Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 11-18Meridian City Council Meeting November 18, 2003 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, November 12, 2003, by Council President Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Tammy de Weerd, William Nary, Keith Bird, and Cherie McCandless. Members Absent: Mayor Robert Corrie. Others Present: Jill Holinka, Will Berg, Anna Powell, Brad Watson, Gary Smith, Kenny Bowers, Bill Musser, and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: __X Tammy de Weerd _ X__ Bill Nary __X Cherie McCandless __X Keith Bird _____ Robert Corrie De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and call the regular meeting of City Council, November 18th, to order and we will ask the city clerk to call roll-call attendance. Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: Thank you. Item No. 2, adoption of the agenda. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we -- with the permission of the rest of the Council, that we have an Item 14 -- add an Item 14, an executive session, as per Idaho Code 67-2345, (1)(c). I believe that's -- no. B. (1)(b) instead of -- Madam President. And with that, I don't believe there is any -- unless I haven't been told anything being taken off or added other than that, so I would move that we adopt the amended agenda. McCandless: Second. Nary: Second. Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Isn't Item 13 deleted now, though? Bird: No. It's just -- there is a change in the date. Nary: Oh. Okay. We are going to do it, but change the date. I got it. Thank you. Sorry. Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 2 of 58 De Weerd: Okay. Any other changes? Discussion? Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the adoption with the addition of an Item 14 per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(b). All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of November 5, 2003 City Council Regular Meeting: B. Beer / Liquor License Transfer from Whitewater Saloon to Mugsy’s Bar and Grill – 501 South Main Street: C. Approve / Award Bid for Waste Water Treatment Plant Headworks Expansion Project: D. Water Main Easement for Valley Life Community Church: E. Water Main Easement for St. Lukes Helipad and Crew Quarters: F. Waste Water Treatment Plant DAFT Change Order No. 3 – The Ewing Company: G. Waste Water Treatment Plant Facilities Assessment and Safety Manual Amendment No. 1 – HDR Engineering, Inc.: H. Waste Water Treatment Plant Vulnerability Assessment Project Amendment No. 1 – HDR Engineering, Inc.: I. License Agreement with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District to cross the Ten Mile, Eight Mile, Nine Mile Laterals, and Ridenbaugh Canal: De Weerd: Item 3, Consent Agenda. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda as published and for the Council President to sign and the Clerk attest on all proper papers. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda, with the Mayor -- or Council President to sign and Clerk attest. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll? Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 3 of 58 Roll-Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4. Department Reports: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 4, Department Reports. Are there any Department Reports? Just thought I'd ask. Thank you. Item 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) De Weerd: Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda. Item 6. Continued from November 12, 2003 Pre-Council Meeting: Discussion of Westborough Subdivision Sewer Service Request: De Weerd: So, we will move to No. 6, continued from November 12th, pre-Council meeting discussion of Westborough Subdivision sewer service request. And Bruce -- Brad -- Public Works. Watson: Madam President, Council Members, the one thing that I was directed to do last Tuesday night was prepare a vicinity map that showed the location of the proposed Westborough Subdivision -- well, actually, it's not proposed anymore, it's recorded. But, the proposal to provide city sewer to the five residential lots within that subdivision. This is that map up on the wall. Inside this bright yellow outline is Westborough Subdivision. In the upper right corner, the northeastern corner is the Valley Life Community Church, which the City has already agreed to provide water and sewer service to. The southern -- large southern parcel is Meridian School District property, which we have also agreed to provide water and sewer service to. Along the western boundary over here are the five residential lots and up in the northwest corner is a future commercial lot that is not part of the current proposal. We have not -- they have not requested and we have not agreed to provide water and sewer service to that parcel that lot at this time. Last week I discussed an upcoming application that you have not seen or heard, but is in our pipeline and it's this proposed Saguaro Canyon Subdivision. It's the one that I mentioned would ultimately bring sewer within an eighth of a mile of their property. This is Meridian Road here on the left. Locust Grove to the right. You can sort of make out Vienna Woods Subdivision down in this lower right corner. I can answer any questions on that map. I would point out that Mr. Jewett provided some -- three documents to me today. I made hard copies of those, gave those to the clerk and, hopefully, those have been passed out. One is a consent to annexation form. I have not had time to thoroughly digest it, but it appears to be something that a buyer of those lots would execute. It simply warns them that they are being provided sewer and -- water and sewer service and are subject to annexation. The second two forms are, evidently, real estate -- or realtor forms that I'm not familiar with at all. On my copy there are a couple of sections that highlighted. On the RE 22 form, a Purchase and Sales Agreement for Presold New Construction, Item 15, about a third of the way down the page is what they highlighted for me regarding annexation and city services. And then the next page, RE Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 4 of 58 25, a Seller's Property Disclosure form there are three numbered sentences about a third of the way down. They are labeled one, two and three and they discuss whether a property is receiving city services or subject to future annexation. I don't know the value of these documents. Those were provided to me. I took a brief look through those. Mr. Jewett is here tonight and he would be able to answer any questions on those better than I can and I will be quiet unless you have any questions of me. De Weerd: Any questions? Okay. Mr. Jewett. Maybe you could take the microphone and stand in the back of the room. Jewett: I'll stand right here. De Weerd: Please state your name and address. Jewett: My whole family has got the flu and I'm -- Jim Jewett, 3654 South Rustler in Meridian. The documents I provided Brad were just a copy of our standard real estate documents. I'm a realtor. I belong to the realtor's association and with some of the issues that have happened in Boise, we set out to change real estate documents when we buy and sell property, to notify property owners. So I'm hoping to answer some of your questions from last week, how do these property owners get notified and that's what this document is, to show you that and that we have taken steps as a board, a realtor board, to make sure that in all real estate contracts are documents saying you would get services and if you do are you subject to annexation. Then I had Mr. Bradury prepare that consent to annexation that we would record on every lot that would become an exception on the title report that would pass on and on to all property owners, fully notifying them that there is a consent to annexation. So, that was just an attempt to try to ease some of Council's questions on having somebody fight annexation in the future. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. Jewett, this would be fine if it -- are you going to build all those houses and sell them to the homeowners or is it -- or are contractors going to come in and build and sell? Jewett: The contractors that build those would work with me, as far as building those and selling them. My company would sell them. Bird: Okay. And how are you going to guarantee that they use this agreement when they -- when the contractor sells the house to the purchaser? I mean you and him can have this agreement, but what happens if he sells it to another and they don't see this? Jewett: Okay. The three real estate documents, if any house out there sold by a licensed realtor, they must use that form. Bird: But what if they are sold by a non-licensed realtor? Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 5 of 58 Jewett: In the event that somebody would sell it without using a licensed realtor, the only document then that would tie in would be the consent that we would record against the property, the consent to annexation. So, I try to protect it in multiple ways. But, you're correct, if you sell it to a private party, they would not be required use that document. They are required to use a property disclosure and that's the property disclosure that the state of Idaho has sanctioned. Bird: All right. Nichols: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Just to verify what Mr. Jewett is saying, the RE 25 Seller's Property Disclosure form is required in the sale of any residential property in the state of Idaho, whether it's sale by owner or the builder contractor sells the property or Mr. Jewett, as a realtor, assists someone in selling the property. They all have to do that. And this comes out of the legislation that was passed in the 2002 session. The RE 22 form -- this is a Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement that the real estate agents have come up with for their standard form, which includes that disclosure. Again, it's just another way of making the disclosure that's required under state law and the consent to annexation form is very similar to the one we typically require when someone obtains services outside the city limits. We use the term irrevocable in the consent, but, other than that it's more or less the same. It's intended to run with the land and bind the property, no matter who owns it. So, although I would expect, probably, a couple things would happen, one would be Mr. Jewett, as the developer of the property or owner of the property now, there would be a consent to annexation that would apply to all five lots from him, but he's just doubling up, then, with this one to whomever he sells the lot to, whether it be to the builder or to the ultimate homeowner that's going to contract with the builder to put up the home. Again, it's not fool proof. You still have people that sign these things or their predecessor's in interest sign them and said, well, I never saw the title report, because my blankety blank realtor never show it to me. But, it is a way that -- particularly in connection with the services that are provided, conditioned upon these types of consents, I think it would be very difficult for someone to get around. Mr. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. Nichols, what you're telling me, these three items, particularly the two items that will be enforced, that we are protecting future councils? Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, I believe so. And the reason I believe so is that even if there were some change in the annexation law, I still think that you can't void a contract and there are Constitutional protections for contracts and this would be one. Mr. Jewett doesn't get the water and sewer unless there is a consent to Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 6 of 58 annexation and there is no consent to annexation without sewer and water. So there is give and take back and forth and I think it would be sustainable. Bird: Thank you. That's all I have. De Weerd: Mr. Jewett, do you have -- I know you have that future commercial lot once -- if you are given sewer to these lots, will we see you back next month for that other lot? Jewett: That lot had an existing septic on it, so it has an exemption. It's not under the same restrictions the five are. So, if we did sell it to some use, they would have -- call it a grandfathered right to either utilize that septic or upgrade it. If that wasn't plausible and I sold it to somebody and they wanted to come forward, you know, I have no proposed use for it. It's going to be something in the future in commercial. I think if the North Meridian Plan comes back forward that might change the use up there at that point and something might get -- that's in the future. De Weerd: Is that for a commercial use, then, the exemption for the septic for commercial use? Jewett: The septic doesn't differentiate between residential and commercial, it just says that there is an existing septic that was on there and so we don't have to go through the same guidelines that are on a new. So, if they -- for example, if they came in and wanted to put a church in there, they would have to show that they could upsize that existing drain field to handle what they want to do. So, they -- but they have -- because it's existing, it's not under a sanitary restriction like the other four or five lots are. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: He did open up another question for me. In other words, what we are going to do is probably get a little enclave out there because as long as their septic tank's working, they are not going to come on, I don't care, and as a city we have no way of forcing it. So, I believe right now -- this is my personal feeling and I can be probably changed, but I think that seeing how the same owner owns that, I would like to see that future lot also part of the five lots for annexation once it gets contiguous. Jewett: It was always our intention to sign the same document for it for annexation as the other ones. Bird: You're willing to do it right now? Jewett: Yes. Absolutely. Bird: Okay. Because you just told her that that was -- you weren't going to do that, that you were going to -- that you had a -- Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 7 of 58 Jewett: Let me clarify that. Are you saying that you want to provide sewer service to it, then? Bird: Well, yeah. Jewett: Oh. Okay. Bird: We will do that. Jewett: That's fine, then. Yeah. That just kind of cleans it up forever, then. Bird: Well, it does -- certainly cleans it up for us. Jewett: And that's fine. I have -- Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, if I might direct some questions to the application through you. Is this not an RUT cluster sub and how are they going to get approved for a commercial use on a dedicated open space lot? Jewett: It's a combination RUT slash cluster. So, that's a five acre building lot. The open space was part of the school and church property. Powell: So once you provide urban services to that lot it would be eligible for a rezone to a commercial designation, whereas, if you don't provide the municipal services to it at this time, it would not be eligible for a rezone to a commercial designation? Jewett: I believe the owners would have to have a rezone and urban services to be subject to a -- well, no, it's just a five acre building lot right now that has no restrictions on it. It has none. Powell: But the allowed uses do not include a great deal of commercial use at this time? Jewett: That's correct. Veterinarian clinics, churches, day cares, schools, those are all allowed uses, but that's pretty much the extent of the allowed uses. Powell: So, Madam President, Members of the Council, by providing sewer service to that lot, you open up the opportunity for them to gain a rezone through the county for a much wider variety of commercial uses. Right now they would only be allowed those that are allowed on -- within the urban transitional zone. So, it's kind of a -- there are just some -- there is some benefits and some drawbacks to that, providing services at this time. De Weerd: Anna, what is the agreement with the school district on that school? When they come in for that school, they most likely would have an annexation route or not? Do you know when they were thinking about a school -- using that as a school site? Powell: I'm not sure on the timing. I think it's fairly quick. They were able to get -- just to tie in the two last conversations, they were able to have the school approved as an Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 8 of 58 open space use and that's why it's on the remainder lot of that cluster subdivision. If they wanted to annex -- hopefully, with -- by the time that the school property annexes we will have our change to the area of city impact agreement so that they would be required to ask you for annexation before they had an application within the county. De Weerd: And that would give the annexation route to that future lot. Powell: Well, this subdivision in general, does because all of them would be annexed as soon as there is a path they would be annexed. I believe that's what we are discussing tonight, is that as soon as there was an annexation path, the City would pursue annexation of all those lots. De Weerd: Any other questions, Council? Okay. Any other -- Jewett: Just to touch on Anna's question. Until there is -- right now that's currently just a residential zone, so until that gets some different designation it couldn't go beyond the uses that I just mentioned earlier. Day care. Church. Veterinary clinic. So, until there is some master plan -- and I will throw one other tid bit. That ten acre parcel that's just to the east of the proposed Saguaro Canyon, he came to me the other day and indicated that that -- either that -- that same developer or another developer had optioned and was going to go move forward so that would make this contiguous if they in fact, moved forward on that. So, this might happen a lot quicker as far as annexation than we all think. It might take still some years to get the sewer all over there because there is a lot of subdivisions to develop. But I think the annexation is right around the corner and on the five acre lots, you know, I'll sign a consent to annexation, basically, on the terms that the City Council desires, until you re-comp plan that, it's not going to change. And there are those limited uses. That can go a church, et cetera, but there is not going to be anything major, this is right now adjacent to one of your neighborhood centers, I believe, but I don't know how that might change with the North Meridian Plan. So, our opinion on that has always been that the potential is down the road and so that's why we just kind of left it and waited for the new comp plan and just waited until sewer and all the services get there. De Weerd: Thank you. Jewett: Thank you. Mr. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'd like to ask the other Council people what do you think of either taking that commercial lot in or not? Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 9 of 58 Nary: It sure sounds like a Catch 22, but I guess if I have to weigh the balance between whether to create this enclave lot that we will be probably struggling with more than what the potential uses could be between now and then -- and I guess I could be hopeful, as Mr. Jewett just stated, that that ten acre piece in between comes in, gets annexed, these people get annexed, that commercial lot gets annexed, it's covered under our Comprehensive Plan, it probably sooner than someone else is going to want to develop something out there on that fringe that's more troubling to us, but I guess I didn't hear from Mr. Watson on that five acre piece. We need to discuss that on that potential and whether or not that's an issue to Public Works on that future commercial lot and adding that to this request. Watson: Madam President, Councilmember Nary, today it would be a concern. Nary: It would be? Watson: Yeah. If he were proposing to build something commercial today, that would be a concern up there, because of fire flow capacities, potentially. It's a little difficult to explain, but there is a pressure zone boundary that splits that parcel. If it was a large commercial we would have problems. But as this other subdivision comes eastward and ultimately connects, we won't have as much of a problem. Potentially, we will -- in the memo that I wrote last week, one of the conditions that we offered was that they would be required to sign the city standard agreement for a connection to city services, the annexation agreement. We could make an additional bullet point in there that that would remain residential until such time as we annexed and could provide adequate city services, just as a suggestion. De Weerd: So, Brad, what are the pros and the cons in considering this? Watson: Madam President, they remain the two that I mentioned last week. One is that he has offered to pay half the cost of the eight inch sewer that will run from the southern boundary up Jericho Road that will take in all five of those commercial lots -- five residential lots, plus it would basically pick up that commercial lot, too. It would come right to that southeast -- southwest corner. That's the one benefit. The second benefit was the one that was a little bit more gray, I guess, as far as the city is concerned, but it's my -- my reluctance to allow more septic systems in an urbanized area. De Weerd: And the cons? Watson: Well, the cons are, as Mr. Nichols has pointed out, there is always -- nothing is full proof. The only potential con I can see right away is that if somehow that commercial lot did get redesignated and wanted to develop immediately, we may not be able to provide adequate fire flows for what they want to do, but I would trust we would have plenty of opportunity to comment to Ada County if it wasn't annexed at that time. Mr. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 10 of 58 Bird: Brad, you're saying water flow. Are we -- are we talking water and sewer or just sewer? I thought we were just talking sewer -- sewering out there at this point. Watson: Correct. Several weeks or months ago we already agreed to provide water service to these five residential lots and tonight we are only talking about sewer service to these five residential lots. But on a whole, looking at that commercial lot, the water concerns me today. Bird: Where is the line and stuff coming from that? Is it at the end of the line or is it a new well that we are putting in or is it hooking to the existing well for the Vienna Woods and those places like that? Watson: I'll answer it kind of in reverse -- or maybe out of order. The church and the school squeak by in terms fire flow and what we can provide. There is a pressure zone boundary just west of Locust Grove Road. We need to get an interconnection across that section through the proposed Saguaro Canyon and what other development takes place to Meridian Road, so that we can get a loop through that system. Second, we do need another well somewhere in that general one mile radius vicinity and we are working on locating the site and you might remember some discussion with Mr. Jewett that he had set aside some land if we wanted to purchase it for a well site. So, we are still looking at all those options. De Weerd: Is there any concern, Brad -- I'm sorry, Keith. Bird: Go ahead. De Weerd: Is there any concern about any precedent we are going to set by doing this? Watson: Madam President, I think, obviously, there would be some concern, but every one of these we evaluate individually and look at the merits of what they are offering. This one is at the very outer reaches of the impact area. It looks like it could be engineered fairly easily to tie into the future system that looks like it's coming, but, sure, there are other proposals that could be around the fringes of the developed area that will not work for either sewer or water for one reason or another. Each one of these proposals takes quite a bit of time for Public Works staff to evaluate and I can't say that they are all bad and all good and -- there is a lot of evaluating and subjective evaluation that goes on. De Weerd: But I guess when we make a decision to either do this or not, it should be based on some -- something a little bit concrete, so the next request -- I guess we have a desire to do -- to not do this and yet we have two subdivisions that we have done it for and we have been very resistant to do it to more. I guess I would like to look at maybe what kind of criteria that allows consideration and, then, you do it on your individual basis, even to save the staff time up front, all the analysis that you need to do, that it has to fit certain criteria. Otherwise, you will have your hands full of this that you don't get any compensation for staff time to evaluate these projects and so this is eating away at the other fees that are being paid, they are sustaining the cost of this. But I guess we have to start looking at it because this is not the first one. The other ones Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 11 of 58 have been denied. But I can see that it's going to continue to come and it would be helpful to start setting out some kind of criteria, if there is one. You know, maybe that's not even feasible either because you can't guess about everything just to make your life easier. Watson: Madam President, we could certainly make an interim attempt at looking at some kind of criteria for these projects. We will also need to rely on some of Council's direction, though, that -- in terms of the geographic area of our area of impact and I guess we operate under the presumption, wrongly or rightly, that there are certain areas of our area of impact that we should make attempts to service because of other utilities or other entities. De Weerd: Well -- and I do understand that, Brad. I guess we need to look at that further and maybe now is not the time to do that, but we do need to look at this, because it just seems like we are setting ourselves up for these annexation -- forced annexation type of situations and I don't think anyone has a whole lot of comfort in that kind of approach. Watson: True. We don't either. And just, real briefly, this project has snowballed from where it was a year ago or maybe even a year and a half ago. This started as an initial request only for water for the Valley Life Community Church, went to the school district for water and sewer, went back to the church for sewer, I think. I mean this has been a -- this has just kind of crept along pushing farther and farther. De Weerd: I know. I feel your pain. Is there any other comments or questions? Okay. Well, do I have a motion? Mr. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: This isn't a motion yet, but it's -- I believe that what you said is true, we are getting -- we are getting ourselves backed into some corners that we are probably not going to be happy with, at the same time, but we have done it before, we have taken and already allowed two parcels out of this 20 acre parcel, I believe it is, to do the water and sewer. I don't know how we deny the others here if we can -- if we can get them to do that. My biggest concern is that commercial lot, of whether we force that into now or whether we leave it alone, I don't -- I don't know. I would hope we'd have water flow out there before it was developed, but there is never no guarantee. So, that's my thoughts on the deal. I would have no problem passing the sewer on it, as long as all these terms are met, because we have done it on two-thirds of the property already. Or three- quarters -- 75 percent of them. So, I'd like to hear some other discussion from the Council, if there is any. If not, I will make a motion. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 12 of 58 Nary: I guess the one thing I did hear from Brad that Mr. Jewett hasn't commented on, he did say he would agree to whatever we needed to do for that commercial lot and what Brad was asking was a restriction on building, basically not having any other uses on that lot at this time, other than what already would have been allowed without the sewer and I haven't heard from Mr. Jewett as to whether or not that was agreeable to him. He's nodding yes. So, that would be fine. I guess that being said then, I would concur with Mr. Bird. I -- you know, we are pushing ourselves, you know -- Bird: Into a corner. Nary: And that's just going to happen, it's going to happen all along that north Meridian corridor. I think we have had this discussion a number of times up here on -- at some point in the future on whether or not the potential of having an involuntary annexation -- that may happen, but here, in balancing the interests of the needs of the City, we have already allowed Valley Life and the Meridian School District pieces to have water and sewer, so I can't really think of any logical reason not to allow that same to occur on these other portions of this lot -- of this piece and with the consent to annex, with the agreement to not develop that commercial lot until -- to any degree more than allowed currently until we have the appropriate water flow with Mr. Jewett willing to agree to all of those conditions to have that. I really can't see a reason to deny it. I think we are going to get there. I think the Saguaro Canyon is probably going to speed this up and will probably be contiguous and I guess crossing our fingers that will be contiguous sooner than later, so it seems to make sense. Bird: Was that your motion? Nary: I guess my motion would be that we would -- De Weerd: That's a long motion. Nary: My motion would be that we allow the developer, Mr. Jewett, and the City to enter into an agreement to provide sewer service and I guess water and sewer service to the other parcel of this lot and that the agreement be worked out with the Public Works Department with the limitations as expressed here on the record by Mr. Jewett, for both the residential lots, as well as the future commercial lot, including the documents provided to us regarding the consent to annex, as well as the other real estate documents be included as part of the record here. Bird: For the attorney to draw up the Findings -- Nary: And for Mr. Nichols to figure all that out and draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order. Bird: I'll second that. De Weerd: Well, I'm not going to repeat that motion. Nichols: Madam President? Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 13 of 58 De Weerd: I should make a ruling to not ramble. Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Mr. Madam President, Members of the Council, I think in the past we haven't drawn up findings for these, but we have worked on a consent to annexation and the agreement to provide water and sewer service outside the city limits and I think that's what have done in the past and so we will work with staff to make sure that the extra language works it way into the standard agreement. Nary: And I would amend my motion to be consistent with our past practices. Bird: Second will agree. De Weerd: Brad, is there any comments that you have? Anything that needs to be included in that extra long motion? Watson: Madam President, Council Members, the only thing that I would ask be included is -- are the conditions listed in my memo from last week. I -- it evidently didn't make it into my file, but it's the one that was presented at Council on December 12th. Bird: That was included. Nary: And I did -- I guess I thought I was including that. Bird: You did. Watson: Okay. De Weerd: Did you have suggested language to that one -- one of those conditions? Watson: Hopefully, we will have the minutes available and I can -- Bill -- or Mr. Nichols and I and Mr. Jewett can, I think, craft those during the review of that agreement. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Well in essence, the motion alluded to approving sewer service to Westborough Subdivision, including the northwest future commercial lot and ask the attorney to draw up the appropriate papers for Council approval. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll? Roll-Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. De Weerd: Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7. FP 03-059 Request for Final Plat approval of 100 single-family residential building lots and 5 common lots on 36.66 acres in a R-4 zone for Messina Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 14 of 58 Hills Subdivision No. 2 by Tuscany Development, Inc. – between South Locust Grove Road and South Eagle Road, south of East Victory Road: De Weerd: Item No. 7, FP 03-059, request for final plat approval of 100 single family residential building lots and five common lots on 36.66 acres in an R-4 zone for Messina Hills Subdivision No. 2 and we will open with staff comments. Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, pardon that -- this is a request for final plat approval. I have shown the preliminary plat for Tuscany Lakes on the overhead here. The area that is being final -- has final plat is roughly within the elliptical area and is shown on this view. There was one minor change to the preliminary plat that I wanted to point out. Originally, this was a building lot. You will notice it's directly at the end of this stub street. They have requested that this be, basically, an amenity -- an additional amenity. They have asked for a club house and pool house to be located there and they asked for approval to make that change and to also kind of relocate that buildable single family residential lot into a future phase and I have given them permission to do that. We do feel it substantially -- or I have indicated that I would support their request to you to be allowed to do that. I should phrase that more correctly. So, we do feel it substantially complies with the approved preliminary plat. De Weerd: Thank you. Is the applicant here tonight? Powell: He is not here. He has submitted a letter saying that he is in support of the conditions of approval and we have worked with him and he did contact us directly. Mr. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, there is also another change from the preliminary plat and that was the location of East Palarmo Drive -- Powell: You are correct. Bird: -- was shifted to the north by one lot depth and that didn't change anything and the staff is okay with that, too? Powell: I had no concerns with that. Bird: Okay. I didn't think you did, but I just wanted to make sure. De Weerd: Okay. Any other discussion, Council? Okay. Do I have a motion? Mr. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 15 of 58 Bird: I would move that we approve the FP 03-059, request for final plat approval of 100 single family residential building lots and five common lots on 36.66 acres in an R-4 zone for Messina Hills Subdivision No. 2 by Tuscany Development, Incorporated, between South Locust Grove Road and South Eagle Road, south of East Victory Road and for the attorney to draw up the proper papers and to include staff comments, which included the changing of East Palarmo Drive and also the changing of Lot 2, Block 17, to a club house and pool. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve FP 03-059 with the noted changes. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll-Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8. FP 03-060 Request for Final Plat approval of 6 common lots on 1.67 acres in an R-4 zone for Tuscany Lakes Subdivision No. 2 by Tuscany Development, Inc. – east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 8, FP 03-060, request for final plat approval of six common lots on 1.67 acres in an R-4 zone for Tuscany Lakes Subdivision No. 2. Anna. Powell: Madam Chair, Members of the Council, this is the Tuscany -- the preliminary plat approval for Tuscany Lakes and again the area that has the final plat is roughly encircled by the ellipse. It is an unusual preliminary plat in that there is not a single building lot on it. They are all common lots in a road dedication. This was necessary, because one of the conditions of approval during the preliminary plat process was to provide a secondary access between Messina Hills and Tuscany Lakes and this provides that extension of Palarmo Drive, which will provide that secondary access. I can go back up and you can see how it connects to Tuscany to the east. It is in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat and staff is recommending approval. De Weerd: And the applicant is not here on this one? Powell: Correct. I'm sorry. He sent a letter on this one also. De Weerd: Boy, he's got this figured out. Any comments? Questions? Motions? Mr. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird, I think the burden is on your shoulders tonight. Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 16 of 58 Bird: I move that we approve FP 03-060, the request for final plat approval of six common lots on 1.67 acres in an R-4 zone for Tuscany Lakes Subdivision No. 2 by Tuscany Development, Incorporated, east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road, the attorney to draw up the proper papers and include the staff comments. McCandless: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve FP 03-060 with all appropriate paperwork. Mr. Berg, you want to call roll? Roll-Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9. FP 03-061 Request for Final Plat approval of 63 single-family residential building lots and 10 common lots on 25.78 acres in an R-8 zone for Kelly Creek Subdivision No. 1 by Kevin Howell Construction – northwest corner of North Linder Road and West McMillan Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 9, FP 03-061, request for final plat approval of 63 single family residential building lots and 10 common lots on 25.78 acres in an R-8 zone for Kelly Creek Subdivision No.1. Anna? Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, I think you will recall Kelly Creek Subdivision came not too long ago and they are in for their first final plat. The area included in the final plat is roughly shown within the elliptical area. It does include the large open -- central open space as approved on the preliminary plat. This is the final plat and to my knowledge -- well, it substantially complies with the approved preliminary plat and to my knowledge the applicant's representative has no concerns with the conditions of approval, so there are no outstanding issues before Council. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here tonight? Please state your name and address. Fluke: Darin Fluke, 250 Beechwood Drive, Boise. De Weerd: Thank you. Do you have any comments? Fluke: I do not. We are fine with the conditions as written. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Oh. Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 17 of 58 Nary: Well, since you're going to throw the gauntlet down, I guess we have got to -- I move the approval of FP 03-061, the request for final plat approval of 63 single family residential building lots and 10 common lots on 25.78 acres in an R-8 zone for Kelly Creek Subdivision No.1 by Kevin Howell Construction at the northwest corner of North Linder Road and West McMillan Road, for Council to prepare the appropriate documents and including all staff comments, staff report, and the comments of the applicant. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to approve FP 03-061, to include all staff comments and ask the attorney to draw up the appropriate paperwork. Mr. Berg, please, call roll. Roll-Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10. TE 03-007 Request for a Time Extension for Recording the Final Plat for Drawbridge Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – west of North Ten Mile Road and south of West McMillan Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nary. Okay. Item No. 10, TE 03-007, request for a time extension for recording the final plat for Drawbridge Subdivision and we will open with staff comments. Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, just as a refresher, the Drawbridge Subdivision area is shown here. It's just north of Bridgetower and south of -- I'm sorry. Just west of Bridgetower Subdivision, a small one. You will see the wastewater treatment plant down to the south there. This is the final plat and the final plat was approved by City Council on the 17th of December, 2002, so they have submitted their request for a time extension, according to Meridian code and staff has -- is recommending approval of that time extension. Actually, we are quite happy to see a time extension, rather than a variance. Nary: Me, too. De Weerd: Why is that? Is the applicant here? McKinnon: Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber, Meridian, Idaho. Unless you have any questions, it's just a straight forward time extension request. The actual subdivision is under construction right now and we are just not going to get it recorded in time with the one year time frame, so -- if you have any questions, I will be happy to answer those. De Weerd; Well, Dave, you know when you step up to the mike we have to give you a hard time. So, Council, don't disappoint him. Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 18 of 58 Bird: Well, I just wondered if he had lost his razor blade or what. McKinnon: This is full two weeks growth for me, so I'm really working on it. Bird: It would be about ten years for me. De Weerd: It doesn't seem like there is any comments. Thank you. McKinnon: Thanks. Mr. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve the TE 03-007, request for a time extension for recording the final plat for Drawbridge Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Incorporated, west of Ten Mile Road and south of West McMillan Road, to 12/01/04 and for the attorney to draw up the proper papers. McCandless: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to extend the recording of the final plat for Drawbridge Subdivision to December 1, 2004. Mr. Clerk. Roll-Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11. Continued Public Hearing from November 12, 2003: CUP 03-047 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to demolish existing home and rebuild one single family residential dwelling for caretakers quarters on lot 2, block 2 of Observation Point Subdivision in a R-4 zone by RF Construction – 500 East Victory Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item No.11 is a continued Public Hearing from November 12, 2003, on CUP 03-047, request for a Conditional Use Permit to demolish an existing home and rebuild one single family residential dwelling for a caretaker's quarters on a Lot 2, Block 2, of Observation Point Subdivision. We will open -- we will continue this Public Hearing with staff comments. Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, you had asked us to come back with some specific information and I will get to that in just a moment, but I did read over the minutes and I did want to make it clear, because it doesn't -- it is not reflected in the presentation that was given to you last week. This is a request for an extension or expansion of a nonconforming use. Our zoning ordinance does allow folks to request this of you through the conditional use process. It would be similar to -- if a property happens to have two houses on it right now and one of them burned down, they would have to come to you with a similar request for the extension or expansion of a Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 19 of 58 nonconforming use. I guess I just wanted to let you know that and make sure that the record reflected that. So, this is a way for the Council to approve things that are currently not conforming uses within the boundaries of the zoning ordinance. Having said that, you had asked for specific information on whether or not this was included as part of the original application. Craig Hood provided a memo to you. He had one day to get that to you and that hits part of that information. What his research showed that was the original application for the preliminary plat did include this property within the boundary. Originally, it was three lots and, then, they found out from ACHD that they would have to put a bridge, so they pulled it back. I went back and after reading your minutes from last week, I realized that there was additional concerns that Councilmember Bird had expressed, so I had Greg do some more research and I can give you the results of that right now. On -- just to let you know, the record for the final plat staff report did recognize -- it did specifically address those plat notes, so the applicant was well aware of what those plat notes and said they had considered them and looked at them. So, it wasn't something that was overlooked during the process. They had, actually, suggested some wording regarding it, which is similar to the wording we have now. We were also able to find correspondence from Briggs Engineering, who was representing the applicant, to the Ada County Highway District regarding the property. Originally, when they came and they said you would have to put a bridge, they said, well, we want to use it as an office lot and, therefore, we don't want to have the office traffic going into the subdivision, so we don't want that connection provided at this time. So, their intent as stated, then, was to have it as an office lot in the future and that was consistent with the plat note that says when they redevelop, then, they will provide sewer and water. But the intention as it went through the preliminary plat, the last indications from the applicant were that it would be an office lot, but that they fully understood as the preliminary plat went through that it would be a nonbuildable lot until sewer and water were available. When the final plat came through -- and I think this is where everybody's memory keeps on clueing and remembering this part. Came back on the final plat as a buildable lot. Staff pointed out that it did not -- could not be a buildable lot, because there were not sewer and water services available. At that point the applicant requested that it be taken off the plat, that it not be included in the final plat. There was quite a bit of discussion about an illegal lot. Mr. Nichols testified quite a bit -- or provided input regarding that if it were an illegal lot, illegal subdivision, somebody might sell it and, then, they'd come in for a building permit and they wouldn't be able to get a building permit and kind of all the hassles that go with just leaving it not on a subdivision. So, at that time it was placed back on the -- or required to be placed back on the plat as a nonbuildable lot. And that is reflected in the minutes from those -- from that final plat hearing is when it came off. But for the initial -- we went through our files, our initial preliminary plat files. It was always included. There is a possibility, since not all the staff that are -- that were there at that time are still on the staff, there was a possibility that somebody required it to be included when they first came in, maybe somebody said, well, you have to include that property. We don't know. It's certainly not reflected in the records. Public Works went through all their files and it's always been shown on their files as well. So, I do believe that the confusion came at the final plat stage when they asked for it to be a buildable lot and then they asked for it to be taken off, because they didn't want to have it be a nonbuildable lot. So, I believe that answers your questions and I do -- staff -- just to remind you, staff's original recommendation was for denial, based on the plat notes, and there aren't a lot of Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 20 of 58 findings that the zoning ordinance sets forward for this, so just based on the plat notes staff had originally recommended denial. De Weerd: I guess, Anna, another part of the request was to indicate what the conversation was when the applicant came several months ago. The direction that was indicated by Council at that time, other than it just wasn't -- only to bring it to an application to be considered or was there any indication of -- Powell: I looked through those minutes. It's been a little while, because I looked through them quite a bit before I had the applicant come forward with the extension or expansion of the nonconforming use. I had gone through them -- it would have been a couple months now. So, I will speak from those memories. I didn't review them prior to this hearing. But I don't think there was any expectations expressed by the Council that this permission would be granted, if that's what you're wondering. It was -- you recognized that there were plat notes on there that didn't allow it and you said if we are going to consider this, we need to consider it at a Public Hearing. It took me -- quite honestly, it took me a long time to figure out what of kind Public Hearing I was going to bring before you and that's why I wanted to point out the expansion of a nonconforming use, because it is stated in the zoning ordinance and this is a valid way to consider this, but that's where we ended up. So, I don't think there was any implied consent given at anytime in the past, it was just that it needed to be before you in a Public Hearing and you would consider it, then. De Weerd: And during the final plat when that piece was taken off -- or when there was conversation about that particular piece, was there any further direction on it, other than it was nonbuildable until the sewer was available? Powell: I can read some of the testimony from Mr. Cavin and Mr. Nichols, if you'd like me to. De Weerd: If it would be helpful. Powell: I think so. Mr. Cavin -- he first says -- says we can go through the process of putting in a plat and doing two nonbuild agreements and he just said, you know, we'd like to keep it a separate piece from the plat at this point, we know the risk to us as an illegal lot split, which simply means that we cannot get a building -- a permit to build on there. We are willing to take that responsibility for that. So, they talked about not building on it regardless, knowing that it would be an illegal lot, basically. Later on in the in the hearing Mr. Nichols pointed out that it was identified as an unbuildable lot, because of the lack of Black Cat Trunk, that there was a provision that was one of the main provisions why the septic and well was allowed to stay on the particular lot. So, the only reason that the septic was allowed to stay was because a lot of those conversations centered around that lot and the nonavailability of sewer. At some point -- and, then, he expressed the concern at some point down the road somebody sells the lot and somebody comes in to get a building permit and they cannot get one or maybe one is issued by mistake and, then, they find out there is no sewer. And then you said I suppose we could amend the development agreement, yet, again, it specified that this particular area is unbuildable and nothing can be done on it without separate Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 21 of 58 application to the city and the existence of sewer and maybe do it that way. And then Ms. Stiles talks about how it was shown as nonbuildable on the preliminary plat and then buildable on the fine plat. And the motion by Councilmember Bird was that we tabled it again. I did not go to the next hearing, but it was just to table it to give them time to workout the staff comments. I don't think there was a considerable amount of testimony, otherwise, Craig would have highlighted that for me or given me those minutes. So, I think it was just to workout the wording for the plat note. I think it was pretty clear as it went through that that would not be developed further until such time as there were sewer and water available from both the staff and from the Council and from the owner. De Weerd: Okay. Any questions, Council? Is the applicant -- is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Sheffield: Yes. De Weerd: Please state your name and address. Sheffield: Elliott Sheffield, 1872 North Haven Cove Way, Meridian, Idaho. I guess from what I hear Anna saying is that we have -- it was not a buildable lot until we had sewer and water available. I think we have addressed that problem and now that we can tie into the existing sewer with Observation Point, we do have water and sewer available. And I would like to bring up one other point. Councilman Nary made a statement that the people in Observation Point expected that to be a 2,100 square foot home and I just -- I'd like to just read one sentence if I could out of the restrictive covenants. If we had it to write again it would be a paragraph, it is just one sentence. It says no residential lot shall be divided into two or more building sites, except lots 1 and 2, Block 2, which said lots are south and west of the Ridenbaugh Canal, which the grantor or assigns retain said rights to rezone and/or replat. I guess me, as a home buyer, if I were going to buy a lot in that area, I would read that as that could be a 7-Eleven convenience store or an apartment complex where it fronts Victory Road. I would not, in my mind, see it as a building lot for a single family residential home and so I think as a home buyer buying that, reading the covenants, they would -- my opinion is they would read it the same way. De Weerd: Any questions? Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: But, Mr. Sheffield, I mean based on that statement out of your CC&Rs, you're wanting to built it into a single family home, so, you're right, if they read it and thought, well, that could be a 7-Eleven or a park or a fire station or something, but if it's going to be a house, it's going to be a house like theirs. So, I guess you're not asking to replat it or rezone it, you're asking just to tear down the existing house and build another one. So, to me, if it was going to be a house, even based on your -- the logic that you have Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 22 of 58 stated, if it was going to be a house, it would be a house that looked like theirs. What do you think? Sheffield: Councilman Nary, I -- when I ride by the subdivision and I have really done a lot of looking at this piece of property lately. When you go either down Victory Road or in Observation Point, this piece of ground in no way looks like it's attached to Observation Point, just by the lay of the land and the canal breaking it up and the lay of the trees, does not deem itself to be a part of Observation Point. It looks very much not a part and I guess that's why we are asking for an exception to the plat for lower square footage than what the plat requires. De Weerd: Okay. Anna, with the applicant standing here, with the condition the way it was or the discussion the way it was, now that there is sewer available to this, is this the appropriate next step? Powell: Well, Madam President, Members of the Council, the only kind of flaw in logic that I see is that if it were to be residential, Ada County Highway District was pretty explicit about wanting a connection through the rest of Observation Point. Their argument for not providing that bridge was that it was going to be office, so that it wouldn't be appropriate to mingle them. The tricky part about these requests -- and I have a feeling you will be seeing some in the future, so I'll keep on coming back to this, but these requests for the extension or expansion of a nonconforming use is -- you know, at some point the city had decided it was appropriate to have larger houses here. At least it's been bumped up to the city's minimum at this point, but the city decided it was appropriate to have a larger house here. If he puts a smaller house, it's not likely to ever go away. I mean if you're going to put a new house on there, I think we are establishing this as a residential property and it's not likely to go away anytime soon. So, is that the way the Council wants to go? Is that the way the city wants to go? Because I don't think this becomes and interim use any longer, especially if it goes on sewer and if there is a residential connection, rather than a commercial connection, it's likely to be residential now. So, that's -- De Weerd: I guess you have to look at the practical aspects of it, too. You have a pretty irregular size piece of property with -- if they are going to develop it -- the rest of it with homes, they are going to have to put in that bridge and it's going to be very. Costly. So, I -- I don't know what the next step is. But I think what Mr. Sheffield has said, it does look like it's not a part of Observation Point -- of that subdivision. So, I guess the rest of the question would be what would be the rest of the plan for that piece of property and what is practical to think of. You're not going to -- well, I -- and I don't know. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I mean I think -- I think that's exactly the point. If it's not a part, then, make it not a part. Putting a brand new house on that piece, just like Mrs. Powell just said, really makes it look like a residential subdivision. It's not going to move. It's not going to Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 23 of 58 change. And now what's going to happen is the rest of that piece, you or someone else is going to come here and say, well, we should put all these littler houses on here, because this one's littler, so we should make them all the same. And we don't really need a connection, because it's not a part. Well, that was what it seems that the Council back in '99 or 2000 was anticipating that, thinking that some replatting, some rethinking of what was going to be there, but having on nonconforming use and extending that by basically allowing a brand new structure built there, really extends that nonconforming use another 25 years or 30 years or forever, as long as we just keep fixing the house up and we never have to deal with it. My view, which hasn't changed from this information from what I said last week was go figure out what you want to do with the whole piece, whether it belongs as a park, whether it belongs as an office, whether it belongs as residential, whether it belongs as something else and, then, do that, but to do this in this piecemeal fashion totally does defeat the whole purpose. Whether you like it or not or how it looks or not, it's part of that plat. I mean it doesn't look like it belongs there, I agree with that. In practicality it doesn't look like it but then that was what the intent of the Council was three years ago. Go figure it out, now there is sewer there that's available for you, figure out what you want to do, but to do it in this piecemeal fashion just boxes us in. If we allow this house, we are probably going to have houses there and that's it. So, I guess I'm just not in favor of this. I think it was intended for you to replat it or rezone it, that's why your CC&Rs reflect that. But it wasn't meant to just piecemeal this back and forth with just rebuilding another house there. Mr. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Basically, when we passed the final plat, this property was put off until it could be sewered and watered and at that time we thought the sewer could come in from the Black Car. Evidently, you guys have figured out a way to sewer into the existing Observation Point Subdivision for at least this one lot. I believe this is two lots down there. The impression that we got -- and I'm speaking for myself only -- was that this lot would probably be used as a commercial lot. I don't know what the caretaker's house -- who this caretaker is. Is it the one that takes care of the house across the road? Sheffield: It is. Bird: Okay. So, I don't know. I have mixed emotions. I hate to tell people down there -- and I agree with Tammy that it is set aside from Observation, but if I had one of those 350,000 dollar houses up on the ridge up there, I don't think I would want to look down onto a 1,400 square foot house. So, I don't know, it's -- I hate to tell somebody they can't do something with their own land when they have had it there. A 1,400 square house -- new house is certainly an improvement over what we got there. If we can get the weeds and stuff mowed and kept down, it would be a nice addition, too, so -- I don't know. It's -- it's a tough decision to -- and I don't know what percentage -- what percent of Observation Point is sold and built. Sheffield: I believe we have probably 20 percent. Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 24 of 58 Bird: You're not 50, are you? Sheffield: No. Bird: Thirty? Twenty-five? Maybe a quarter? Sheffield: I don't think. Probably -- Bird: Is that -- is all the houses built? I mean is there lots sold that aren't built on yet? Sheffield: There are. I don't know the percentage. Bird: I mean I think the owner is -- if people have problems with having a 1,400 square foot house down there, he's got a lot more lots to sell and it's going to take money out of his pocket if they don't buy it, so I -- I don't know. I -- this is -- this is a tough one. Like I said, I hate to tell people they can't build a caretaker house there. We knew that that's what the older home was, so I -- this is some more input and output. Sheffield: Madam President, the owners have said that they would relinquish any further rights to develop the rest of that piece of property, so that would -- as we green up and Mr. Berg gave me a list of what green up had meant, if we were to green up the rest of that lot and build a house on that, I think it would make that a very attractive area and it would also, obviously, increase the tax base. De Weerd: So, are you saying, then, that corner piece will have just this one house on it and nothing else? Sheffield: Yes. Mr. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Would we have to change the plat, then? Because that is into two lots, isn't it? De Weerd: No. One's landscaping. Bird: One landscape? Okay. That answered my question. De Weerd: So, how would you maintain the rest of that? Sheffield: Mr. Berg has given me a recommendation. I'm not sure where it came from. I just saw it. But it was to sod the remaining area of the property, would be a minimum standard, and then, if we decided to plant trees, that would be optional and the sodding would be maintained. Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 25 of 58 Powell: Members of the Council, the Planning Commission recommendation was that they green up the remainder of the property, so I had Craig take a stab at what green up meant and he's recommending that they either sod or seed and maintain, which means mow or remove weeds the undeveloped portion of the subject lot. De Weerd: Okay. So, this answers Mr. Nary's question about what would you do with the rest of the piece and so what you're saying is it would be just this one house and, then, the rest of it would be greened up, as defined by Mr. Hood. Sheffield: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Elliott, what is the -- what do the CC&Rs say for a minimum house in Observation? Sheffield: The CC&Rs are 2,100 square feet for a single level. Bird: Twenty one hundred square feet, so we are looking at 700 square feet, which is probably 70,000 dollars more. You're going to build it to about 100 a square foot, aren't you? Sheffield: Yes. Bird: You couldn't get them to go half of that, could you? Go to 1,750? It would look a lot closer. Sheffield: I'm already 15,000 dollars into the sewer we didn't want to be originally. Bird: You didn't want to be already. De Weerd: And greening up, so -- Bird: Greening up is not going to be too -- Nary: Madam President, I guess -- De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess -- what I guess I want to make clear is the intent of our ordinances is to take nonconforming uses and eliminate them and that's not what you're doing. If you were building a 2,100 square foot house and replatting that piece to have one house and lawn for the rest of it, that's different. But you're not asking to do that, you're asking to tear down the existing house and basically build a brand new house of the same type that would be a nonconforming use now. I -- that's the reason I can't support that. Our Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 26 of 58 intent with nonconforming uses is to get rid of them, not to perpetuate them. So, I mean it's admirable for you to want to build a newer house than what's there. I think that's great and that's what we would prefer. It's admirable to want to green up the rest of it so that it doesn't look like a weed patch. That's great. But the next person that comes in and says I'll mow the lawn if you will let me do what I want to do, I have to be able to say no and what I guess for me is if you were building a house in conformance with the rest of this subdivision, that's what we would be -- it wouldn't be an issue. But you don't want to do that. You want to do something else. And to me all you're doing is perpetuating a nonconforming use and we don't -- I don't think that's what we are here to do. If you were doing something else -- this is no big surprise, you were told from the outset when you -- when this final plat was approved rezoning this property or replatting this property would be your out in having to develop something else. I just -- I mean I think this is properly before us, I just don't think -- I think if we do the other, all we are doing is perpetuating a use that we don't want. De Weerd: I guess, Mr. Nary, it doesn't -- that doesn't make sense to me because it is a conforming use. It's an R-4 use. And a 1,400 square foot home does comply within an R-4. It doesn't fit with what they have set for the rest of the subdivision, but they have indicated that this isn't part of that subdivision and they even tried to do that in the final plat. So, you know, it does -- it is nonconforming under our definitions, but it does conform with the R-4 subdivision. Nary: But, Madam President, once they decided to leave it as part of the plat, it is a nonconforming use. It is part of the plat. I don't care whether it doesn't look like it, it is. That's life. They were told at the time this final plat was approved that they could replat it or rezone it. They are not asking to do that. They are asking to, essentially, change the existing structure on there, it is nonconforming to what was approved as part of this plat. So, we are perpetuating that nonconforming use by approving what's being requested. That's why the staff recommended denial. I recognize Planning and Zoning tried to, essentially, split the difference here in trying to do what -- what you and Mr. Bird are talking about of greening it up and making it look better and all those things, but the precedent that we set, like we just talked about with Westborough Sub, the precedent that we set here is if this was a -- if this house was in the middle of that subdivision we wouldn't even think twice, we would say no. The fact that it's on the other side of the canal isn't our fault, that's the developer's choice when they chose to bring this forward. We didn't choose that, they did. That's what they were left with. They didn't have to do it that way, that's what they chose to do. I just don't want to perpetuate that. That's what concerns me. It's not Mr. Sheffield or the fact that it's nicer or it's going to be green. I mean all those things are pluses, but what do we do with the next plat that says we want to change this piece, because it's on the end. De Weerd: So, are you suggesting that they should, instead of doing this, they should have just come back and replatted it? Nary: Yes. Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 27 of 58 De Weerd: And, then, it's almost like almost like the thing -- the application we had last week where it would have taken the same amount of time it's taken to do all of this, to go that other route. Nary: No. Totally different, because last week they would have come back to replat the exact same subdivision they already had. Here they don't have anything. They haven't done anything. That's what we said last week. Go figure out what you want to do with this piece and go do that, come back and bring an application that shows where the road's going to be, what's going to be on there, what's the structure -- is it just this one structure forever? Are we going to have just grass on the remainder? It isn't the same thing. Last week's situation with Mr. Van Auker's subdivision really was just bringing back the same thing. This isn't bringing back the same thing. This is not the same in just bringing back one house. That may be what he wants, but that may not be if he were to replat this. It isn't the same. Mr. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: You know, we just did have a subdivision east of Observation Point that we required to go -- that wanted an R-8 and made them go R-4, which these guys are R-4, and we also made a minimum house size of 2,000. That kind of sticks with me. Even though this is part of Observation Point, Mr. Nary's right, if they want to come back and I guess replat it and redo that, they could do that, but I -- I mean I, for one, am not going to let them go anything less than a -- what we have approved for R-4's out around there. It's not fair to the Meridian Greens or the existing Observation Point people. Now, I understand it's in there and I hate putting anybody through this kind of stuff and, like I said, I wish they could see their way clear to build a 2,100 square foot place down there and they wouldn't have any problems at all. Because I know as far as I'm concerned, the rest of it can go on the whole two lots. De Weerd: So, what would make it a conforming use? Only making this the square footage of 2,100? Nary: I think so. Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, if you require a sewer connection and a minimum house size of 2,100 square feet, there is no need to approve this. I mean, basically, you're just denying the request for the extension or expansion of the nonconforming use. Nary: Right. De Weerd: Yeah. But, then, would they have to green up the rest of -- I mean would they have to do the rest of the improvements to that lot? So, would you have to do that? Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 28 of 58 Powell: It would be a buildable lot within a subdivision. They would be subject to the general maintenance requirements that every homeowner is subject to, which includes keeping your property free of weeds. Nichols: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: It's a plat note the minimum square footage is 2,100 square feet? Okay. Thank you. Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, the one thing you might not get is we did have some -- some specific things that staff had recommended in their staff report regarding the placement of the house. It goes beyond what would be required of the zoning ordinance as far as setbacks. We did ask them to locate the driveway, so that it could be accessed from the side, although they are still showing it as front loading, is my understanding. The idea was to facilitate a road coming from some other direction, not immediately off of Victory Road. We did have them set it back a little bit further in anticipation of a future landscape lot along Victory Road. De Weerd: I think they agreed to that last week. Powell: I was just -- yes. I just was getting to your point of if this is denied and they just come in for a building permit on sewer with 2,100 square foot minimum, what do we lose? Those are the things that you might lose. Sheffield: Madam President, we did redesign the plans, so it could have either a side entry or a front loaded garage. It was an almost perfectly square garage and we had the plan designed to put a header in that side, so that if we ever did get development on that lot, we could make an end driveway, instead of a front driveway. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Elliott, did you -- she said they didn't want to -- on and off of Victory Road. Where are you coming on and off from? Sheffield: Right now it's Victory Road. Bird: That's what I was going to say. I don't know where you can come on and off, unless you build an expensive bridge over that canal. De Weerd: Well, I think staff thought if the rest of that developed also residential, they would delete the access off of Victory and make a bridge over the canal. I think that's what the thought was. Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 29 of 58 Powell: Or that it be accessed from the larger property to the west and I should point out we have -- there is an application coming in for the property to the west, so you will likely see some commercial development occurring in that area. It's already there. There is some additional commercial development. I would like to point out that the site plan that the applicant has submitted does -- the access is -- comes off and through the landscape lot, not through -- the landscape lot does not go all the way across the frontage there and the applicant is -- their driveway is through the landscape lot. De Weerd: How big is that, Elliott? Sheffield: I beg your pardon? De Weerd: How big is this piece? Sheffield: 1.88 acres. If I could address Anna also, Madam President. De Weerd: Okay. Sheffield: On that landscape lot, when we reverse the houses it's what happened to get the driveway on that side, so we could have access. So, that's how it got partially into that landscape lot. Powell: Yeah. I should have gone into it. That was a result of staff's request that they push the house back further in anticipation of that additional 20 feet of landscape lot being provided at -- if the property were to redevelop, that the landscape lot does not extend across the full frontage of Victory Road, so I guess we were anticipating that there would be a replat at some point and wanted to push the house away from Victory Road and that's when the driveway shifted location to the landscape lot. If they were to just come in for a building permit, I don't believe we would allow them to take access off the landscape lot in and of itself. I guess they'd have to just show that they had an access agreement with the other owner, which since it's them, it's probably pretty easy to get, but -- De Weerd: Well, this is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone else who wants to testify on this application? Any other questions for Mr. Sheffield? Okay. Any other comments, Elliott? Sheffield: I don't think so. De Weerd: Okay. Any comments, Council, before the Public Hearing is closed? Staff, any other comments? Powell: No, ma'am. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird: Madam President? Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 30 of 58 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: With that, I would move that we close the Public Hearing CUP 03-047 for Observation Point Subdivision, request for a Conditional Use Permit. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item No. 11. All those in favor I say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Discussion? Mr. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: As I -- Mr. Sheffield stated that it was 1.67 acres. If they wanted to come back and replat it -- well, Bill or Bill can answer it. Then, they could probably put five houses in there; right? On an R-4? And wouldn't have to have a -- I mean, we could set a minimum, but it wouldn't have to be 2,100. Nary: Probably three with setbacks, roadways, all of that. Bird: Probably get three or four lots on it. Nary: Right. Bird: Well, if you got 1.6 acres I think he said. Sheffield: 1.88. De Weerd: 1.8 Bird: What? Sheffield: 1.88. Bird: 1.88? Sheffield: Yes. Bird: So, you're looking at, what, 70, 80 thousand square feet. And taking out roadway and everything, you'd still have enough to have four -- easily four or five 8,000 square foot lots. Anyway, that they could do that. So, that's just something to throw out. Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 31 of 58 De Weerd: I guess as part of discussion, even though there hasn't been a motion made, it's a nonconforming use, but I -- as I recall another nonconforming use, I think this one fits -- fits the area. It -- I don't have a problem with it and I know you don't want to set precedent, but this is not a bad precedent to set when you get one house, when you could get four and an improvement from what you have and a green space. It seems -- it seems like it would be an asset to the community and most nonconforming use requests that we get are not necessarily an asset. So, I guess that would be my only comment. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess my last comment is I don't even disagree with what you're saying, but it is a legal shoehorn to do it this way. What they should -- my opinion, what they should do is replat this lot, take it out of Observation Point, come in with one house, two houses, whatever, and let us evaluate that. But this is a shoehorn method to get around doing that and they were told when this was platted that that's what they would have to do and I think that's what they have to do. I don't disagree with what you're saying that what they are wanting to do is better than what's there, but that's not the standard that we are supposed to live by is just do what's better than what's there. There is lots of places in this town that we would probably have it run amuck if that was the standard and that's not what we are here to do. They can replat this, they can figure out what's the appropriate thing here, whether it's office was like originally intended or talked about back in 2000 or whether it was one house, two houses, three houses, whatever. I mean -- but that's -- that's the right method, at least to me, that they should follow and that's not what they are wanting to do and what we are wanting to do perpetuates a situation that we don't, at least to me, want to continue. We told them what to do and that's what they need to do, so -- Mr. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: My last comment. I agree with Councilman Nary that they can do that, but I'm going to tell you, this Council is not going to let a 1,400 square foot house go down there if they replat, because we haven't done anything around Observation or that to do that, so I would personally feel better allowing a 1,400 square foot house go on it like it is, instead of having them replat it and put four or five houses in there. That's my final words. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I will make a motion. I'm going to move to deny CUP 03-047, request for a Conditional Use Permit to demolish the existing home and rebuild one single family residential dwelling for a caretaker's quarters on Lot 2, Block 2, of Observation Point Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 32 of 58 Subdivision in an R-4 zone by RF Construction at 500 East Victory Road, pursuant to the staff comments of denial from the Planning and Zoning Department, as well as the discussion of both the previous hearing and this hearing and for Council to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order for denial. McCandless: Second. Bird: Question. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Bill, did you say the denial of Planning and Zoning Commission? Nary: No, the Planning and Zoning Department. Bird: Oh. Okay. Sorry. De Weerd: So, your motion is to deny the request? Nary: Yes. De Weerd: And to not approve the recommendation of Planning and Zoning Commission. Nary: Correct. De Weerd: Okay. Well, it's been moved and seconded to deny Item No.11, CUP 03- 047. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, nay; Bird, nay. Bird: I knew we were going to do that. De Weerd: We need the Mayor. Nary: That's the problem with not having a fifth -- Mr. Wardle, do you -- Mr. Clerk, do you have the oath? De Weerd: Yeah. We can do an emergency -- Bird: Well, now, Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: We ran into this last week and we got it solved, so which one of you yeas want to -- De Weerd: Which one of you yahoos -- Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 33 of 58 Bird: Well, I bent last week for you, so -- De Weerd: I'm not changing my vote, so -- Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Nichols, I know under parliamentary rules that if it's a tie vote the motion fails. It would appear that we would have -- if we went the opposite direction that we may have a tie vote again and the motion would fail. So, then, what? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, you earn your money now. Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, I think, then, the matter is not decided and you would have to continue this on your agenda and you would have to bring it up and vote on it and bring it up and vote on it and bring it up and vote on it until a decision is made. Bird: Until we get five people here. De Weerd: Okay. Well, I would entertain a motion to continue. Bird: Do we have to open the Public Hearing? Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, you do not have to open the Public Hearing, it's just a matter of making the decision. Bird: Madam President? Nichols: But, Madam President, if I can interject a little further, you have the addition -- I mean what happens if it goes into January and those Council members who have not had an opportunity to at least read the record. So, that I don't know the answer to. But as long as it's in front of Council, I don't think you have to reopen the Public Hearing to continue it. You can just simply continue it on the agenda for decision. De Weerd: Well, Mr. Berg, I would suggest that when these minutes are typed up, to, please, package them and get them out to the new Council members, as well as the Mayor. I did talk to him today and he did indicate a desire that he would be at one or two meetings before the end of his term and so we would hope that is the case, so if you can at least get information out to the Mayor and the new Council members, so they are prepared, we will at least have this resolved by the middle of January. Berg: Madam President, I will do so, but I think we currently are getting disks from the Council meetings, so they do have a file electronically of what you have been seeing throughout the process, but I will make sure that they will have a written copy, so that they can see it separately. Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 34 of 58 De Weerd: Thank you. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we continue CUP 03-047, Conditional Use Permit for Observation Point Subdivision in an R-4 zone by RF Construction until -- let's go next week. De Weerd: I would suggest at least the first week -- Bird: December 9, 2003. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue Item No. 11 until December 9, 2003. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: And since both our Council members were here last week and Mr. Wardle was here this week, they probably have the advantage of being at least prepared and perhaps the Mayor will be back with us on the 9th, so – Item 12. Public Hearing: CUP 03-042 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new Carl’s Jr. restaurant with drive-thru service window by Clayton Jones – north of Intersection of South Meridian Road, East Central Drive and South Main Street: De Weerd: Okay. Moving on. Item 12 is a Public Hearing for CUP 03-042, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new Carl's Junior restaurant with drive-thru service window by Clayton Jones and we will open the staff -- or the Public Hearing with staff comments. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Before the staff report, I just wanted to make it clear on the public record that I did have a discussion with Mr. Jones after the last denial of this request regarding his application. I don't even know if what he submitted is what he talked to me about. I told him at the time I wasn't going to commit to anything in regards to this application, but simply he was giving me information, asking some clarification from the last meeting, so I just wanted to make sure that was on the record, that we have had a conversation, but it wasn't -- I don't even know it's the same site plan as what he talked to me about, so -- Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 35 of 58 De Weerd: And you talked to him before a new application was filed. Nary: Right. And before a new application was filed. De Weerd: Okay. Any problem with that, Council? Nichols: Madam President. No, the requirement of the historic preservation case is that it be disclosed on the record and, technically, that probably only applies to things after an application is filed and so Councilman Nary has gone beyond that disclosure preapplication. Nary: That's why we are here. De Weerd: Okay. Staff. Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, this site is located between Meridian and Main Street. There is an existing Kentucky Fried Chicken on the property. We will briefly go through some of these things. I did want to focus on the new site plan to show you what it has. Or this shows more of the site. I'm sorry. I didn't notice that Christy had trimmed up the last one so much. But you can see the Kentucky Fried Chicken off to the south in this area here. Focusing on the site plan, they would come in on off of Meridian Road and they would enter in this location. Got to go down. Yeah. She trimmed off too much. They come off Meridian Road, through here. This would be the drive aisle, the stacking lane. There is enough room for seven cars in that stacking and, then, they would exit approximately at the middle of the site where they could go either to Meridian Road or Main Street. In the staff report Steve went to great lengths to describe the previous approvals and the concerns -- or, I'm sorry, previous applications and the previous denials and to detail out what the Council's concerns were regarding those applications and then he addressed how the new site plan did address those concerns. So, the primary concerns were congestion, circulation, stacking, and parking. Based on Council's previous concerns with the site plan and based on the zoning code, staff had recommended approval of this project as it went to the Planning and Zoning Commission and they have forwarded their approval to you as well. To summarize the Public Hearing, they did hear from the applicant Clayton Jones, who testified in favor. Skip Hofferber, who is the owner of Taco Time behind the Chevron on the other side of Main Street. Phil Atteberry representing KFC. They still had a lot of concerns about congestion and blocking their stacking lanes, which begin right -- their aisle -- drive-thru aisle begins at this location. I believe they have room for five vehicles to stack, whereas the applicant has provided room for seven vehicles to stack. Jonathan Gibbs, the owner of the property, testified about the parking arrangements and the Welcome to Meridian sign. I'll get back to that sign in just a moment. The key issues of discussion were the Welcome to Meridian sign and, then, congestion, circulation, stacking and parking. And, again, based on the concerns that Council had expressed last time, staff did feel that this site plan met those concerns. Specifically, there are -- they will be providing more parking spaces than are currently on the site and the parking exceeds the requirements for our code by about 50 percent -- or I mean it's almost nearly double what is required by our ordinance. In the second site design Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 36 of 58 the drive-thru aisle, people were required to the cross the drive-thru aisle to get to the main entrance of the property. That's not the case here. They will be parking here, as well as over here and, then, I think there is some handicapped spots here. This parking is likely to be used more by Kentucky Fried Chicken and the proposal is to label these for employee use, although I think there was -- there was a bit of testimony about whether or not it would -- that would occur. I think if there were open ones, then, the customers would probably use those. Congestion was really the outstanding issue for the Council as to whether or not this site can just support the two drive-thrus that are proposed and that is a judgment call on the Council -- part of the Council at this point. The other one was circulation. We do believe the circulation is improved. The drive- thru aisle, although they have to wrap around quite a bit, it unloads at kind of a central location, rather than right here next to the entrance onto Main so they have kind of provided a central location for this -- the output of the drive-thru lane. Regarding the Welcome to Meridian sign, this was proposed -- here we go. This was one of the older ones. But it was proposed to be basically in this location here. That portion of property is within the KFC lease. The owner is -- suspects that he will not be able to get permission for a sign in that location. He is working with the Ada County Highway District to get a license agreement to put that sign in the highway district property here. It is a very visible location, as you're aware, at the junction of those two streets. They have proposed a rather nice sign feature. The question that came up at the planning commission -- let's see if there is a copy of the sign. No. The question that came up at the planning commission was whether or not it was appropriate for what the city wanted to do in future efforts. So, the city kind of gave -- we put a condition of approval that the city would have until September of 2004 to come up with an alternative sign design, if they wanted one, and, then, the applicant had agreed to -- to have a 5,000 dollar bond out there that could be used for the construction of that sign. If the city couldn't come up with a design, then, they would construct the sign as they had proposed it. I do have all the old landscape plans available for you. Oh, I do need to point out one minor change. You will notice here it says landscape plan not revised. In reviewing this with Steve, we did realize that this landscape island here needs to be trimmed just to get the full drive aisle width and, then, FCC -- SSC -- the trash folks had concerns about this landscape island, because it blocks their access to this, but as you see on this one, those two areas are circled. We just increased the radius on that corner, so that they'd have an opportunity there. We had to pull out I believe two parking spaces there, so that there would be room for the trash trucks, the front-enders -- front load ones to maneuver. It's still, according to our standards, over-parked, but I do understand that there are a lot of people out there. I believe that addresses staff's remaining concerns and summarized the Planning and Zoning Commission. I would sit for any other questions. Mr. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, you guys are for this now and where has it helped in the congestion? You're shoving the traffic from around the drive-thru out into the traffic that comes through the Taco Bell and it's -- as I understand it -- I might be wrong, but as I understand it, the same guy owns all that property that has Bolo's, Taco Bell, and KW on there and everything else -- I don't know what percentage of business that Kentucky Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 37 of 58 Fried has that actually goes in and sits down and eats in the restaurant, compared to drive-thru, but I don't think it's major. Carl's might have more sit down deal and you still -- you know, you're bringing cars around, except for one place to get to the -- inside the store, you got to come over and enter and you do have some parking there, but you don't have -- if it's crowded you don't have enough parking, so why have we -- just because they took the drive-thru and exited it out on the north side, instead of the east side, all of a sudden it's approvable. Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, I suspect that was a bit of a rhetorical question, but I will answer it. As I tried to point out in the presentation, we tried to look at the previous denials, the two previous denials, and what Council's concerns were and, then, we look at the zoning ordinance and from the Council's past concerns and our zoning ordinance, it would appear that this was an improvement over the past designs and probably an improvement over the existing structure, which is larger and traffic circulation doesn't seem to work and I also tried to make it clear that congestion still is the key question. Can this -- it's the question of whether or not this site can support another drive-thru has been discussed by you two times now and the answer at those were not absolutely no, they were, no, this is site design doesn't do that. So, yes, that is still a remaining question and maybe the answer is, no, it just is not possible to support another drive-thru business. But based on Council's past actions and based on the zoning ordinance, staff did feel that this -- that they could recommend approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Bird: Thank you. De Weerd: Any other questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant here? Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Jones: Yes, it is. De Weerd: Please state your name and address. Jones: Clayton Jones, 14071 West Rochester Drive in Boise and I have got some of these designs that may help you -- you can look at them. The last page is an 11-by-17. I'd like to thank you for allowing me to present a fresh look at -- at this project and I'd just like to take you back for just a moment to about a year and a half ago when -- when the Kentucky Fried Chicken opened with their KFC what a wonderful dual concept it was. They were busy as heck, cars parking on side streets, just -- it was just an incredible -- incredible opening and great honeymoon period. Then, some idiot came before you and proposed a -- to put a 4,000 square foot building on that same lot while it was in the honeymoon period and going crazy with about 150 seats. I have repented. And what -- what I wanted to point out here to start is that the conditions on the site are different today than they were a year and a half ago. The businesses over there are now benefiting from that first trial period and the issues that were before the Council at that time don't exist to that great extent. We are here again before you today, because at our last meeting Mr. Nary graciously gave a few suggestions as to how we may approach the Council again to -- for approval. I appreciate the meeting that we had Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 38 of 58 with Mr. Nary and this is pretty much the site plan that we discussed. I also appreciate our Planning and Zoning and Anna and Steve, they have given a couple of very, very good suggestions that helped the project. If I could just take a second or two to go through the store and the layout and how it might meet concerns, I'd appreciate it. We are proposing a 2,500 square foot building, which is just a tad large than the building that we proposed last time around. It was 2,000 feet. But what we have done is we have kind of commingled two of our prototype buildings and we've really kept the same size kitchen in the larger prototype to accommodate for faster service and it just -- it's a better flow for us, while at the same time we have limited our dining room space to 45 seats. So, we are, in essence, encouraging people to use the drive-thru, rather than the dining room. Our normal dining rooms are about 100 seats. So, we are limiting that space to encourage people to go through the drive-thru. You will notice -- and this was actually Anna's suggestion -- that we move the speaker a little bit forward to accommodate seven cars behind the speaker, which would definitely keep the cars out of the aisle ways, which is going to really benefit the congestion situation. On the KFC side -- and what happens, they can accommodate three cars behind their speaker, that fourth car is, actually, in their parking lot. By the time they get to seven cars, they have actually blocked all of their parking spaces in front of their store. So, I think we have done -- my architect has done a good job to design this in a beneficial way. Again, we are -- as staff commented, we are exiting in the middle to give the folks in the drive-thru through the opportunity to go in either direction, so that they are not going to backup at Main Street or 1st Street, they can have their choice. If we could have the larger -- thank you. On the Main Street side, it's pretty much understood or thought that that's going to be used by mostly employees. You know, we are going to have probably six cars or so on our staff. I'm sure KFC's about the same. I would assume that that would be used mostly for parking -- for employees over there. However, we are not going to limit it to just employees if there are open spots. On the south side of our drive-thru lane there is parking for -- really, you know, it's on the lot that we are proposing, but it's specifically designed to accommodate the KFC folks. We have also delineated that parking with a small barrier fence to encourage the KFC folks to park there, so that they are going the other way, rather than -- than coming over to our store. In front of our building there we have -- excuse me. To the west we have got approximately 18 spots, which for a 45 seat dining room should accommodate things very nicely. The two spots that are closest to the Taco Bell location, we envision those to be probably the manager and assistant manager, some cars that aren't going to be moving back and forth very often. I think in our last session with the Council, we had handicapped spots there and it just didn't seem like it was a good idea to do that into the traffic. The project -- I'm happy to say that the project does address all the concerns that staff had regarding the flow, congestion and even parking. I think that KFC ends up with the same amount of parking spots that they are currently enjoying. We have adequate parking to accommodate our use and Taco Bell and Bolo's still have the 60 additional parking spots on their lot. The objection to our project is pretty much I think centered around the drive-thru as being a hindrance to the lot. Well, I would, actually, submit that the drive-thru, actually, solves the problems, because it's encouraging people to come in, get their food, and get out, rather than sit down for 30, 40 minutes and take up the valuable parking space. So, I would submit that the drive-thru and our use actually solve the problem over there as it's designed now, maybe not how I first proposed it to you. The amenity that was talked about regarding the sign, we are happy to provide a Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 39 of 58 -- what I think is a really nice -- really nice sign for the city and if the -- you know, if -- if it's adopted we will be glad to put it in. If the city has another design, we will be glad to contribute towards that. The exciting part is I do have the license agreement from ACHD for the sign. It's location is -- is pretty much on the point of the intersection of Main Street with 1st. The location -- the exact location is going to be -- have to be determined after the ACHD construction. And I believe this is in staff's packet. They have got the designs of the sign. But we would be glad to provide the city with a wonderful amenity and we were excited that ACHD had some extra ground for us to use. We are also able, as you can see on the site plan that we gave you, that we are able to address the concerns of the sanitary district. Just some final points. I don't mean to take up too much time. But I visited the site every Thursday, Friday, Saturday and on other occasions during the last three months and have found that there are -- that there is not the congestion that there once was, that the site flow works on both sides. The KFC side works just fine. The Taco Bell site works just fine. The only problem is -- is that middle part where people are kind of parking where ever they want and really creating some congestion, especially on that west side. But our site plan addresses that and, actually, improves the site and solves the current problems. So far this is the sixth hearing that I have been to and I really hate to impose and take up time, but to this point I haven't -- I don't believe there is any -- there has been any Meridian resident that came in and testified in opposition to the Carl's Junior. As a matter of fact, I think that they will welcome another choice at that location. The only folks at this point that have been opposed to it have been the competitors on both sides and I don't know if they are -- you know, the first time, you know, maybe they had a right to, but I think with this plan addressing all the concerns, the staff's concerns, and our concerns, frankly, I think that -- I think they -- that they shouldn't be able to object at this point. You know, I don't know if it's an attempt to protect their own businesses or -- and I don't know if they think I'm that big of a threat, but I don't believe so. I think that all of together will actually create a good synergy and, actually, attract additional guests to the -- to the site. Now, I don't -- and, you know, who knows, it may be a little pay back or something for past misdeeds of mine. But, in conclusion, I think we have brought you a good project that is in harmony with the adjacent uses, that solves the problems at hand that are currently on the site and that meets all the -- actually, meets and exceeds the criteria and the ordinances of the city and I would ask that Council approve the restaurant and drive-thru use. I'd stand for any questions. Mr. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. Jones -- and I know this is something Carl's Junior knows. What percent of business in a Carl's Junior is sit-down trade? Jones: Currently at my other restaurants we are at about 58 percent drive-thru, so that would be 42 percent dining room. Those are with nice, big, beautiful dining rooms. This one is going to be quite small and limited -- limited seats, so I am going to assume or suspect that this location will be up in the 70 percent. Bird: Do you have the one at Crossroads? Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 40 of 58 Jones: Yes. Bird: Okay. And that is 58 percent drive-thru? Jones: That particular one is like 52. People do go into there specifically for the playground use and they stay there a long time and enjoy it. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Jones: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Are there any others that would want to testify in favor for this project? Please raise your right hand. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Gibbs: Yes. De Weerd: Please state your name and address. Gibbs: Jonathan Gibbs. I'm the administrative partner in G&H Enterprises, 9502 Scorpio, Boise, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Gibbs: It's a pleasure for me to be here again testifying. I wish we hadn't had to go this many times, but we appreciate you guys' patience on this project and we have tried to -- as we have gone through these meetings and heard your testimonies and the problems with the project, we have tried to accommodate those by making the changes to make everything fit on here. I know there is a lot of concern still from certain people about the drive-thru traffic and how much congestion it is. If they do very -- if they are moving them along very smoothly, they are lucky to get one car through the drive-thru in a minute and you probably have at any stoplight in the city that has a minute timing on the stoplight, many cars backed up. There is not a lot of congestion through a drive-thru if they are running them smoothly at a minute at a time. There is a lot of room coming out of that exit there adjacent to the Taco Bell to turn either direction without going over into the Taco Bell drive-thru lane at all. There is -- there would be no congestion on the drive-thru lane at all and I think that was mentioned by someone, that there would be congestion there. We changed that -- the last drawing we had I think everybody had to turn to the east there out of that drive-thru and at you guys' suggestion we made that drive-thru exit, so it would -- there would be more room and that you could go either way easily. There is plenty of room on that new drawing to turn either way on the entrance-exit, either to go to Meridian or to Main Street now with this new drawing. I think it's an excellent plan. I think they would probably run 30 percent inside and 70 percent through that drive-thru and I don't think there would be a lot of congestion on that lot with this setup and with them in there. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 41 of 58 Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Gibbs, how far across that lane is the -- when you come out of that drive-thru? You said there is a left clearance from the Taco Bell drive-thru lane. How much space is that? Gibbs: What is the distance across there on that -- De Weerd: What is the distance? Nichols: Madam President -- De Weerd: If you could, please, answer that. Gibbs: What? De Weerd: We need the question answered on the Public Hearing. You need to answer it for us. Gibbs: Yes. There is 23 feet. Nary: Twenty-three feet from here to there? Isn't this -- is this the divider of the -- this is the Taco Bell lane right here; correct? Gibbs: Yes. Nary: So, you're saying from this exit out, comes out -- that's the old one. From this exit out to this, the Taco Bell lane is somewhere over here, is 23 feet? Bird: Your architect engineer don't know what he's doing there. De Weerd: I'm sorry, we will have to have -- Gibbs: I don't have the plans with the dimensions on it. Nichols: Madam President, somebody that's actual got scale drawings of both of those locations in -- that can measure and give you the information, rather than asking Mr. Gibbs to speculate, I think -- or ask somebody else in the audience, it will go faster. De Weerd: Thank you. Gibbs: I don't know. De Weerd: Good answer. Any other questions? Thank you. Is that in our packet? Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 42 of 58 We will ask the applicant to respond to that when he comes up for the rebuttal. It is a Public Hearing. Is there any further testimony in favor of this application? Okay. We will take testimony in opposition. Is Mr. -- well, is Skip here? Skip, would you like to testify? Okay. Payne: I'm Bruce Payne from Taco Bell. De Weerd: Okay. Bruce, if you will, please -- is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Payne: It is. De Weerd: Okay. Please state your name and address. Payne: Bruce Payne. 1625 Fairmont Drive, Weiser, Idaho. I'm not from Meridian. I'm representing Taco Bell in that location. I'm curious as to how many feet it's going to be between my -- our drive-up -- his drive-up exit and our building. If it's 23 feet, you got a car that's going to go in between that, plus two lanes of traffic -- lanes of traffic going both ways. Our biggest concern is we are also doing, you know, 65 percent of our business through the drive-up, which amounts to about 400 cars a day, plus what the Carl's Junior is going to do and their cars a day, plus what A&W is doing and their cars a day. It's going to get really, really -- it's already really crowded in there. I have been there at lunch, worked at lunch, worked there at dinner, the traffic is horrible to get in and out of there. I mean it's backing up to both -- both sides, both highways. Our biggest concern is our guests. Our guests are going to be getting possibly in traffic accidents -- it's just crowded in there constantly and just -- the idea of putting more and more people there is going to increase business, I mean it gets to the point where it's ludicrous, where you can't get in and you can't get out and, you know, great, so there is a lot of parking, but you have got four -- our 400 cars going in and out of there, their 400 cars, and A&W's 400 cars going in there a day, that's -- I mean Albertson's would be glad to have that many cars come into their parking lot a day. So, I mean our concern is our guests, our employees, and the safety of them walking around all these cars. And, then, Bolo's, you know, if anybody has been there on a Thursday, Friday, or Saturday night, they take a lot -- there is a lot of people in there also. Traffic is horrible in there. I don't know. I like Carl's Junior, I eat at your locations, but it's not -- competition is great, but too much competition is almost scary and we are concerned about traffic and our guests and our employees. Thank you very much. De Weerd: Thank you. Any other testimony? Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Hofferber: Yes. De Weerd: Please state your name and address. Hofferber: My name is Skip Hofferber, 2074 South Pebble Creek, Boise. And I do have the Taco Time on 785 Corporate across from there and I did in bring in some pictures for the staff and Mr. Berg copied them for you, so you can look at -- and these pictures Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 43 of 58 were taken -- they are dated at the bottom of October 31st during lunchtime, roughly 12:20 to 12:50, and as you can tell -- could you -- excuse me. Anna, could you put up the one site plan that shows the KFC and -- there you go. And if you look at the pictures, the lot is full here, down along the side. There are cars illegally parked here. There are cars parked here now. And these people aren't even open yet. I understand there is a cross-access, cross-easement parking with Bolo's and it is -- Bolo's -- there is a lot of them that park there and they park there for hours. There is not enough parking now, let alone the congestion. If you look at the -- how the cars are going back and forth between here with cars parked and I'm trying to figure how you're going to -- six, eight employees, as Mr. Jones says, where they are going to park, where their people are going to park, their customers. On our site we have four ingress-egresses off onto Main Street, Progress, and East Corporate. There is two on one. So, we only have 48 seats, too, and I run roughly 52 percent through my drive-thru. We have cross-access parking of about 65 between the Chevron and myself, and with 48 seats and only one drive-thru. I'm trying to figure out by adding another drive-thru and another -- only 45, 48 seats, where that's going to -- you know, the improvement has been made in this new project here. And also coming out here with these -- these are 90 degree corners and out here, like you say, this distance here you have two lanes of traffic going each way, plus a drive-thru turn in over there, plus the Taco Bell drive-thru and I -- I was there tonight at 6:10 prior to coming here and it's the same way there tonight and they are not open. So, I'm trying to figure out where this is all going to -- you know, they made it better by, you know, changing a few things and backing up seven cars in the stack lane and that, because, like on my side, like I said, we have four ingress- egresses. On this one here they have two for four businesses, three of them wanting drive-thrus, two of them already having drive-thrus. I just think the congestion is too great there and I think it's -- you know, he calls it competition, whatever, sure, well, you know, don't want to see 12 restaurants in there and when you try to shoe horn them in like you're doing here, I think it's going to be a detriment to everybody and the safety of people. I know Mr. Gibbs testified at the Planning and Zoning that he had two other people without drive- thrus that he could put in there and I -- I wonder why it hasn't been pursued, you know, just for obvious reasons of safety and accessibility for all the other tenants. So, that's all. There is one other thing. I know the amenities, they were talking about, I know I spoke with a few of the other business people, as I am here in Meridian, and we would be more than happy to get an entrance, because we are proud of being in business in Meridian and I think it would be nice to have a sign there and I think we have -- among ourselves, there is five or six of us, talked that we would be more than happy to put that together and have a sign there, because I think it would be nice, you know. I mean I don't think you need to approve this. We can get the sign done for you on a basis of the existing business, people in the city. So, thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Hofferber. Powell: Madam President, while there is a break in between, the narrowest dimension on the drive aisle at the -- at the western location is 27 feet to the edge of the Taco Bell drive-thru, so there is a differentiated paving area there. The maximum dimension is 30 feet. So, it varies between 27 and 30 feet. Minimum drive aisle requirements per the code are 25 feet. Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 44 of 58 De Weerd: And so what's the distance between the drive aisle and the building? Powell: We didn't measure that. Hold on. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: While you're looking at that, Mrs. Powell, where is the window for Taco Bell? Is it directly across here? No. No. No. For Taco Bell. Right there? So, the lights from these cars are going to shine right in that window? Bird: From right here to right there you're saying -- how wide is that? Powell: It's 27 feet at the western end and 30 feet at the east end. No. I'm sorry. The western end of the drive-thru exit, from this point right there to that point -- Bird: To that point right there? Powell: Is 27 feet. Bird: Is 27 feet? Powell: Yes. Then, there is an additional 12 feet for the -- Bird: But it's full of cars. Powell: Right. I'm sorry. Councilmember -- or President de Weerd had asked what it was to the building, so it's an additional 12 feet. De Weerd: Okay. Nary: And my question was the drive-thru window is directly across from this exit? Powell: I'm not sure. You will need to have someone else testify to that. I'm not sure. De Weerd: And we can ask the applicant when he comes for rebuttal. Is there anymore testimony? Didn't mean to look at you, Mr. Atteberry, but -- is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Atteberry: Yes, it is. De Weerd: Please state your name and address. Atteberry: My name is Phil Atteberry. My address 1756 Stony Brook Court, Eagle. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 45 of 58 Atteberry: I believe this is the sixth meeting that I have come to on this same project here and it's still -- you know, the building's changed and the drive-thru's changed and the dimension of the building has changed three times. We still have a drive-thru here, a proposed drive-thru here, and a drive-thru over here at KFC. The distance between this drive-thru and KFC's drive-thru is just -- it's just so congested in there now, I can't imagine what it would be like with a third drive-thru in there. This designer spent some time on it, I -- this redesign for this entrance-exit here is great. I think that's something we should do anyway, whether Carl's Junior goes there or somebody else goes there. Up here we really need that, because that gets blocked off when a car goes across out of here right now. I mean that's a good idea, but these right here and these here -- some of these people are going to be Carl's Junior's customers. Their front door is here. And at some point they are walking through this drive lane here and the landscaping and young children and I have been doing KFC for 30 years and 20 years ago when drive-thru's came around we used to put drive-thrus any way we could around a building. The city just -- it was something new. But this day and time, drive- thrus, you have to have lanes that are out of the pedestrian parking I would think, that we try to make drive-thrus so that they -- you could get in and out very easily and adding a third drive-thru to this small area is not going to make this conducive to more business. Commissioner Centers at the last meeting, he said, well, we will pass it on and if it's just too congested for the customers, they just won't go there. I really don't think that's what our attitude should be, that it's just too congested. Customers don't go there. He even testified that he won't go there now it's so congested. I just don't think that's what we ought to be doing when we are planning out another drive-thru and businesses. You know, KFC has been in business for 30 years, we spent a lot of money putting a brand new building there, and are we excited about Carl's Junior going in there with a drive-thru? No. Would we be excited about anybody going in there with a drive-thru? We won't be. That's no secret on my part. Because if it gets too congested there, we all lose. Nobody -- nobody does well. The city doesn't win on that deal either. It's just that people will avoid that corner. So, I would hope that the City Council would deny the request. De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. Atteberry, that's basically -- if you didn't come around the building, is basically -- and you went straight out, is basically your old drive-thru. Atteberry: That's correct. Bird: And it was a pain in the -- Atteberry: It was a pain. Bird: It was a pain in the throat that way. Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 46 of 58 Atteberry: Correct. Bird: And you had no other drive-thrus in there. Atteberry: Right. When we bought the restaurant three and a half years ago, we immediately started the process to change that. I mean we were busy. We were out in the road, because it was just not conducive to continually doing business. I mean somebody else was going to come in with a better drive-thru and they were going to go there for convenience, because ours was just so dang busy there. And this drive-thru exit right in front of Taco Bell, I mean I -- speaking for Taco Bell, to have a drive-thru that's exiting right at their window with traffic going this way and this way, plus a drive- thru lane, to say that that's not going to be congested and this is going to be better than what it was now, I would have to disagree. De Weerd: Any other questions? Thank you. Atteberry: Thank you. De Weerd: Is there any further testimony? Okay. Would the applicant -- Jones: Thank you for the opportunity. I just wanted to clarify that staff is pretty close it looks like about just under 30 feet on the west side of the drive-thru exit, plus the drive- thru aisle for Taco Bell, so 42 feet up until the building is the narrower point and, then, add a couple of feet on the eastern side. Just to I guess, rebut a few points. Skip mentioned his restaurant across the way, that they do 52 percent drive-thru. I think we are going to be doing way more. Way more. And his -- actually, his concerns seemed to be the parking that wasn't adequate. Well, I think his 21 spots that he's got on his lot seem to do him just -- just fine and I would stipulate with my 48 seats that mine would be adequate as well. The other point, ACHD in their report did a study and they felt that the site was adequate to accommodate the additional traffic that might be generated by our building and the Taco Bell -- I haven't met this gentleman before, but I would love to have 400 cars go through my drive-thru in a day. I don't -- that's not going to happen. Anyway, so we are probably exaggerating just a tad to make a point, but I think we have done a great job to accommodate the site, the needs of the site, and we have, actually, done a good job to improve it. Mr. Atteberry -- you know, I think there is lots of kids that are, actually, going up across his parking lot as his drive-thru gets backed up and I'm sure that the cars and his guests take just as much concern as my guests will for the safety of all that are in there. People aren't going to be zooming around at 20 miles an hour. So, anyway, with that I want to stay positive. I think this is a good project. I appreciate all the comments from staff, from Council, and helping us to finally present you with a -- with a workable plan. De Weerd: Questions for Mr. Jones? You know, I guess I do have a question. Once they started doing the measurements, I really zeroed in on those two parking spots there. Why on earth do you have parking spots in that drive area? Jones: The two just to the west? Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 47 of 58 De Weerd: Yeah. If you don't need those, why do you want them there? Jones: We could remove them. You know, because everybody's concern seems to be the parking. We, generally, have a manager and a shift leader on. Those could easily go for those employees that are working the eight hour shifts and they wouldn't be going in and out of those spaces all the time, so I don't believe that would be an issue, but if that were a condition of approval, we would be glad to remove those two. De Weerd: You know, I guess I would -- this is a much better plan than we have been presented, you know, and I do appreciate it. I just -- I guess with the Bolo's, it's a good thing that Taco Bell has 65 percent drive-thru traffic, because Bolo's is a sit down -- you know, and they take up the parking that Taco Bell has. But the three uses with Taco Bell, Carl's Junior and KFC are -- all peak at the same time, you know, it's all driven at the same time and I guess when we denied this last time and the suggestion was, well, we will come down with a sit-down restaurant or something. But, you know, I guess I look for a use that would compliment what's there and that would be more of a morning type of thing or, you know, something that doesn't compete. I'd hate to suggest another drive-thru because I think three drive-thrus are really too much for that area and I know I have said that before. But even a drive-thru Moxie Java, that gets the bulk of their traffic early in the morning when these other ones are not hitting their peaks, seems to make more sense than a drive-thru and peaks at the same time as everyone else does in that same complex and today we heard a presentation from property owners that had a concern with what ACHD is -- they are going to lose that turn lane in there because that will become a traffic lane once some of the road improvements are readjusted. So, that brings other concerns of accessibility into that area as well. So, have you looked at what those impacts are going to have as well to this area? Jones: Madam President, Members of the Council, I guess we have looked at the ACHD plan that, actually, on Meridian is proposing to prohibit left turns, that's left in and left out, so that will make a right out -- right out situation from the property, so we won't have people stacking back waiting to exit. So, I think, actually, ACHD, you know, may improve our access on the lot. Regarding your comments for peak hours, we do do a greater percent of our business at lunch. It's quick traffic in and out. We have to -- you know, people do need to move their cars. Luckily -- well, I mean I'd love to do more dinner, but Bolo's peaks at dinner. We do not. So, I think in that aspect with fighting the Bolo's traffic, I don't think that -- that we are going to create a problem. And, again, you know 70 percent of our customers are going to go through the drive-thru, freeing up the parking for the other uses. And, additionally, just as a side note, in each -- each time that Mr. Gibbs has come before you, he's pledged to work with Bolo's to resolve some of that problem and I'm sure he's going to find a solution to that for Taco Bell's benefit, our benefit and KFC as well. Nichols: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Mr. Jones, you said that ACHD has approved -- or found no congestion on the site. Can you tell me where that's at in their report? Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 48 of 58 Jones: I was handed -- I was handed the documentation. It looks like page three of the required conditions for approval, letter P, based on development patterns in this area and the resulting traffic generation, staff anticipates that the transportation system, which I guess is the off-site system, will be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this proposed development. Nichols: Well, Mr. Jones, I'm going to differ with you. I think that has to do with the roads. Jones: Yeah. And that's what I said. Nichols: Not on your -- your inside -- inside your boundaries. So, I was just curious -- that's the only one I could find that dealt with traffic generation and then dealt with stuff that -- on the roads themselves and not internal to your site that I could see. Jones: Thank you for the clarification. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Jones, Mr. Atteberry had raised the concern -- and I don't think you have addressed that in your rebuttal -- about this parking and the access into your building. The front entrance faces the west and all of your parking for your customers -- well, not all, but a portion of your parking for your customers is on the south and the east sides, so, therefore, the people have to cross either through the drive-thru or through the parking lot to get all the way around the front of the building. What's your -- I guess what's your response on the safety issue he raised? Jones: My response would be, Madam President and Council Members, the -- and that's why we have proposed or we will designate for our employees to park on the east side in the parking stalls on the east and I would anticipate on each shift somewhere between four and six cars will park there. If we can cooperate with KFC, which, if you approve the project I'm sure we will reach an understanding and cooperation where they will park their employees in that same spot, that would alleviate people from -- in both restaurants, because right now if KFC's customers park there, they are walking across KFC's drive-thru in order to get to their -- in order to get to one of those stores. So, I don't anticipate that -- that too many guests are going to park on that side of the building. The -- once, again, on the south side we have pretty much designated that for KFC and committed -- and there is -- we will put the little fence to delineate KFC's customer currently use parking in that area and I'm sure they will continue to do that. I'm anticipating that our customers are going to park on the west side, which is close to the front entrance and I'm sure they will figure that out as well. De Weerd: Any questions? Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 49 of 58 Bird: Madam President, I do have one question. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. Jones, what are your hours? Jones: The hours are 7:00 in the morning until 11:00, Sunday through Thursday, and, then, we open until midnight on Friday and Saturday. Bird: Okay. De Weerd: I guess my question is you have 27 and, then in cases, 30 feet between your area and the area separating Taco Bell and it looks like you need -- and is that wide enough for two lanes of traffic going through? Jones: Two lanes of traffic. I believe the requirement is 25 feet. De Weerd: Twenty-five. Who comes up with those? Bird: Madam President: De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Yeah. You've still got traffic coming out and if you got a small car -- but if you have a long wheel based pickup or something, in the first place, you're going to have a hard time getting through the drive-thru, But you do that anyway on all drive-thrus. You're going to have a hard -- you're going to have to turn quite a bit and you have got the other traffic coming down Taco Bell and I assure you I have been out to KFC and Taco Bell at all times of the day and their hours are basically I think about the same as yours. And it is congested out there. I have never been able to just drive right up and get to the window and get my food and get out of there. But it's going to be tight. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: And Mr. Jones can certainly comment if he wants, but, you know, I guess to me the issue on this portion is the fact that although the standard is 25 feet and this is 42 feet? Jones: All the way to the building. Nary: From the edge of the building. But 12 feet of that is taken up by a lane here where you have got traffic going west to east and, then, we are still -- I mean that is almost a two lane road. This is not one lane. This is people can turn left and right at the same -- one right after the other, they can come this direction and drive through this lot -- I mean there is no control here and if you have read the minutes the last time, Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 50 of 58 that's one of the things we talked about that you haven't solved is forcing all the traffic one direction here and you can't -- you probably can't do that because when this was designed it was not designed with all of these businesses in mind. This is piece- mealing this in there, but there is not control here from this being three lanes of traffic, one for Taco Bell and two going this way and it's now 42 feet. It's not wide enough. Jones: Madam President, Mr. Nary, is the -- are you thinking that the primary concern is going to be the potential U-turn out of that or if I were to stipulate that there would be a left turn only coming out of the drive-thru, might that aid in your -- in the problems where we are avoiding the U-turn. Because there is enough room to -- Nary: But I guess, Mr. Jones, the problem I'm having is if you make this a left turn only, then you have got to cross traffic here going against each other trying to get out. Bird: And you got to cross traffic -- Nary: And, then, you have got this lane coming up here. If you funneled all the traffic this direction with a right in, right out, it certainly is better, but -- I mean I don't think you have solved all the problems, but I mean this -- this narrow lane here, with it being potentially three different lanes of traffic, if you have got a car here that decides to pull out -- here is the window, so they decide to pull out to come this way, you have got traffic going this way, you have got traffic in this lane here -- I mean it -- I mean it is a nightmare as is being presented by the other property owners. But this site has never been designed to deal with this and I guess I disagree with your one statement that you said Mr. Gibbs has said every time he's been here that he'd work it out with Bolo's. Well, we have been here six times and I don't see it. So I don't really have to buy that yet. I don't see any working out anything. All I see is a lot of parking that's being used up and not a lot of space for all these cars. Jones: Madam President, Mr. Nary, Members of the Council. Mr. Gibbs has always indicated that he -- that once we were determined what was going on with this location, he would pursue results with Bolo's, whether it be off-site parking or something and he hasn't done that as of yet, because he hasn't needed to or -- I guess I can address your traffic concerns in this way is that -- is that at the very most we are going to put one car at that -- at that right or left turn at the drive-thru exit at the most one a minute, which is -- which is not a lot of traffic. We can -- we can put a stop sign in any location to mitigate that if it were -- if it were required, but -- but there is not -- like I said, I wish I could put through 400 cars, but that won't happen, and I don't know that Taco Bell is at this point either, but one car a minute is not going to create a huge congestion traffic problem at that point. It's like a three way -- a three way stop or a three way intersection. De Weerd: I have a question. They said that -- is this where the window is for the Taco Bell? Jones: Yes. Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 51 of 58 De Weerd: And so you have someone coming out here, let's say it's an SUV, a big one, and they are making that turning radius and you have traffic flows going, you know, this way and that way and you have a stack of cars sitting here, it just -- again -- and I guess we keep coming back to that -- is what kind of situation are we setting up and that's been the primary concerns, by adding that -- that traffic coming out of the drive-thru, you're having two way traffic and then another drive-thru on the other side. It's just -- we see it as a disaster waiting to happen and even if it's one car a minute, you know, there is one disaster a minute waiting to happen. And, you know, that's dramatic, but I guess that's our concern -- or that's my concern. Jones: Again, Madam President, I appreciate the concern and I have literally -- I have probably spent more time in that parking lot over the last course of the three months than I have in my own restaurants, which is probably a bad thing. But I don't see the congestion, especially in that particular drive aisle going back and forth. I think if we can remember that at least half the cars are going back to the KFC and, then, they are flowing through their drive-thru, coming out to the east side of Carl's and making that right turn. So, you don't have people going back and forth from 1st -- excuse me, from Meridian Road to Main Street. I appreciate the concerns and we will do everything that we can, whether it's control the traffic with stop signs or left turn only or whatever we might need to do, but the car one a minute I don't believe is going to pose a problem. I hope I can convince you of that. Bird: Madam President? Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Like I said, I have been out there quite a few times and I have seen -- I have seen Kentucky Fried people come through, turn, come out this way and go down Meridian Street. I have seen Taco Bell people come right around here. I'll tell you my favorite way is to come out this way from Kentucky Fried, but I got like this and go around and -- and go out that way from Taco Bell, but -- so we just don't have enough property there to have three drive-thrus, I don't believe. I think you're just -- and one a minute I realize isn't that bad, but you're shoving a lot of cars and we are not even taking into consideration the guy that's went in and ate his dinner at one of the three places and goes out and gets in his car and is backing out into the driveway or getting out himself. So, we are not just looking at the drive-thru people, as far as I'm concerned, but I just don't think -- I mean we are not talking about a 20 acre piece that we can put this on. I don't know what the total acreage there is, but it's a long ways from 20 acres, I believe. I just think -- I just think we are asking for some real congestion out there. And don't get me wrong. I'd love to have a Carl's Junior in here. I'd love it. I just -- I just don't know how we can justify another drive-thru on that property. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 52 of 58 Nary: Mr. Jones, another thing. I guess we have asked the question about the location of our exit of your drive-thru and it sounds from what I'm hearing that it's directly across from the window for Taco Bell, is that right? Jones: I can't answer that exactly. It's very close it looks like. Nary: So, what were you going to do about the light spillage right into their window? Jones: Hadn't anticipated that problem. You know, to -- you know, probably to help in the delineation of the double access drive aisle from the -- from the Taco Bell drive aisle, we can have some sort of a curbing and I would imagine that at the drive-thru window or in front on -- no, I don't think I can do it, because it's -- it's on a different parcel. I was going to suggest that we have some sort of a -- either a landscape median or a little wall on top of the -- you know, some sort of a little pony wall kind of a thing that might solve the problem. Nary: Well, Mr. Jones, you're going to lose another foot or two in doing that and in trying to have a curb with a fence to shield the lights, but I mean I guess I'm a little surprised that your architect would design a drive-thru that spills light directly right into the face of the people that are standing right here. I don't know. I didn't hear the Taco Bell person really emphasize that, but if I'm the person working at that window, I don't want those headlights in my face all night long and there is no practical way to shield that in that particular location, but that -- I mean that, to me, is -- I guess we haven't addressed it very much and I appreciate you trying to, but I don't see how location-wise you can even have that exit in that spot. Jones: We could, actually, solve Mrs. de Weerd's problems with it perhaps and move the drive-thru -- continue that and remove those two parking stalls and have it exit just a bit -- a bit further back towards the west. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Jones, I mean this is a scale drawing, right? So, if you do that then you have got to redraw the building because the building is going to be over here. There is no way to -- I mean it's got to exit somewhere out here in these two spaces. There is no building here. Jones: That would be -- excuse me for interrupting you, but that would just be an additional drive lane exit so we won't need to move the building. Nary: I see. So, you're going to have your window here, but you're going to have the exit -- the lane go all the way over to here? Jones: Exactly. That may address your problem. De Weerd: Any further questions? Thank you. Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 53 of 58 Jones: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for staff or anything further before we close the Public Hearing? Okay. I would entertain a motion if you're so inclined. Mr. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close Public Hearing CUP 03-042, the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new Carl's Junior Restaurant with drive-thru service window by Clayton Jones. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue -- I'm sorry, to close the Public Hearing CUP 03-042. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Discussion? Motion? Mr. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: As much as I'd like to see Carl's in there and they went back and redesigned the building -- the message that I thought was -- we had sent was bring in something that doesn’t have a drive-thru. You're just asking for too much traffic flow and even if it's one a minute out of each three places. That’s three cars a minute, plus we don't know how many people are going to be pulling in to go in to sit down in the three restaurants that are right there, excluding Bolo's. I just -- I just don't know on that confined area how we can get another drive-thru through there and, like I said, I'd love to have a Carl's Junior down that close to town. But I just -- and if he's depending on 58 percent of his business to be drive-thru, then, he's got to have a drive-thru. We had told Mr. Gibbs or suggested to him that we -- you know, we had nothing wrong with a restaurant if it's a sit down restaurant, where they come in, park, and went in and sat down. So, that's my theory on it. I just think it's too congested to have a third drive-thru. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yeah. I seem to recall, too, Mr. Bird, in that discussion with Mr. Gibbs about that, it wasn't a discussion about I'll try to make this compatible, like Council President de Weerd said, I'll try to find a restaurant that's compatible with the uses, it's more if I can Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 54 of 58 get a bigger restaurant and more spaces in this than what you want, so approve my drive-thru or it will be worse than what you thought. So, it wasn't an attempt to try to be conciliatory or try to find some reasonable way to make this fit. This is project from day one should have been done as one development with the designs being done all together with Bolo's, with Taco Bell, with KFC, with Carl's Junior and this shows the lack of that foresight as to why it's a problem. They wouldn't be here six times if that had been done and it wasn't and no matter how many times they try to redesign that building and turn it in a different way, it's just not going to fit. It just isn't going to work with what they'd like to use it for. I agree with you, I'd love to see a Carl's Junior somewhere in this area, somewhere in the downtown area, somewhere -- there is lot of other places around not far from here that probably could support this, but this lot -- that site should be part of the parking lot. That's what it should be. That's when I was at Planning and Zoning -- that's what we wanted it to be because that's why we moved the drive-thru off of it, because it doesn't work. It's already congested now with the parking. What they need to do is instead of worrying about trying to arrange something with Bolo's is make that into parking, so the people at Bolo's have a place to park. But this just isn't going to work and I don't know -- I think the reason we have never said to the staff no more drive-thru of any kind is because we really can't. If they can figure out a way to make it work, fine. They can keep trying all the time, but I don't see this one any better than the last, it's just different, it's better in some respects, but it just doesn't resolve things, because of the way it's being presented is a piecemeal type of development. It doesn't work. De Weerd: I guess I would echo the comments already made. I do think it's better -- it is much better in many ways, but that movement in between Carl's Junior and Taco Bell is too much. There is turning movements, there is three different directions of traffic and it's too much to put in that small piece -- small place, especially when the peak hours all happen at the same time. You know, these are all similar type of businesses and it has nothing to do with competition. That doesn't bear any weight in my concerns at all, other than you're putting people at high densities at the same time. If this was a different type of business, with different peak hours, it would be a lot more compatible in the sense of the traffic generation and that's my concern. You have a turn movement, you have -- and three other -- there is just too much movement going on between there. I think that's a big safety issue for that area and to make a decision to add to that safety issue is not something I -- I think is our responsibility to look at the safety factors on these kind of applications and it would not be an asset to our community. McCandless: Madam President? De Weerd: Mrs. McCandless. McCandless: It looks like we are pretty unanimous in our feelings. I agree with everything that's been said. I would like to compliment them for their attempt to make it better. I just don't think it can be better. It's too small of an area for three drive-ins. Nichols: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 55 of 58 Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, just a reminder that if you deny an application or deny a permit like this one, you're generally obligated to tell the applicant what, if anything -- and I emphasize the if anything they could do to get this approved. I think one of the reasons the staff has done what they have done to try to work with the applicant on the drive-thru is a belief that perhaps there is some configuration that hadn't been seen before that might have solved the issues. I would ask that when you address this application, if it's a motion to deny, that you address whether you think a drive-thru could ever be approved here and -- so that at least that issue is -- and maybe we are presuming too much, that there is some magic bullet, but this is the third try now and the applicant has spent a fair amount of money with architects to design these plans and so if you don't think that a drive-thru could be worked after having seen three different iterations of it, I ask you to say so and -- based upon what's already in the record. De Weerd: Well, I can't make a motion, so -- McCandless: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. McCandless. McCandless: I move that we deny CUP 03-042, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new Carl's Junior restaurant and drive-thru service window by Clayton Jones, north of intersection of South Meridian Road, East Central Drive, and South Main Street, and my reason for making this motion is that I don't think there is room, no matter how they design it, to put another drive-in in that space and I'll make that motion and ask that the attorney draw up the proper papers. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion? Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I would ask the maker of the motion if we could include, I think, some language regarding congestion. I think that was done previously. I think that was the intent. But also that pursuant to Mr. Nichols’ suggestion as to what can be done, I guess some specific language in the findings, based on both what Council President de Weerd has said, as well as your motion of the fact that there is not adequate or the type of facility that needs to be there has to be compatible and compatibility I think would be measured by the type of service being provided, the compatibility with the hours of operation and the types of service on this site versus the other companion sites on this piece of property, so there is not an overlap of use at the same time and I think after three attempts, I don't know what configuration may be compatible as a drive-thru, but I guess at this juncture in the findings I'd ask Mr. Nichols to indicate from the Council that we can't see -- foresee any other type of compatible -- in that location compatible drive- Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 56 of 58 thru configuration, unless it was radically different than the three that we have already seen and that certainly leaves the door open. If someone can think of something else, but I'd like the staff at least to have something to hang their hat on to say that's not different, you know, turning the building another 90 degrees isn't going to make it different. But if the maker of the motion was in agreement with that, I think that might help Mr. Nichols in formulating the findings. McCandless: I agree. Nary: And I would concur. De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Nary: Madam President? Mr. Nichols, is that enough information do you think or do you need -- Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, I think that's adequate. De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further discussion -- ready for the question? McCandless: Question. De Weerd: Okay. It's been -- the motion on the table is to deny the request for a Conditional Use Permit for CUP 03-042 and with the stated reasons for denial and ask the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll? Roll-Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies: De Weerd: Okay. Item No 13 is water, sewer or trash delinquency. This is to inform you in writing, if you so choose that you have the right to a pre-termination hearing at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, November 18th, before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and to defend the claim made by this city that your water, sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. Your service will be discontinued on December 3rd, 2003, unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her water, sewer, and trash delinquency? Okay. They are hereby informed that they may appeal and have the decision of the City reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho State Code. Even though they appeal, their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn-off list is $66,423.83. Council, do you have any questions? Hopefully, you're not on here. Hopefully, I'm not on here. Mr. Bird: Madam President? Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 57 of 58 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve the turn-off list in the amount of $66,423.83 and that date is December 3rd, 2003, unless payment is received in full. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the delinquency list. Mr. Berg, please, call roll. Roll-Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14. Executive Session: De Weerd: Thank you. We did add an item to our agenda. Fourteen is to adjourn into executive session per Idaho Code 67-2345(1)(b). I would entertain a motion. Mr. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we go into executive session as per 67-2345(1)(b) per Idaho state code. McCandless: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adjourn into executive session. All those in favor say aye. Nary: Roll call. De Weerd: Oh. I'm sorry. Roll call. Roll-Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle, you are free to join us. Mr. Nichols. (Enter into Executive Session) (Return from Executive Session) De Weerd: Okay we’ll come out of Executive Session. It’s 10:45. I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session. Nary: So moved. Meridian City Council November 18, 2003 Page 58 of 58 Bird: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor. All ayes motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES De Weerd: I did want to make note that Will is working on a reception after the swearing in. He has instructed his staff not to put any items on new business so that it can be whatever we need to take care of with old business. Then we can allow the new members to kind of basque in their newly elected before they get kicked right. I did talk to the Mayor today about a reception for him so I will talk with Will about that tomorrow. It will be set Monday the 5th from 4-6 and the Mayor will – of January yes. We’ll start working on that as well. Is there anything else anyone would like to bring up? Bird: Yes I would like to adjourn. De Weerd: Okay do I have a second. Nary: Second. De Weerd: It’s been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Adjournment 10:47. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:47 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK