichols, I think we probably legally can, I'm just afraid to set that precedence and do that when there is no -- there is no assurance as to how they are going to actually do this in the future. I mean they are limited, but, still, Ijust - I guess I'm just not ready to do that. Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess I'm not ready to do that either. That's why I only asked about the fees. You know, I'd hate to approve a Variance without seeing what the plan is, but I was just more concerned about the fee issue, how many Preliminary Plats are we going to have to look at and how many Variances will they have to apply for before this gets approved. Nary: If we reject the next one, maybe we can look at waiving the fee Corrie: All right. Any further discussion? McCandless: Question. Corrie: Motion before the -- okay. The question has been called for and the motion is for denial of the request for Variance. Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, absent. Corrie: All ayes. Motion to deny is approved. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Corrie: Item Number 14 -- Cook: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Was the fee waived? Meridian City Council Meeting July 22, 2003 Page 58 of 78 Nary: No. Cook: It was not. Okay. Item 74: Public Hearing: FP 03-038 Request to amend conditions of approval on the Final Plat for Packard Acres No. 2 by the City of Meridian -east of North Wingate Lane and south of East Ustick Road: Corrie: Item Number 14 is a Public Hearing, request to amend the conditions of approval on the Final Plat for Packard Acres Number 2 by City of Meridian, east of North Wingate Lane and south of East Ustick Road. I will open the Public Hearing and invite staffs comments. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and Members of the Council this application was an application that was initiated by the city. The application is to amend a Final Plat. The plat for Packard Acres No. 2 is shown in bold on the screen. Ustick Road is on the -- the north, Wingate Lane is called out here, and it doesn't reflect graphically on here, but certainly does connect to Ustick Road and comes down along the eastern boundary of this Packard Acres Phase Number 2. The public street that is shown here on the south boundary is -- is East Challis and that is a public street that was approved to cross Wingate Lane. I have submitted a number of different items into the public record that give the history and background on the project, which I think probably the Council and the majority of the public that are here are well apprised of the background to the project, so I won't -- unless you need me to, to go into that. It is there with the three or four attachments as I was included. The -- just a couple of photographs are shown here as well for the Council. Wingate Lane is currently gravel, which is shown here on the upper left picture and, then, the bottom right picture here shows a picture of East Challis crossing Wingate, which is in between the two fences here and it is paved 30 to 40 feet back from East Challis. East Challis does -- is certainly paved and sidewalked, curb, gutter across the distance there. In the application that you have there is a cover letter dated June 10, which addresses a couple of conditions that start on page two and the conditions are pulled from the Final Plat order of approval that the Council placed on Packard Estates, LLC, which was the developer of -- of the Packard Subdivision. Exhibit A in the application has a copy of the order that has all of the conditions listed there. Council did, on February 11th, have aPre-Council Meeting where Mr. Dale and Helen Sharp, which are owners on Wingate Lane, which is this five- acre, parcel here on the bottom of the screen that's currently shown RUT. It is Ada county zoning, reside, and they did testify at that Pre-Council Meeting that they had some concerns about how the city, particularly, the Planning and Zoning Department, was enforcing a couple of conditions. At that meeting the Council, as you may recall, sort of sent staff away with the instructions to kind of address this. We did send a letter to the Sharps that addressed what we felt was Council's direction, particularly the issues that are at hand on this application tonight, our proposal to remove two conditions, one of those has to do with a gate across East Challis. The conditions that are currently on this plat say that the developer was to construct a gate on both sides of Challis to keep vehicular traffic from moving east west. It would preserve an opening for pedestrians,