Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 10-24Meridian City Council Meeting October 24, 2006 A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, October 24, 2006, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Shaun Wardle, Keith Bird, and Charlie Rountree. Members Absent: Joe Borton Others Present: Ted Baird, Sharon Smith, Anna Canning, John Overton, Ron Anderson, Len Grady, Doug Strong and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X Shaun Wardle O _ Joe Borton X__ Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird _X_ Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and call the meeting to order. Welcome this evening. It is Tuesday, October 24th. It's 7:00 o'clock. We will start tonight's meeting with roll call attendance. Mrs. Smith. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: De Weerd: Thank you. Item No. 2 is our pledge of allegiance. Tonight we will be led in the pledge by Susie Bryant. If you will all rise. (Pledge of allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Darrell Taylor with Cherry Lane Christian Church: De Weerd: Susie, I do have a pin for you to thank you for leading us tonight. Thank you so much. Item No. 3 is our Community Invocation. Tonight we will be led by Pastor Darrell Taylor with Cherry Lane Christian Church. If you will, please, all join us in the invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of silence. If you will step up to the microphone, please. Taylor: Gracious Father in Heaven, we are so thankful for these men and women that are here and, Father, we just ask your blessing upon this meeting. Father, we ask for your guidance and your wise counsel as this meeting progresses. And, Father, in all things we just thank you for this time that we can come together and discuss matters that need resolution and we just ask this in Jesus' name, amen. Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 2 of 67 De Weerd: Now, Pastor Taylor, I believe this is your first time at a City Council meeting. Taylor: It is. De Weerd: I would like to present you with a pin as well and thank you for joining us. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 4, Council, is adoption of the agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: On the Consent Agenda, Item H resolution number is 06-538. I is 06-539. On the regular agenda Items 8 and 9 has been asked to be pulled until November 8, 2006. And the applicant asked for that. And we have to pull 10 and 11 until November 8th, 2006, because of the annexation. And Item No. 17 ordinance number is 06-1271. And with that I move we approve the revised agenda. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as revised. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of September 19, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of September 26, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: C. Approve Beer and Liquor License Transfers from Susan Goodwin dba El Tenampa to Jake Jones dba Jakers of Boise at 906 N. Main St.: D. Sanitary Sewer Easement for Buckeye Place by Western Ada Recreation District: E. Water Main Easement Agreement for Walgreen’s by GRH Ten Mile & Halker Properties: Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 3 of 67 F. Water Main Easement Agreement for Jakers Restaurant by Vintage Properties, LP: G. Approve Agreement for Stenographic Services with MD Willis, Inc.: H. Resolution No. 06-538 : CPA 06-003 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map to extend future land uses within the City of Meridian south to Colombia Road, west to Meridian Road and east to Eagle Road and to modify some of the existing land use designations on the Map along Amity Road, between Meridian Road and Eagle Road for Southeast Comprehensive Plan Amendment by Bailey Engineers – between Meridian Road and Eagle Road & between Columbia Road to ¼ mile north of Amity Road: I. Resolution No. 06-539 : CPA 06-002 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation for approximately 12.37 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use Community for Ustick Comprehensive Plan Amendment by Thornton Oliver Keller – 1515 West Ustick Road and 3195 North Linder Road: J. Renewal of Contract for Prosecution Services with the City of Boise: K. Contract for Expedition Technical Assistance to set up Biosolids Improvement Project with CH2M HILL: L. Agreement for Professional Services with Civil Survey Consultants, Inc. for Construction Staking for Water and Sewer Improvements Associated with ACHD Locust Grove, Franklin to Fairview Project: M. Public Works Change Order No. 1 for the Blackstone LS Abandonment with Star Construction, LLC: N. Contract for the Sewer Modeling Technical Assistance with CH2M HILL: De Weerd: Item 5. Consent Agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 4 of 67 Bird: I move we approve the Consent Agenda, which includes resolution 06-538, 06- 539, and for the Mayor to sign and the Deputy Clerk to attest on all proper papers. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. If there is no discussion, Mrs. Smith, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Department Reports: A. Mayor’s Office 1. Presentation by Mayor’s Anti-Drug Coalition: De Weerd: Okay. Item 6 under department reports. We have a presentation for you tonight that we tried to show last week and I apologize for the technical difficulty. I'm very non-technical. But we have tested it before tonight's meeting, so it will work. Just a little background. The Mayor's Anti-drug Coalition partnered with KTVB Channel 7 to provide a video that we could steam on our website as well to present to our citizens and our civic community and presentation as to our challenges with meth in this valley, as well as in our community, and so this is the presentation that was the end product. (Video shown.) De Weerd: This week is Red Ribbon Week and it is a week that we celebrate good choices that our young people are making to stay drug free and to stay away from drugs. This, again, was made in partnership with Channel 7, KTVB, and we appreciate their involvement. We have a powerful message to send and meth is an issue in our community and so, Council, that is something that we will have on our website that people can click onto and, hopefully, gain a message from, as well we will be available to present to civic organizations to help spread the word. We did have Myrna Camarena, she is the sister of KiKi Camarena, the DEA agent that was killed in Mexico, the whole reason Red Ribbon Week started. She came and spoke at the Boys and Girls Club last week as our guest and we are doing a multi-faceted approach to keep this high profile in front of people to make better choices. So, John, do you have anything you would like to add? Overton: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't think there is anything I can add on top of what we just watched. I mean I have talked to Shelly Oldham personally, I have seen her scars. They are real. It tells the tail. And, you know, I think one of the things we recognize is we probably have one of the most outstanding programs statewide right now in addressing this and we just need to keep it rolling. Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 5 of 67 De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Bird: Madam Mayor. Just a thank you and hope everybody takes this to heart and know that we don't want the problem, so we need to work on it real hard to make sure we don't have the problem. Thank you very much for presenting it. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Bird. Rountree: Thank you. 2. Reappointment of Larry Lipschultz to Meridian Development Corporation: De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 2. You probably have seen this somewhere before. I had this in front of you last week or the week before. Under Idaho Code you cannot -- you want to avoid reappointing more than two board members at any given year and I am asking that Council would consider extending Larry's seat to a four year term and his would, then, expire in September 2011. So, I would need a motion to have that new date. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we appoint Larry Lipschultz to the Meridian Development Corporation for a term to expire September 2011. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. I have a motion and a second to reappointed Larry to the 2011 date. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. B. Park’s Department – Doug Strong 1. Budget Amendment for Kiwanis Park Development: De Weerd: Item 6-B is our Parks Department. Mr. Strong. Strong: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. To start with the budget amendment that you have before you, that you have had the opportunity to review since last week, I thought it would be useful to go back and look at how this project has evolved over time and why we are where we are with the project today, because of the opportunity that came to us somewhere early in the summer with a donation of an Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 6 of 67 additional two plus acres to the property and the opportunity to get the project further along. As you may recall that early on the boundaries of the park did not include this additional acreage that you see going to the north and to the west. There is another -- about 30 feet on the side of the pathway that goes down this direction and the pond size -- the original pond size was about where this line is here and as the acreage was added to the park and we went through some redesign work to take advantage of being able to develop the entire park -- or the entire area, including the additional two acres that was proposed to be donated to the city, it caused some redesign work and, of course, some additional cost. The developer that is participating in this project with us agreed at that time to pay the cost of the green up, which includes the grassy -- the earth work that allows all the grassy areas to be planted, completion of the irrigation system, and as you recall we already had the pump station installed. Pump house. The original excavation of the pond was complete. In the contract they expanded the pond for additional water and, then, they also agreed to complete this pathway connection here that will take the pathway all the way out to where it connects to the existing pathway that goes out to Eagle Road. So, what we ended up with was, essentially, an expanded scope of work from what we had planned for and budgeted to that point. So, the budget amendment that you're looking at is to cover the cost of that expanded scope of work. And also it shows the 275,000 dollar donation from the developer and contribution toward the green up of the park. So, with that much of an introduction, I would certainly be happy to entertain any questions. I might add that this week sometime the parking lot will be paved out at the park. So, progress is continuing towards completion of the construction. De Weerd: Thank you, Doug. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Rountree: Not me. De Weerd: Okay. Thanks, Doug. You need a motion I imagine? Strong: I do. As proposed at the bottom of the budget sheet that was presented to you. There is actually -- and we need an amendment for the additional impact fees to complete the project and for the developer contribution amount. De Weerd: Okay. Council? Bird: I'll make a motion as soon as I find the amount. Have you got it, Charlie? Rountree: 561. Bird: 561,000? Or 61,000? Strong: The amount is at the bottom of the page in red. Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 7 of 67 Wardle: I have got it. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we approve budget amendment for Kiwanis Park development in the amount of 561,592 dollars, to include developer contribution of 275,000 dollars. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second? Bird: I'll second that. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Mrs. Smith, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Thank you. 2. Kiwanis Park Development, Impact Fee Reimbursement, and Real Property Conveyance Agreement: Strong: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The second item is the Kiwanis Park Development and Impact Fee Reimbursement and Real Property Conveyance Agreement, which I believe you have a copy back to you signed by the development company; is that correct? Bird: Yes. De Weerd: So, I'll open it for any questions. Any questions I can't answer I will rely on Mr. Baird to answer. De Weerd: Council, any questions for Mr. Baird? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Mr. Baird, I understand that we had some discussions about the conveyance of the property and some terms. Have those all been resolved to our standard city conveyance agreement? Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that's correct. We were trying to put a limitation in years on the deed restrictions and we were able to reach agreement on Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 8 of 67 that, so that the proposed deed is very similar, if not identical, to deeds that you have accepted in the past. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: None. De Weerd: Okay. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: With that I would move that we approve Kiwanis Park development impact fee reimbursement and real property conveyance agreement and for the Mayor to sign and the Deputy Clerk to attest. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion and a second approving the item in front of you. Mrs. Smith, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. C. Legal Department – Ted Baird 1. Request from Petra to Place Job Trailer / Project Office on 6 Parking Spaces in City Owned Parking Lot: De Weerd: Item 6-C under our legal department. Mr. Baird. Baird: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The first item is a request from Petra, our Construction Manager on the City Hall project. They are requesting to place their job trailer on the city's side of the public parking lot that's adjacent to the work site. That portion of the lot is actually a part of the future City Hall plaza, but it's currently outside of the fenced area. So, the reason that this is being brought to you is because it will affect the availability of public parking during the job. If you find this an acceptable use, we will forward their request onto the planning department where they will go through a CZC for the trailer and, basically, we are looking for any questions, input, and a motion. De Weerd: Thank you, Ted. Any questions, Council? Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 9 of 67 Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: No questions, I move that we go ahead with the request to place the job shack -- or job trailer -- De Weerd: I hope it's not a shack. Bird: We used to call them shack. Job trailer on the city's side of the public parking lot. Rountree: I'll second the trailer. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Just to be on the safe side, I will ask for roll call. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 2. Discussion / Approval of Contract for Decommissioning Wells on New City Hall Site: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Baird -- oh, is this yours or Len's? Baird: Madam Mayor, I will go ahead and handle this, unless Len -- it's, actually, very simple. What's being brought before you tonight is the first phase of a two phase project to assess the current status of the wells on the former creamery site and after assessment you will be brought back a separate contract with specifics on how they will be decommissioned. So, all you're approving tonight is something that, actually, the Mayor could have approved herself. It's 3,840 dollars for, basically, the assessment where they will pull out the pumps and inspect the casings and determine what needs to be done to properly decommission those wells. If you have got technical questions I will direct you over to Len. If you have legal questions I'd be happy to respond. De Weerd: Okay. Any questions for Ted or Len? Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none. Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 10 of 67 Grady: Just a comment. We are required to abandon those wells. So, it's not something that's optional. So, that's why we are proceeding with the abandonment, so - De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I will need an approval of the contract. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the contract for the decommissioning of the wells on the New City Hall site in the amount of 3,840 dollars. Bird: Second. Rountree: And authorize the Mayor to sign. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the request in front of you for a contract. Mrs. Smith, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Council, before we move from department reports, I think you probably all saw a copy of the check that's out in the lobby from Albertson's to the Meridian Food Bank. That was a project from the Mayor's Youth Advisory Council. They had a food drive this weekend and they got a commitment from Albertson's and the check was presented on Saturday for 5,000 dollars to the food bank. As one of their efforts, the additional effort they had was they raised between -- we still don't have the final numbers, but somewhere between 1,600 and 1,800 pounds of food on Saturday they collected. So, I think they went out and made a difference and it was quite the event. And so I do want to bring that to your attention and appreciate the community activity of Albertson's and we took a tour of the food bank, which is across the street. Signs Etc. now has donated a sign, so you can actually see where the food bank is. Before they had a sign on their glass door. But they serve a great number of families in our area, as well as the valley. So, I will tell you that they did a great job on Saturday. Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: De Weerd: Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda. Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from October 17, 2006: AZ 06-042 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.18 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 11 of 67 Cottswold Village Subdivision by Cherie A. Dalton Living Trust – 2180 East Amity Road: Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from October 17, 2006: PP 06-044 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 62 residential lots and 9 common lots on 20.18 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Cottswold Village Subdivision by Cherie A. Dalton Living Trust – 2180 East Amity Road: Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from October 17, 2006: AZ 06-044 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Whitebark Subdivision by Dan Wood – 2135 East Amity Road: Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from October 17, 2006: PP 06-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 48 residential lots and 8 common lots on 19 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Whitebark Subdivision by Dan Wood – 2135 East Amity Road: De Weerd: Items 8 and 9 have been requested to continue to November 8th. I will need a motion. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we continue Item 8 and 9 and 10 and 11 until November 8th. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. We have them all in one big swoop. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 12: Public Hearing: MI 06-004 Request for Modification of the Development Agreement between the City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene to allow a residential subdivision and a church on 32.45 acres for Shepherd Creek Subdivision by Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene & Shepherd’s Creek, LLC – 2475 South Meridian Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 06-040 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 55 residential, 7 common lots & 1 other lot on 32.45 acres in an R-8 zone for Shepherd Creek Subdivision by Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene & Shepherd’s Creek, LLC – 2475 South Meridian Road: De Weerd: Okay. Items 12 and 13 are public hearings on MI 06-004 and PP 06-040. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments. Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 12 of 67 Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Shepherd Creek project. It is located on the west side of Meridian Road approximately a half mile south of Overland. You can see it here. It is annexed and zoned within the city. And it is surrounded by primarily R-4 developments. This is the proposed plat. The applications before you tonight are a development agreement modification and a preliminary plat. I'm going to start off with the development agreement modification. The DA is with the Nazarene Church and that was approved at the time of annexation. That development agreement allows for the construction and development of a church and a multi- purpose facility. It does not allow for the construction residences. The Comprehensive Plan designation on the property reflects that annexation and that development agreement, even though the church has not yet completed construction and the designation is public-quasi public, similar to the other churches around the city. You're now being asked to modify that agreement to allow for the residential development on the west side of this property. Similar to a request for annexation, it is at Council's discretion as to approve or deny that request for the DA modification. The preliminary plat approval is for 55 single family residential lots, seven common lots, and, then, the one church lot. All that on 32.45 acres. Twelve acres would be for the residential development and, then, 22 acres are to be retained by the Nazarene church. The applicant is proposing to set aside .78 acres or 6.5 percent of the property for open space and that would be micropaths, a tot lot, and seating area with benches. Their residential lots range in size from 5,092 square feet to 14,866 square feet. Over half, 58 percent of the lots, are smaller than 6,600 square feet. The average lot size is about 66 or 67 hundred square feet. Also, on the church -- I mean also on the site is the church. They have received conditional use approval for a 45,575 square foot facility, so -- and there are room and plans for expansion of that facility as well. Currently as proposed by the applicant there are no roadway connections from the church to the proposed residential development or the Bear Creek community. All the traffic from the church would head south through the Strada Bellissima development immediately to the south. I do have some elevations, but it's just of the tot lot, so I'll go through that later. I don't have any for the church or for the proposed residences. The Commission did recommend approval of this application to you at their September 21st hearing. Matt Schultz and Joel Hammer spoke in favor. Kimberly Newell LeMaster and Karen McGorton testified in opposition. Also commenting was Leslie Madsen. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the need for a collector roadway out to Meridian Road and I'll explain that in a moment. The minimum house sizes, proposed lot sizes, the transition and street sections and sidewalks between Bear Creek, Strada Bellissima, and the subject development and the traffic calming at some of the intersections. The key Commission changes to staff recommendation were to leave all lots as proposed which currently meets the R-8 designation, not the R-4 designation as proposed by staff. And, again, I'll explain that as part of the outstanding issues before Council. They did require at least a 1,400 square foot minimum house size in the development and they required landscaping streets and sidewalk to transition into match the existing stub streets. And now I'm going to go into the outstanding issues before City Council. There are primarily two things. One is the collector roadway and density. Okay. I'm sorry. Before I do that, I wrote outstanding issues twice on my sheet, so let me go to one more Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 13 of 67 thing. We have received quite a bit of written testimony for this project and wanted to read that at least into the minutes. Prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission we received written testimony from Troy Johnson, Tracy Tatem, Carolyn Smith, Kimberly Newell LeMaster, the Bear Creek Homeowners Association petition with approximately 234 signatures. Michael and Shannon Steege. Patrick Robinson. Since the Planning and Zoning Commission and prior to tonight's hearing we have also received written testimony from Tammy and Steve Carlson, Elizabeth Casey, Melissa and Chad Whipple, Lea McCurdio, Kelly James, Angela Kinniston. And I apologize in advance if I have butchered your name. Please forgive me. So, now moving onto the outstanding issues before Council. They basically center on the collector road and density. Let me tackle the collector road first. The conditional use approval for the church required that they be part of this plat application. That is the only reason the church is included on this plat is because it was a requirement of the conditional use. At the time the church was approved staff had questions about whether or not it would be in the best interest of the city to have a connection to Meridian Road to serve the church, as well as to serve the residents of Bear Creek and the residents of the proposed Shepherd Creek Subdivision. This is approximately the half mile mark and as you know our Unified Development Code allows connections at the half mile mark and it also encourages collectors as a way to funnel -- to channel traffic, so -- to arterial roadways from within the -- within the section. So, staff wanted to make sure that the City Council had the opportunity to at least comment on whether or not they wanted a collector roadway out this half mile location. Currently we have Calderwood to the north of here, but ITD has stated that that will never be signalized, because it's too close to Overland Road. So, to provide some opportunity of a signal between Overland Road and Victory Road, staff wanted to at least get this before Council to have a say in whether or not you wanted a connection there and eventually a signal. So, that's some of the background of why the church is included in this application and also why you see this road dotted in here as -- I think it's currently labeled as contested collector roadway. It was not by the choice of the applicant, it was required as part of the conditional use approval for the church. ITD has stated that they would support the collector road connecting at the half mile location and future signalization at that location as warranted and as funding allows. Staff is concerned that this may be, again, our only opportunity to get that connection and possibly signalization. There is some misconception in the written testimony that you have received that somehow we would be requiring collector road status the full length of the roadway connection going to Stoddard. It would come down Kodiak, you would make -- you turn south, you turn back north, you come through a stub street and it would connect back up with this property, but we have only ever said that we just wanted that collector status to this road somewhere on the church property and that's just because our UDC requires that the connection to the state highway facility not have -- that it be a collector type facility. So, that's why we have called it that. We understand that it won't necessarily meet the warrants of a collector street, but we wanted to limit any access to that, because it is connecting to the highway. The surrounding property owners are opposed to the Meridian Road connection. We anticipate that you will hear a lot of testimony tonight about how the proposed residential lots need to have access to roadways that are not part of the Bear Creek Subdivision. Staff agrees that it's important for all of the properties in this half section, Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 14 of 67 including the Bear Creek residents, Shepherd Creek residents, and the Nazarene church members to have safe travel routes. The primary direction of travel is to Meridian Road. A signalized approach to Meridian Road would provide a safe connection. Counsel may recall that this area previously was approved for a local street connection just north of what used to be the church property as part of the Kodiak Subdivision. So, originally, you'll note that the Comprehensive Plan has a small sliver of medium density residential just north of -- if you squared off the church property and that was to reflect the proposed density of the Kodiak Subdivision and that did have a connection at that half mile point. That was since purchased by the Bear Creek developer and they did a modification with the church to the property lines to create that -- to create what became -- I think it was Bear Creek Seven or something like that that they revised the original preliminary plat to reflect that additional property. Although a local street connection would have been inappropriate because of the volumes of traffic and the folks backing out while coming off of the state highway, we do feel that a collector road on the church property is appropriate. The applicant is also opposed to the collector road connection to Meridian Road. Their concerns, as previously stated, include the opposition by the neighbors and, then, cost associated with the construction of the facility. ACHD, furthermore, has specifically prohibited the connection. So, this gets very complicated. I personally went to ACHD and begged that they leave the option open, so that we can have Council make this decision again. We just felt it was important that Council have the opportunity to comment on this road connection, but they felt that they could not support the roadway connection. The original hearing -- they actually had two hearings. They had a reconsideration, so they did a second hearing. The original hearing they mostly talked about wanting one mile connections to the state facilities, rather than half mile. At the second one that wasn't so much their reasons for decisions, but they talked about access to the facility and they expressed some feelings that they felt it was too late to require this. Again, I think staff is concerned that this is -- this is our one and only opportunity. It's not too late. This is the appropriate time. Okay. Switching over to density. The applicant has proposed lots sizes consistent with the existing R-8 zoning on the property, but this property -- the Comprehensive Plan designation is public-quasi public and we did that amendment recently that said when you have got public-quasi public you need to look at the surrounding uses and the surrounding designations. Now, the property that was formerly Kodiak is shown as medium density, but that's a small portion of the property surrounding this and I can bring that Comp Plan up for you. I don't have it up right now. I forgot. But I can get it up for you. Most of the surrounding properties are designated as low density residential, so staff felt it was important to have the residential lots, even though they are zoned R-8, to have them meet the R-4 standards. The Commission disagreed with that analysis and they have recommended approval of lots consistent with the R-8, but they did put the 1,400 minimum house size. In summary, I think it's clear from the length of my presentation today that there are a lot of outstanding issues and unresolved issues with regard to the development of the property. Those primarily include the proposed density and, then, the connection to Highway 69 and all the complexities of that decision from ACHD to, you know, if we don't have the collector roadway currently, the church has no access even to -- to anything except through Strada Bellissima. There is no connection from the church to the proposed residential Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 15 of 67 portion of it even. So, there is a lot of issues there that are yet unresolved. All the requested approvals tonight, though, hinge on that development agreement amendment. So, if the Council feels that the issues could be better addressed at a later date, then, basically, you can deny the -- you have the same authority as you would with the original annexation. It's your choice as to whether the DA modification is in the best interest of the city. And with that I will answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Anna, would you put up the site concept. Canning: That one? There is not one that -- the only one -- Rountree: The one you flashed up first. Bird: The church. Rountree: The church. Canning: That one? Rountree: Do we have any information -- does staff have any information of what the concepts are going to be for the remainder of the property that's been identified in the annexed piece a church? It seems to me that this one particular application and potential use has created somewhat of a fever within the neighborhood, what's going to happen when the remainder of that is going to be developed? Do we have a sense of what's going on there? Canning: No, sir. Rountree: And what kind of transportation network, circulation network that might be proposed, what kind of accesses might need to be required? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree, they do have a representative here tonight. Rountree: I just wondered if staff had that. Canning: No. The only thing we have right now is the one access drive that comes down and connects to a stub street in Strada Bellissima and you can see that picks up right here and, then, they could either go out -- this is a right-in, right-out facility to Meridian Road currently or they can come through this residential portion, actually, of Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 16 of 67 Strada Bellissima and, then, make their way out to the light at Victory. And that's the only thing we have right now. Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council? Bird: Not at this time, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. We will ask the applicant to give a presentation on this. He will be allowed ten minutes. We also have the church here on hand as well. They will also be given ten minutes. If the subdivision Bear Creek has a spokesperson, that spokesperson will also be given ten minutes. So, then, any additional testimony after that are minutes in length and we will start with the applicant. Schultz: Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Matt Schultz with RMR Consulting, 2127 South Alaska Way in the Bear Creek Subdivision is where I reside and also I'm representing the applicant. It is a joint application of the Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene, as well as Shepherd's Creek, LLC. There is a lot to cover in ten minutes, so I will try to do my best to get through it. Just by way of introduction, I have also been involved with Bear Creek Subdivision for the last six years as a project manager. I haven't been working for them for the last couple, but I live there, I have watched every house get built, I have built a couple of stub streets, I have been here for three revised preliminary plats on Bear Creek and so I feel like I have a lot of history on this to maybe add to your decision and I know Mr. Bird and Mayor de Weerd were here as well and -- De Weerd: We saw you a lot. Schultz: Probably more than you liked. De Weerd: Well, I wasn't going to add that. Schultz: Okay. Thanks. If I could just start with the overall map, just to give you some background. Here is the 20 acres that the church has retained. Back in February they obtained a staff level approval to divide off 12 acres, essentially move the lot line that was here to here and create a 12 acre parcel zoned R-8 with a development agreement. We acknowledge that that development agreement gives you full latitude. We aren't hanging our hat that we deserve R-8. We are here tonight to show that we -- it is appropriate. But it was -- that was approved in February and subsequently the CUP for the church was approved. I think the next day. And it went to auction and this was put out to the highest bidder to help the church build their new facility. And subsequent to that I was retained as a consultant to help with this approval process. So, we have been working on it for several months, knowing going in it would be a challenge, because we are the last -- we are the last piece of the puzzle in this area and it's always tough coming in last when everybody is -- when you're surrounded. But I did Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 17 of 67 add in the recently approved Bear Creek West, so everybody could see how that fits in. It's very important to show how that fits in. We have approximately between -- Elk Run, which was done in the mid '90s at Calderwood, which is a collector. Bear Creek, which was done between the year 2000 and they have got one more lot to do -- or two more lots up here, so it's been ongoing for the last six years. Strada Bellissima has come in in the last year or two. There is 555 lots out here right now in this half section. We have a mid mile collector called Stoddard Road. We have Kodiak that's proposed as a mid mile to the quarter mile collector passed the future middle school, Idaho Power, mini storage. There is a community park that's a city -- the city helped put in there. In fact, it is maintained by the city. It's an 18 acre park. So, I wanted to show that there is just over a thousand lots existing or proposed in this section today. Essentially, the section will be built out. There is some existing homes and some stuff that will go probably commercial along Overland, but this is the last piece of the puzzle in this section. Some of the big traffic issues -- obviously, Meridian Road is heavily traveled today. It's overloaded. Everybody in the south end of the valley comes down Meridian Road. Fortunately, Locust Grove overpass is going to get built we hope sometime soon, right? It's been several years, but we hope sometime soon. De Weerd: The bid's been awarded. Schultz: Good. Good to hear. It's been a long time. Hey, I'll tell you what, this signal is going in any day. This was moved up a couple years. ACHD -- and it's very very needed. I think there was an accident yesterday there. So, there is a signal going in at Victory, which is good news. They are widening Overland next year with a signal at Stoddard, which is great news. Ten Mile overpass -- Ten Mile Interchange is just over here another mile. Linder overpass someday. Meridian intersection is getting upgraded hopefully starting next year. So, there is a lot of things coming to help our current bad traffic situation. So, I wanted to start with that overview of where we are at and how we fit into the pieces of the puzzle out here. Can you go to the next slide, please, Anna? The church set aside 12 -- exactly 12 acres for sale. They didn't work with the developer and say here -- what would work for you, let's sell it to you, they said 12 acres exactly. They set that aside and everybody went into the auction knowing that there was an R-8 on it. These days R-8 can be done appropriately. It's not a highly dense -- as long as you're looking at the surrounding neighbors. Bear Creek Six was done at about three and a half to the acre. That was a revised preliminary plat. They did buy the piece that was the Denali plat. I remember that getting denied, because I showed up to help get it denied, because they had a very narrow piece of property, they had some really narrow lots, and that got turned down, so they negotiated with them, bought that, added on those lots at Bear Creek, it came in at an R-8, but it was, admittedly, a very low density R-8. This was done at about three to the acre. Overall it's about 2.6 to the acre in this section. When we add our 55 lots it goes to 2.7 to the acre in the section. Right now there is Strada Bellissima. They coordinated with the church. This shares a property line and ITD at the time -- ITD said, look, we will let you share this right-in, right-out, but that's the only access you get. We won't let you have one at the mid mile. And this was two years ago. So, they said if you do this, this is the only access you get. The church property was approved at Planning Commission level Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 18 of 67 only back in February, using this access and using this to get out. That's what was approved and they are under construction. I don't know if you have been by there lately, but they are well under construction. It's impressive what they have got going on with the building. And what the 12 acres had is three accesses. Not one, not two, but three, which is exceptional. You know, one access would have handled the traffic, two would have been more than enough, three is exceptional to disperse the traffic. We are saying the majority of the traffic is probably going to come out to Victory Road and not go back through Bear Creek. But some will, but it's all well within the limits of ACHD and we have studied it, this 12 acres keeps -- the traffic is well within those limits today and even when Bear Creek West comes it's well within limits, even if they convert Calderwood to a right-in, right-out, which is going to be -- which they could do, we'd still be within the limits of the traffic. There is no justification for the collector from a technical standpoint. If you can go to the next slide, please, Anna. One more, please. Thanks. So, when we looked at laying this site out we put -- this thing's kind of -- got my backup here. These R-4 lots, 14,000, 9,000, 8,000. We are kind of limited on depth from what we bought. It's a hundred acres -- I mean, excuse me, 100 feet, 50 feet, 100 feet, 100 feet, 50 feet, 97 feet. We didn't have the luxury of depth in those lots, so what it comes down to is what width do you want on those lots. To meet the R-8 we did 80 foot wide lots. We felt it appropriate to do a nice mix, a nice transition of the eight thousands, seven thousands, we have some fives and six thousands, then, we go to 5,200s backing up to the church. It's not shown on here, but Planning Commission caught it and we didn't catch it, there is some detached sidewalk that we are going to transition in here and here. It was attached up here. Our open space -- it's hard to believe, but if you take the park away from Bear Creek, this is the biggest usable common lot between Elk Run, Strada Bellissima, and Bear Creek. We are putting a playground in it, we got a pathway, we can get a pathway connected to the church and I think it's important to point out that the church is on five acres, their building and their parking lot. There is another seven and a half acres north that they want to keep open space forever. There is another seven and a half acres south that they don't know what they are going to do with, honestly. And they can speak to that. But that's -- even if they -- they did something with the seven and a half, that seven and a half acres would be -- well, you know, 30 percent of their 20 acres -- just an exceptional amount of open space that we have with this church. So, I think it's important to consider both. The density that we have in this area is around three to the acre -- three and a half to the acre, which is consistent with Bear Creek Eight, on seven of the acres. On five of the acres we actually go to six to the acre, but the blended average is four and a half, which is just over the R-4 limit of four to the acre. We really feel like we have done a good job of transitioning the lots, mixing the lots, then, the Planning Commission added that they would like to see the R-4 minimum home size of 1,400 square feet. We said that's what we were planning anyway. So, that was totally appropriate. So, we don't feel like we are -- we could have got 66 lots in here, if we would have went for a full blown R-8. An R-4 would have been about 43 lots. We are right in the middle. We are at 55 lots. We are right -- we kind of balanced it out. And we think it's a great blend of lots. And our open space meets all requirements. I'm trying to cover a lot real fast as you can tell, but, you know, ten minutes is tough to squeeze all this in, but it's -- I really want to talk about the fact that this is consistent with several subdivisions that have been approved, Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 19 of 67 Tuscany Village, Sutherland Farms, Woodbridge, Messina Meadows, Bear Creek West, Tanana Valley, Reflection Ridge, Jayden Village, Soda Springs -- they all have this same -- this same density and same mix of lot sizes and it is appropriate. De Weerd: Okay. You will need to wrap your remarks up. Summarize, please. Schultz: I want to summarize and say that -- and hold some for rebuttal, because I'm sure I will have plenty -- that this is appropriate, we are not hanging our hat on the R-8. We think R-8 is appropriate and this area is a transition to the church. We think that the collector is not appropriate. There are no warrants. This is the last phase, not the first, and we would ask for your approval without the collector as submitted and I'll stand for any questions. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: It will be for Matt and Anna probably both, but if this were approved, what's the barrier between the residential and the church parking and potentially future commercial? Schultz: Can you go back to the overall preliminary plat? There. Canning: That works a little better. Schultz: Got it. I measured this earlier today. There is, actually, about 100 feet from here to here from the back of the lots to this drainage swale that's probably 30, 40 feet wide into the parking lot. If this ever redeveloped they would have to come back through for a revised development agreement and provide appropriate buffers at that time. Right now there is plenty of buffer in here of 100 feet plus. Rountree: Madam Mayor, follow up. Are you proposing a fence? Schultz: What we are proposing -- there is existing six foot vinyl until you get up to this exiting two acre lot. We will fill in with six foot. There is already six foot here and we put six foot there. We will fill in the gap with six foot vinyl fence. Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. We will invite you back up at the end for a five minute rebuttal. Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 20 of 67 Schultz: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Is the church representative here? If you will, please, state your name for the record. Johnson: Thank you. My name is Dennis Johnson, I live at 4888 River Vista Place. That's in Garden City, Idaho. And I would like to note that I have been a member of the Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene here in Meridian for 27 years. Even though we have lived there, we have gone to church here and have been members since 1979, my wife and I have. And so all of our years here in the valley we have really gone to this church and been members of that church. I have been asked tonight to speak on behalf of the church and I know -- I know most all of you very well, because I not only have gone to this church for many years, but about seven years ago we made a decision to move our business, United Heritage, from Nampa to Meridian, and I want to, if I have not had a chance to do this publicly, thank all of you for the cooperation you gave us in that process and also all of you who are on staff, because you are very -- excuse me -- very very helpful in that process and so I appreciate the chance to do that. It's not often that I stand before city councils or anybody, for that matter. My father is currently the pastor of the church and he suggested I dust off my law license and I come and represent the church tonight pro bono and certainly that is what I am doing. De Weerd: Well, congratulations. Johnson: And I'm happy to do that. But, in any event, I just want to reflect on the fact that this church, Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene, has been in this community for 90 years. It has been here on the corner of Pine and Meridian Road for I believe all of those years -- most of those years and, in fact, that's the 90 out of the 113 year existence of the City of Meridian and there has been a wonderful partnership in Meridian between Meridian and the business community and Meridian and the faith community. I know you have just had a function with the faith community, Mayor, and we appreciate it so very much. And in this case I'll just point out there has been a wonderful partnership between this City Hall property and the Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene in terms of sharing parking and we have appreciated that over the years and one of the reasons the church is moving out there is because of its growth and its need for additional parking and I know that you're expanding your facilities as well. But we want to thank you for the privilege we have had of sharing parking with you over the years. It has been a wonderful partnership and we appreciate it very very much. Well, I would like to reflect also on the property that is before you. It was about 11 years ago that our congregation bought this property. It was 32 acres at the time, it seemed like a pretty good deal at the time and turned out to be a pretty good deal at the time. It has been a terrific property for this congregation to consider to expand to. Thirty-two acres is what was available, 32 acres is what was bought. As you heard from the developer that we have sold 12 of the acres to, a decision was made to sell 12 acres, nothing more, nothing less. And the reason for that is because the church felt it needed 20 acres. When you hear today elementary schools want 20 acres, high Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 21 of 67 schools want 40 acres, why do they want that amount of space? Well, this church wants that amount of space so that it can grow, so it can have future expansion, and so it can truly be a beacon in this community. The church that is being built, reference has been made to it. You have seen it as it is going up. It is truly going to be a cathedral type church. This is going to be a wonderful wonderful entry to the southern part -- to the southern part of Meridian and I think you're going to find that it is just a beautiful beacon as people come into this city. It is the same architect who -- Peter Rockwell, who did the Catholic Church on the corner of Meridian and Chinden and that that also is a beautiful beautiful faith community as you come into this community and this was no accident that he was chosen. There was a competition between architects to come up with a beautiful design and three architects competed and this is the architect that was chosen and he was chosen because of the design and because of beautiful that it will add to this community and I think it will be a tremendous addition to that entire part of the city, including Bear Creek, which I recall when I first started going to church here, was not there. And, in fact, I don't know how much of it was there when we bought our property originally. Well, the real issue, as you have heard from Planning and Zoning, has to do with this road with this street that is coming in or this -- what is called a connector and I want to point out that I got involved in this about a week ago and I have gone back and I have read every public document that I can find. I have read all the transcripts of the Ada County Highway District hearings, I have read the transcripts from Planning and Zoning, I have looked at all of them and it seems to me that one of the issues is there is some question about the definition of a connector and whether this is really a connector. And I also understand that there has been some -- that there has been some change to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan that calls for these types of connectors at every half mile point and the observation I have is that it appears to be that this may be a case in which we are trying to make one size fit all. We are trying to put in half mile connectors, whether it's the right place of not, no matter what, because that's in a change in the Comprehensive Plan. I think it is the change to that Comprehensive Plan that is difficult for the Ada County Highway District to understand. They call it -- they use the term retrofitting and that it is an attempt to retrofit something. And so I really question whether or not this is the right place to do this, although I think the attempt to have connectors is laudable and it is something that is certainly desirable and we certainly understand the need for that. And the Ada County Highway District seems to have a real problem with this as well and there is constant reference to Eagle Road and we have all been on Eagle Road and we all know the difficulty of getting down Eagle Road and what this would call for eventually is another stop light here between Victory and Overland and that I suggest to you is going to create a bottleneck and you have a lot of traffic that is going from Meridian out to Kuna and back, everybody to the freeway, to get to the jobs. And we suggest to you that this is not only not good for the church and maybe not good for the developer, but it is also not good in terms of moving traffic through this valley and taking traffic down that major highway to start putting lights in that middle mile. And we are delighted that there is a light going in at Victory and that there is a light at Overland. I recall when we were moving our business here that we did not have a light off the freeway exit coming over from Nampa and, Mayor and Mr. Bird, you may remember that we as a company suggested that we needed a light there and, in fact, we volunteered that we would help pay for that light Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 22 of 67 and we did help pay for the light. So, I understand the need for lights and, frankly, have been involved in helping pay for lights and if we felt this was the right thing, we would raise our hand and do that, but we don't think this is the right place to put this light. Consequently, there is one additional item that we think we should point out and that is as you talk about the use of the property -- and I know that Mr. Rountree has asked what's the use of the additional property. I want to talk about something that is not in the record and I have asked some of the church members why is it not in the record and it has to do with the use of the property on the north side and I'm going to point -- if this works and, if not, I'm going to use my own. De Weerd: It's a good thing you guys come prepared. Johnson: Right up here. Right up here. There is no record on what the church has planned here and so I'm going to tell you what it has planned and I have a couple of documents to also submit regarding that plan. Maybe I can give those. I understand maybe these can be shown on an overhead if I give these to someone. Because when the -- when the church asked me to speak they said, you know, there is something we plan doing there and that is they plan on putting park facilities in there and the park facilities -- in fact, they have talked to church members about donating money to help build that park. But up here -- and you're going to see on one of the drawings that I have submitted -- actually, right in the middle of the proposed road there is a gigantic tree. It's a basswood tree and what you're going to see -- the documents I'm submitting to you on behalf of the church and the three documents, that tree has been designated I think as the largest basswood tree in Idaho, maybe one of the largest in the United States, and it's right in the middle of where this road would go and it needs to be protected and it can't be moved and we are suggesting that that be made into a park and, frankly, the church is suggesting it be made into a park and certainly everybody would have access to that facility, but the church would be paying for that. And another reason why it's not a good idea to start putting a road in there or something we call a collector that I'm not sure that when a road goes like this and like this and like this and all the way through Bear Creek, that that truly meets the definition of a collector. Consequently, we would suggest -- and we will see if we get those -- get this item up. If we don't, I'm going to ask that perhaps Council can look at those before it makes its decision today, but you will see exactly what we are talking about in terms of how that is. We believe that we have appropriate access. This is the north part of the property and that's the tree right there. And so you will see where the -- where the proposed road goes and that's where that large tree is located. If we can go to the next document, we might -- we might find the certificate on it. We will see. The certificate is signed by -- by professors at the University of Idaho. Here it is. Idaho big tree. Valley Shepherd Church is the owner and protector of the following Idaho champion big tree. As of this date the largest of its kind recorded in Idaho. American basswood. And we have these Ph.D.'s from the College of Natural Resources at U of I who stated that. And that's right in that location, therefore, I suggest to you another good reason not to be putting a road there. Finally, I will just say that we certainly appreciate the opportunity to address you tonight. I was at a luncheon yesterday where a very fine author has written a new book about Abraham Lincoln and in her book she points out Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 23 of 67 that Abraham Lincoln was one to say that sometimes he changed his mind and reporters would ask him why did you change your opinion about a certain subject and he would answer and he would say, you know, I would like to think I'm wiser today than I was yesterday. And I think with some of the information you're going to have tonight, we can all look together and nobody's made a mistake in a recommendation or what they have done, but I think that after we have all of this information we are all going to be able to say we are wiser today than we were yesterday in helping make this decision. Thank you very much. I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you very much. Johnson: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Does the Bear Creek Subdivision have a spokesperson? Okay. Seeing none, I do have some people who have signed up to testify and before I call those we did receive a number of e-mails today and I will just read the last names. Van Hall. Jagosh. And I apologize if I just mutilated that name. Ortega. Anders. Tennison. And Perkins. Sapps. Hunnicutt. McBride. And the other ones were already called into the record. So, with that said, I do have -- if when I call your name I will also indicate if you're for or against. If you would like to provide testimony, please, come forward at that time. Harold Cluff signed up against. And you will have three minutes. If you will, please, state your name and address. Cluff: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council and staff. My name is Harold Cluff and I reside at 650 West Kodiak Drive in Bear Creek here in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Cluff: I first want to thank you for the opportunity of saying something this evening and I read your sign about concise remarks, but being of the old school, I have a short story that will illustrate what I want to put across this evening. In the late 1800s my grandfather and some of his associates herded cattle in Southwestern Wyoming. Once a month they were given their paycheck and they all went into Laramie where they'd get a hot bath, good meal, and, then, go to the local saloon for some entertainment. On one of these occasions Eli met a young lady there by the name of Miss Katie. She had the most beautiful red flowing hair that he had ever seen. She was the lead singer and dancer in the chorus line. Her teeth were as white as pearls and just as straight as they could be and sing, oh, how she could sing. After the performance was over Eli invited her to come to their table. And before an hour was up Eli asked her to marry him and to everyone's surprise she said yes. The next morning in their hotel room as Eli began to wake up, he looked across at the nightstand and there he saw that beautiful flowing red hair resting on a wig stand. Now, if that wasn't enough, next to it was a glass of water Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 24 of 67 that contained those beautiful straight white teeth. As his bride began to wake up, he said: Sing. For heaven's sakes sing. Well, let me go on. Over ten years ago I retired as a 747 captain flying international routes for Northwest Airlines. Because my trips were 11 and 15 days long, I also received 15 and sometimes 30 days off between trips. To utilize this time, I developed two companies in the east valley next to Phoenix. One was the H.F. Cluff Development Company. The other was H&E Home Builders. I mention this only to let you know that I have some experience in the problems we are talking about. Is that on already? De Weerd: Already we need you to summarize. Cluff: I will summarize. Now that I see the changes that are trying to take place in the high density zoning and the changes to Bear Creek, the road, I find myself in the same position as Eli as I say to you as a Council: Sing, for heaven's sake sing. Let something be real like it was when we first bought that property. Thank you for your time. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Cluff: Oh, I have a letter from a neighbor that asked me to hand deliver it to you. De Weerd: Thank you. Mrs. Smith, can you, please, read the name into the record? Smith: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This letter is written by Amanda Olsen, who lives in Bear Creek. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, sir. Brian Forney signed up against. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address. Forney: My name is Brian Forney and I reside a 645 West Kodiak Drive in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Forney: Madam Mayor, Councilmembers, three minutes isn't very long, so I'll -- I'll leave the statements about density and property value and all that to my neighbors. I'm sure they can cover that. I imagine you will be hearing that. But I have a unique perspective. I work from home. I have an upstairs office and it looks down on the end of one of the many walking trails in the Bear Creek neighborhood and what I see from my office is children, parents, dog walkers, old people, sometimes with bikes pulling little ones behind but they are coming down the trail and they are going to the park and, then, later they come back from the park. There is a big stream of people that use those trails to go to the park. So, what I want to talk about is intersections that don't really show up on your map, the intersections between the pedestrian traffic and the roadways, and specifically I want to limit my comments to the collector road. As I watch the children cross they don't always look, they don't always even stop, but it works -- you wouldn't think it would, but it does in our neighborhood, because the cars drive Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 25 of 67 slowly. Our street doesn't really go anywhere. Everyone on it is either a neighbor or someone visiting a neighbor. It's amazing how controlled people are. My concern is if we decide to put a collector road -- or let me be more clear. A through road from the arterial -- from the one mile grid roads through our neighborhood, that that will bring our children in contact with a different type of driver, someone who uses that road just because it will save them a minute to two. The only reason that person is in our neighborhood is because it's faster. So, that's my concern. My concern is -- and I would urge the Council not to put the collector through. The neighborhood really is built up. The walking paths are in place. They are not at corners. They are heavily used and they are used by children. Putting a through road through with all of the traffic pressure we have would cause an undue danger to the people who use those walkways. I would also like to point out that within our one mile grid we have the half mile road at Stoddard. It connects to the mile roads at Victory and Overland and it can easily take the traffic around our neighborhood without putting our children in danger. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Andrea Puopolo. I'm sorry. Sign up against. If you would like to provide testimony you will need to come up. Okay. We do have you on the record as being against. Okay. Tammy Carlton signed up against. I'm sorry, either you come to the microphone or we just record your -- and I think we have a letter from you as well? Carlton: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Carlton: I'm Tammy Carlton. My address is 320 West Cub. De Weerd: Thank you. Carlton: I'm brand new to this subdivision. We just moved in three weeks ago. And we came from Kuna. I would like to say to you in Meridian that we are so happy with the warm family feeling that we get from Meridian. That was something that we were scared about leaving in Kuna, because it is very family centered, but I think it's really helped to move to Bear Creek, because as the gentleman said, it is highly family centered. And I would just ask you to make sure that you're making the right decision and thinking about the children that are on these streets. If you have been there at 4:00 p.m., the amount of children is immense and I don't completely know all the structure of the streets yet, because I am new, but I just really hope that you're looking at the effects of this road and potentially where traffic is going to go. The paper that came to our home showed a road pretty much dividing our subdivision in half, starting at Meridian Road and coming down and, then, making a 90 degree turn on and I don't know if this is actually true, because it was pointed out that perhaps it is not meant to go completely through our subdivision, but it is very disturbing to me that perhaps it could make that 90 degree turn onto Cub, which is two houses away from where I live, and, then, make another 90 degree turn onto Kodiak and. I don't think that we should be making a half Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 26 of 67 mile road go through the subdivision. It wasn't built for that and it -- certainly the children cannot have that all of a sudden brought to them. They are not used to it. Thank you very much for this attention. It really looks like this is being addressed appropriately. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I have a group that is signed up together. Ivy Smith, Jessica Cason, Hailey Cason, and Carolyn Smith signed up against. Okay. They will need to speak into the microphone. You can pull that down. Yes. Thank you. You will need to, again, read names into the record and give an address. Thank you. I. Smith: My name is Ivy Smith and I live at 2715 South Hibernation Place in Bear Creek. Cason: My name is Jessica Cason and I live at 2893 South Denali Way, Bear Creek. H. Cason: My name is Hailey Cason and I live at 2893 South Denali Way, Bear Creek. C. Smith: We love to go the Bear Creek Park. Currently our parents let us go by ourselves, because there is not much traffic and those who do live there go very slow, because they care about keeping the kids of the community safe. J. Cason: There is no other way for us to get to the park but to cross Kodiak. The street that may become a collector road, our parents expect this road to get quite busy once the middle school is put in as the collector road will lead directly to the school. I. Smith: If you allow Kodiak to become a collector street, our parents will not allow us to walk to the park alone anymore. We know what that means. We will hardly be able to go, because our parents will be too busy to take us. Plus I'm nervous about crossing a busy street anyway. It just doesn't make sense to put a collector street right smack next to a park where lots of kids play when there are other choices available. Please don't allow this to happen. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Well, you know, I'll really have to -- we don't get very many young people testifying in front of us and so because I have -- I run the meeting, I get to do whatever I want and so I would like to present the three of you with City of Meridian pins. If you guys will come up and get those. I must say, we have been very impressed with how they have behaved during the meeting tonight and thank you so much for your testimony. Okay. We have Ray Schild who has signed up for. I'm sorry, you cannot comment off the record. You need to be on the record. So, if you would like to comment, I would invite you forward. Okay. Thank you, sir. You are on the record as for, though. Okay. Kevin Borger. You can adjust the mike. I don't think you're that short. Borger: Kevin Borger, 169 West Cub Street. And that's in Bear Creek, Meridian, Idaho. I was hoping Ray would follow the kids, so I didn't have to. They gave a very good presentation. My purpose in being here is a lot more selfish than theirs. This picture is Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 27 of 67 from my back patio. You can see the church structure going up there. They have assured me that the dirt piles will be moved and I will have the access to the church that I intended when I bought the property, since I do attend Valley Shepherd and we look very much forward to being in close proximity. If I could have the next slide, please. Next picture. If you can look at that, that's also from my patio out to Meridian highway. The point being the elevations are such that should you decide a road is appropriate, I will be the fortunate recipient of every headlight that turns off of that road. My house is designed, obviously, as most people's is, so that the bedroom and living quarters are at the backside of the house and the elevation just can't be changed. This is telescoped in a little bit. You can see the -- all trees there where it's -- they intend to use as a park. The cars going across there. And the next one is a -- my attempt to try to show the headlights as they zoom passed on the highway there. But you can see the elevation that the lights will be visible from my back patio and, obviously, my bedroom windows. I talked to one of the planners and he assured me that, well, there is going to be a buffer that's going to be 12 feet from my fence to the road and, Mr. Bird, that's less than a false start away from my back fence and that's just not very much. And so I think what I'm trying to say is obvious, that if the road goes in there, either it's needed because of all the traffic, which means every one of those cars will come right by my back fence into my window or it's not needed and let's just not put it in, so I don't have to deal with that. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Those were the names that signed up to testify. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. If not, we would ask the applicant to come up to have wrap-up remarks. You have five minutes. Schultz: Thank you, Mayor and Council. Matt Schultz, 2127 Alaska. There is really not a whole lot to rebut. I think the testimony was very light on the density. People don't like something different than them. We do have some lots smaller than what Bear Creek is. But the reason we put those in there was to have a good mix of prices -- in fact, there was some church members that said -- they are older retired that said are you going to have any patio homes? I said, well, we can try. And that's what we are doing. We are trying to give some patio homes back up against the church and that's the only reason we are getting our density over four and we are just -- just four and a half. So, I think the density is -- I hope a minor issue. The bigger issue being the collector road, which it's fairly unanimous that even if it didn't provide an adverse impact to a relatively small site like ours and the church's, it is unnecessarily carving up the church property and, then, you infer from all the Bear Creek neighbors that they are very worried about that going in and I am, too, as a neighbor. I walk out there with my son and we enjoy the interconnectivity and, then, it's quiet. And with the 55 lots it's still going to be quiet. You put that road through there, it's not going to be quiet anymore. You know, the middle school and the park site cut through. I have been saying that for months. We are going to get cut through. It may not happen overnight, but over time people are going to learn that that's a cut through and they are going to use it more and more and more and they are not going to -- like was said -- there was some really good points that were said better than I could have made them as the reasons against the collector. The people that are going to use that road aren't going to care as much and, Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 28 of 67 you know, they are right, they are just not going to care as much. I had a kid run out in front of me the other day in Bear Creek, but, fortunately, I was driving slow and I was able to stop and he wasn't looking, but it was all right. It's what we have to watch out for and teach are kids not to play in the road if we can do that. Really, what we proposing here is something that fits. It's something that's consistent with what Meridian has approved in other areas. It's a good mix. We are going to have a tough time keeping our home prices under 300,000, even on the smaller lots. It's just kind of where things are at right now. We have got a high end product, we have got good amenities, we'd like to -- we have a traffic study that was done after Planning Commission, because one of the reasons, in my opinion, Planning Commission didn't squash the collector as well was staff brought up what if in 30 years ITD comes back and does a right-in, right-out here? What if? We are surely going to need that collector. And so we went back to our -- Mr. Funkhouser, who is our well respected traffic consultant, who tells us the straight truth, he doesn't make up any numbers, he ran the numbers, then, it's still fine. You know, there is no what if. In a hundred years it's still going to work great. So, I think we just want to make the collector go away once and for all, let our neighbors rest easy at night that they still have the same neighborhood they bought into and I guess with that we will ask for your approval. De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Since Matt somewhat testified for Mr. Funkhouser and I see him in the back of the room -- Schultz: Have him get up here? Rountree: -- maybe have a few minutes with him. Schultz: Great. Thanks. I called him up and I said get down here. He will be up earlier than we thought. Rountree: Well, you're paying for him, he may as well say something. Funkhouser: Gary Funkhouser, traffic consultant with Stanley Consultants at 1940 South Bonito Way in Meridian. I'll stand for questions. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Gary, Matt indicated you had done a traffic analysis. Give me the 30 second rundown of your -- Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 29 of 67 Funkhouser: We have, actually, done a couple of them for them, because they were concerned themselves as to whether they needed a collector road out of there. So, we counted every intersection around this site to find out which way the traffic is going and how much traffic it was at each one of these intersections and, then, we took the vacant lots and did the projections for the ones that are in the south and that's the Strada Bellissima and the church and the residential of 55 lots and, then, distribute them out to the network to see whether the roadways would violate ACHD guidelines and none of them would. In the collector roadway in itself, again, one reason ACHD didn't like it was they talked about retro fit. In other words, the time to plan a roadway through this area would have been when Bear Creek came in originally, because if you look at it, as everybody's pointed out, what would be the collector roadway is Kodiak, is all front-on lots and it would become a cut through for a junior high or they talk about the redevelopment off of Edmonds and Roslyn where they would bring a new road out there. We don't know what would go in there, whether it be residential or commercial, and you have some 300 lots on the other side of Bear Creek that would use this to cut through to get to -- if there is commercial or whatever on the other side, so -- and they said, well, what happens when the state comes through and makes those right-in, right- outs. So, we looked at that situation. Stoddard is the collector roadway. It actually starts and goes only one mile, because there is no way it's going to go across the interstate and it runs into commercial. It can't go south, because there is already development to the south. So, it's just a short street in there. So, it isn't going to pick up future traffic 30 years down the road. So, we had Compass look at what traffic is going to be in the area. Thirty years from now you will have about 23,000 cars a day on Victory, you're going to have 30,000 cars a day on Overland. You will have a signal very shortly up on Stoddard. Some of the neighbors before were worried about back up now. Well, that's going to be solved with the widening. And the maximum vehicular movement out of this area we see is going to be somewhere around 5,500 up there in the north and about 2,500 in the south, which is way below ACHD's guidelines for collector roadways on the north-south. If you open that up in the middle you run the risk of exceeding their thousand limit on those residential roadways that are in the middle there. The church has testified that they are satisfied with their access and so the conclusion was the only reason would be for it to warrant a traffic signal at sometime in the future, if the other side develops, it could warrant a traffic signal by itself. When you do traffic signal warrants for a minor roadway, you only look at one side, you don't look at both, and since the state does allow signals at the half mile point, you can actually put a signal in as a systems warrant. In other words, to keep the traffic platooned. So, there is a number of warrants that could be met without having to have the volumes. So, the final conclusion was that a collector roadway it really isn't necessary to serve this whole area in here. De Weerd: Okay. Funkhouser: Thank you. De Weerd: Anything else, Council? Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 30 of 67 Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anything final from Council? Generally not, but, Council, would you like some rebuttal by the church? Rountree: I have no problem with comments. De Weerd: Okay. And since you have your attorney hat on, I will give you two minutes. No. I -- you can have -- Johnson: Thank you, Mayor. Rebuttal by a church almost sounds anti-religious anyway, so I better put my attorney hat on. Well, thank you and I just on behalf of the church want to thank all of you and the neighbors and those on staff for letting us be here tonight. Just three points I want to make quickly. One is I know that I read in some of the testimony in Planning and Zoning some concern about safety, getting fire trucks and police cars to this part or even other parts of Bear Creek. Our church is open, too, and is working on the possibility of some sort of unique cross-through or easement for fire and public safety. So, that shouldn't be an issue and that shouldn't be something that would bootstrap us into having to do this. We talk about a traffic light. Just with my experience for our business, having helped buy a traffic light -- and we hear it's the last chance, I always try to -- try to figure out what's being said and what isn't being said, and I will tell you the church has some concern that when we hear of last chance and traffic lights and roads, that, then, the next step is who is going to pay for that and the suggestion that maybe the church is going to be required to pay for a traffic light that could cost five or six hundred thousand dollars and pay for a roadway and I just want to say that, because nobody's talked about that and nobody's talked about who pays for it, but I think it's something that needs to be mentioned. And the final thing I want to say -- and I'm going to put a different hat on, Mayor. Last year, as you know, I have acted as chairman of the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce and we have talked repeatedly about regional cooperation and it seems to me when the Ada County Highway District has one hearing, has another hearing, has input from Planning and Zoning and says, no, we do not want to put a light in the middle of this major traffic way and we talk about regional cooperation between our cities, our highway district, and our transportation folks -- and, by the way, at one time ITD said, no, they didn't want it and, of course, we got a change in leadership there and now they say it would be okay. I suggest just for regional cooperation it would be a good idea to pay attention to the county highway district and not put it in there. Thank you very much. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Johnson? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Is there any final words out there? Seeing none, Council, any further information needed? Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 31 of 67 Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Staff? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- De Weerd: Just remember no new testimony. Canning: I know. Just that the reason we just always wanted you to be able to make the decision on the collector roadway, but if you decide not to require that, there is an issue that was raised by staff and, then, just raised by the church and that's secondary access from the church. Right now they have one way out through to a light and that is through Strada Bellissima and if you could address if you want some sort of connection to the proposed stub street or the required stub street, actually, from the church parking lot to that. We have not seen any negotiations for secondary access to the fire department. I think the church representative just mentioned that they were working on it, but we -- that is not part of this proposal at this time. De Weerd: Okay. Matt, do you want to comment? Schultz: Thank you, Mayor and Council. Matt Schultz. We have not had direct communications with the fire department, but if Anna can -- can you go to the landscape plan, please. Thanks. We have been showing since day one -- and it says right here fire access, pedestrian path. This would connect to the church parking lot. We have shown, knowing that that was the alternative to the collector. The church got their CUP approved with no connection to any collector. We are totally open to doing that. And it doubles as a pedestrian connection as well. We think that a full access of any sort would promote some cut through. We'd like it to be fire and pedestrian only and, then, the church -- anybody that happens to go to church that lives here would just go around and to the church. It's a short little jaunt, so -- thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council, anything further? Bird: I have none. Rountree I have none. De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further information -- or no further comments or information needed, I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 32 of 67 Rountree: I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 12 and 13. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Items 12 and 13. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Is there any discussion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: It appears to me that the overriding issue here is the -- whether or not there is access through to the state highway to the east from this particular subdivision. We apparently have a resounding no from ACHD that they neither want it, nor do they think it's necessary. We have heard from a traffic engineer that it's not necessarily needed, wouldn't be needed or require a warrant there in the future, unless traffic platooning was necessary to have a light there. It would be a requirement just because of traffic volumes. The applicant did use a mix of lot sizes and, actually, put lots larger than an R-4 requirement, which they are adjacent to -- adjacent to Bear Creek and transition to the smaller R-8 type of lot to the church property, the indication that they would be willing to provide emergency access through the church property to the stub street and at least two pedestrian access points between the subdivision and what may or may not occur to the east. So, you know, having heard what I have heard, by not moving and requiring that particular access connection, it seems to me that most of the issues are resolved. So, at this point I am inclined to be favorable to the request for modification of the development agreement and preliminary plat. De Weerd: Okay. Any other comments? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I would agree with Councilman Rountree in a number of issues and I can understand staff's concern with -- at least considering the access to the state highway and the collector road. I think Anna and her staff have found that the City Council asked staff to get input from the community and the neighbors and I think we have had that today. Resoundingly so in a number of manners. So, I would agree that we can achieve staff's additional goal of safety and public safety through the applicant's mention of a pedestrian path with what I assume is a bollard at the trail head. Density for me is an issue on this particular application. I understand that the mix of lot size is transitioning from the larger lots to what is the church property and, then, potential Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 33 of 67 additional use. So, I can agree that those are appropriate in this application. So, I guess I would be favorable without the addition of a mixture. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Well, I agree with what -- the other two Councilmen. My one concern is definitely the density, but they did -- they did address it and they did make the lots that back up to Bear Creek larger than R-4s, which I appreciate. And also appreciate staff for bringing this forward with this concern and I, too, can support this project. I think it's very well done. I wish they were all R-4 lots, but when you pay the money you pay for land now days, you got to make the pencil work. Rountree: I have one final comment, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Rountree. Rountree: And this is for Ivy and Jessica and Hailey. Thank you, young ladies, for being here this evening and talking to us. I would very much encourage you, though, to make sure that your parents do have time for you and do have at least one of them accompany you on your trips to the park, please. Bird: That's right. De Weerd: Good message. Okay. If there is no further comments, Council, do I have a motion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve MI 06-004, modification of the development agreement between the City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene and to include all staff, applicant, and public testimony. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I do have a motion and a second to approve Item 12. Anna, do you need any clarification? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if you could just state for the record, Mr. Bird, that that would include not providing the collector street, that would be helpful. Bird: That would include not providing a collector road out to -- Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 34 of 67 De Weerd: But that would include the emergency access. Bird: The emergency with a bollard or whatever they want to put in there. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Protection of basswood tree. Bird: Uh? Rountree: And protection of the basswood tree. Bird: Well, protection of the basswood tree, yes. That tree is already taken care of; right? De Weerd: We have seen the certificate. The tree is protected; right? Bird: We wanted to protect locusts. De Weerd: And there is a park in there. I know that's not on this application, but we like to see parks. Okay. Any further clarification, though? Okay. Any further comments from Council? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. I do have a motion and a second. Mrs. Smith, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Thank you. Item 13. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve PP 06-040 to include all staff, applicant, and public testimony and also -- this is the preliminary plat to make sure that there is an emergency access up there at the north end. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 13. If there is no discussion, Mrs. Smith, will you call roll. Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 35 of 67 Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. And thank you young ladies for joining us and the rest of you as well. We will take a five minute recess, just so we can kind of gain order. (Recess.) Item 14: Public Hearing: MI 06-008 Request for a Miscellaneous application to amend the previously approved Development Agreement (AZ 03-025) by removing a provision requiring all future development to be subject to a site specific Conditional Use Permit or a Planned Unit Development for the entire property for Blue Marlin by W.H. Moore Company – Northwest Corner of Ustick Road and Eagle Road: De Weerd: I'll go ahead and call this meeting back to order. We appreciate those of you who have stayed with us. Item 14, Public Hearing MI 06-008. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Blue Marlin application and it is located on the northwest corner of Eagle and Ustick. It's the CentrePoint property. And this is a request for a DA modification. The applicant is proposing to modify the existing development agreement to basically not require conditional approval to each lot within the subdivision. Instead, they are proposing to add a concept plan to the development agreement as seen here and place some use restrictions on the property. And I will let the applicant go into the details of that. I just want to let you know staff is supportive of that request. We generally find it unproductive to require conditional use approval for properties where it's a principally permitted use in the zone. There is some important information that you need to know that's not included in the staff report and that's the background for why this application is before you. When the city entered into the development agreement the applicant did not have a definitive concept for development of the property. They are now able to provide that concept. So, also when the city entered into that development agreement the City Council was the decision making body on those conditional use permits. So, the intent was that Council would have some understanding of how the property was developing prior to issuance of those building permits. But since that time the authority for conditional use permits is at the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff, particularly me, has been concerned that the Commission's decisions with -- incremental decisions with regard to the development of this property may -- and, again, just may not be consistent with what the City Council had envisioned for the property. More specifically, I have heard general comments from the Council that they do not desire another Crossroads in town and it's not that Crossroads is bad, it's just acknowledging that Crossroads is an asset to the community, but that one of those was enough, that one large -- sometimes they are called big box strip malls, sometimes they are called power centers, depending on which point of view, but that the one we have is good and that we didn't need another Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 36 of 67 one. But as these conditional use permits have been coming through, it's clear that what we have going in is similar to Crossroads and I just wanted to make sure Council was aware of that. We talked to the applicant, figured out there was, basically, two avenues to get this concept plan before you. One was to do a development agreement modification, which had the added benefit to the applicant and staff of removing this conditional use requirement if Council was supportive of this concept plan. The other one was for me to appeal some of the planning decisions -- Planning Commission's decisions up to you for your review. I think the applicant and staff are both happy that we have this development agreement modification before you tonight, rather than taking the other route. So, that is the background of why this application is before you. But there is other side benefits to it. The primary purpose is to get this concept plan before you and to make sure that it's consistent with your vision for the community. We -- staff has recommended approval of the development agreement modification. We do have a written response from the applicant to the staff report. I did not have time to contact Mr. Seal regarding these -- these modifications. We are in support of some of the things he's outlined in his letter, others we are not. So, we will need to go through those individually with you, unfortunately. I assume you have copies of that letter from the applicant. We have -- this is the site plan and I'll let -- again, let the applicant go through the details of it, but I just wanted you to know we do have some details he sent with regard to the gazebos and the trellis also. The outstanding issues for City Council -- really, it is the proposed concept plan consistent with the vision City Council has for this property. If, yes, are the development agreement modifications that the applicant has proposed acceptable. If no, what actions do you want. If, no, that City Council isn't in agreement with this concept plan, you will need to give us some guidance as to what actions you want us to take to achieve development that is consistent with your vision. I need the next steps if this isn't a concept plan you like. So, given that I would let the -- let the details be brought forward by the applicant, but answer any questions you have related to the background of this or moving forward. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any questions for staff at this point? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Seal. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Seal: Certainly will. De Weerd: You know the routine. Seal: I know the routine. Good even, Madam Mayor, Council Members. Jonathan Seal, W.H. Moore Company, 1940 Bonito, Meridian. I think before I get into the presentation, one thing that I did want to mention to you, back on October 23rd we did have a neighborhood meeting on this project. We were instructed that this is not a Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 37 of 67 requirement of the city, but we felt it was prudent. We had the meeting on the 23rd. In fact, we had it here in this chambers right here. I had one person show up. That was Jeri Hedricks, which is Wally Hedricks' wife. She provided the letter at that point. And if we can go back to the site plan, please. She -- Wally Hedricks lives right over here, but they indicated that they represented the homeowners along here and we have gotten -- I have gotten to know them very well over the course of the last few years, you can well appreciate. She had some requirements as far as a landscape buffer along here, fencing, berm, things of that nature. What you have and should have in your packet, which I did drop off, was a letter from Winston Moore basically agreeing to all of those conditions. We sent that letter to Mr. and Mrs. Hedricks and, as I say, we provided to you -- I think, again, we want to demonstrate that we are trying to work with the neighbors in the area and I think try to be sensitive to their needs. I think, as Anna said, you know, going back to history -- and I know there is some people on this Council tonight that sat in it before, we did come in for an annexation and rezone several years ago and at that point we did not have a concept plan and, hence, the requirement for the CU or PUD and I think it's probably become evident over time that that's probably not the most workable solution. What you have in front of you right here is a concept plan that we think is a pretty good representation of what this project is going to look like when it's done. It's probably difficult in this -- and I believe you also have color copies, but if you look at the square footage that's along here, we have some square footages. These are estimations of what we think the building sizes are going to be. What I do want to emphasize, although this will not change materially, these building square footages might deviate somewhat. So, I think that's important to explain. As far as these buildings, these locations, they are fixed here also, because of our agreement with Kohl's. As far as the pads out here, we don't show any buildings out here, but what we anticipate out here is these are going to be restaurants, banking, and possibly what I guess I would call either drugstore or convenience, such as Walgreen's or those type of similar ones. We are actually talking to several different restaurants right now. We would anticipate that these would also be probably some type of small retail type uses up here and back here we will have probably what will be possible retail, possibly office, service, retail type of uses. Up here in the corner -- and, again, and I know it's very hard to see on this one -- at least for my eyes it is, this is what's called a family center. That is a family operation which would be like -- would be like a bowling alley, there will be arcades, there will be other types of entertainment and we actually met with Sheryl Brown and Bud Henthorn a couple weeks ago on this project and explained to them -- I hope I said that right. De Weerd: Well, I didn't know Bud got into economic development. Seal: We drag anybody we can, Mayor. Anyway, Sheryl brought him in. But I think the point that I'm trying to make on this is we explained to them -- and the representatives are here and they can go into more detail on this if you would like, but we talked about what this is going to offer. It's going to be a non-smoke, family type environment. It's going to offer after-school programs and I guess I won't, you know, paraphrase their response, they were positive. They thought this is the type of use that we need within this community for after school events and things of that nature. So, they were Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 38 of 67 extremely positive to it. As far as the road here, this is the public road and I will talk a little bit about that in my conditions, too. This public road right now it is completed to this point. We have met with ACHD -- in fact, I don't know if Gary Inselman is here at this point, but they have agreed that this road for right now should end here. It will be blocked off until such time as it connects to Wainwright. But at this point it will be blocked off. But this thing is fairly well cast in concrete I think at this point. As far as developed, as you well know, this is Kohl's department store. We came in front of you, oh, about a year ago for Kohl's. We did a conditional use. They have this about 8.23 acres of land, which includes this. This is under construction right now. Anybody's that's driven down Eagle Road it's going to be hard to miss. G.I. Joe's, which is a major sporting goods store, is located here. Fifty-two thousand square feet. They have got about 40 stores throughout the northwest. We are starting construction of a building here, which has also been approved under CU and we are starting construction of a building here under a CU process right now. We are also talking to a variety of tenants who are interested in these buildings, as well as discussions with these. So far we think it's been a very successful project. Just very briefly, as you also know, along here we are doing the improvements of Eagle Road right now. You have probably seen all the barrels out there for quite awhile. Those will be out of here shortly. But, again, we are improving this with double left-hand turn lanes and stuff. So, Mr. Moore is doing that. I guess what I wanted to say -- and I think what kind of brought this to a head is over the course of the last month, as Anna said, we have -- we have had conversations with the city about the desire to enhance the shopping center. She mentioned the Crossroads. She said we don't want this to be a Crossroads. But what we would like you to do, Mr. Moore, is come in with some amenities or something where we can eliminate the CU in exchange for these things. What we -- what we have presented to staff and to the city is a couple things. One, we are submitting the plan -- the concept plan at this point, which was one of the key items that the city kept saying we need a concept plan. We have to know what you're doing and which, of course, is why the CU. That, to me, was the -- was the underpinnings of why we had to go through that and we agreed to it, we understood it. The other thing we heard a great deal about was pedestrian friendly. Again, the Crossroads. We have heard from certain people up here that it's very difficult to get between the buildings. We want a pedestrian friendly type of shopping center. Again, it's difficult, so bear with me, but you have got up here a walkway, you have got a walkway here, you have got a walkway here, a walkway here, and there is one for Kohl's. That's five walkways, which will allow people from either here or here to easily walk between the two and in my own humble opinion I would call that fairly pedestrian friendly. In addition to it, we also heard about the desire for gathering areas and if you can go to the amenities, Anna, and particularly the covered gazebo. Oh. Thank you. What we have come up with is actually two -- this is one of them. Okay. And there is the other one. We talked a little bit with staff about it and I think our reaction was the same -- if you can flip back to the other one, Anna. We felt that this one is probably the best. One, it allows people to sit underneath it when it's raining or its extremely hot outside or things like that. We think these are very attractive. This is nothing cheap and as I probably said many times -- and, of course, Winston has that reputation, we are going to build quality here. If we can build -- you can go back to the site plan again. In the site plan these things right now we show these gazebos, one Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 39 of 67 here, one here, and one here. What we are anticipating -- and we have talked to staff at least there was no objection -- we may move those closer to Eagle Road, possibly over here. One of our concerns is blocking the visibility of the retailers and, obviously, we have to be sensitive from our leasing standpoint to that. So, they may be over here. But there will be three of them located at these three different locations. So, again, we think that that offers the opportunity for the gathering, if people do want to gather out there at the shopping center. So, I think in closing, at least on the presentation, I think what I would say to City Council and to the Mayor is I think what we are providing to you tonight is, one, a concept plan so you understand what this project is going to look like; number two, we are making this what we feel is a very pedestrian friendly project. I think it's very easy to get back and forth. Number three, we are providing you with the gathering areas that we have heard about in the past and that the city has desired. We don't consider this to be the same thing as Crossroads. We think that this is certainly a vast improvement over that, not, again, to take anything away from Crossroads. So, again, we would ask tonight that you do approve the modification to the development agreement to eliminate these CUs. We feel that we are providing the things that give you that justification for that. Now, going through the staff report itself -- and as Anna said, we had not had an opportunity to go through, so I would like to speak to these probably somewhat in general and maybe I can get some clarification on this and, then, Anna can speak to which one. The first one, which is 4.1, to allow smooth face block. What the staff report says -- they don't want any smooth face block. We understand that, but what we are saying is if we can use that as an accent, then, we think that that's not unreasonable. So, we are just asking that as an accent. It also talked about steel type panels. Again, we understand the concern for that. What we are asking for is that steel clad composite panels be permitted as decorative. So, again, it's enhancing the thing. It's -- again, it's trying to get back to the things within the staff report where you want these things to look like attractive buildings. The following one: All freestanding buildings may cross adjacent lines. What they are really talking about is along here, here, and here. What I was explaining to staff -- and I'm not trying to steal Anna's thunder and she can speak -- is it didn't want one large building being stuck out here along Eagle Road. That's not our intention either. One for pure economics. Frankly, it's not going to happen. I know that doesn't carry a lot of weight with the Mayor or the Council, but, in reality, that's the truth. But what we would like to be able to do is have the ability to cross property lines. I would also state to you that within our reciprocal easement agreement with Kohl's, we do have restrictions as far as 8,000 square feet here and 10,000 square feet here, as far as buildings. So, we do have some restrictions. But we certainly don't anticipate in any way, shape, or form that there is going to be one or two huge buildings stuck up there. So, that's what that's for. Delete the first entry place. We talk about the lots on the west and north. What we did is we agreed to put use restrictions on these lots and these lots along here, because we realize that there is homes along here. But what we did is we are saying is if at some point down the road this gets zoned to say commercial or something like that or there is commercial down here, those restrictions should be eliminated. I mean if this was commercial you wouldn't be applying these use restrictions anyway. 4.1. All we are doing is -- again, this goes back to our use restriction. We are not trying to change use restrictions, we just thought you would -- a little bit more clarification of it. And that's all Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 40 of 67 we did. We are just changing the way it's written and it's that simple, yes. We are not trying to change. Instead of outdoor at the end, we just simply put outdoor at the -- at the beginning to make it clear that we are talking about outdoor facilities, not potentially indoor, plus outdoor. Five point -- 5.B it talks about the public road. In all due respect to whoever drafted that, I think it's rather convoluted. There is your public road right there. We are showing it on the concept plan. It's constructed to this point. ACHD has said we have to come up to this point. I believe it's fairly well cast in concrete and instead of that language, we would ask that it simply be deleted and it be noted as shown in the concept plan. I mean we are showing where the public road is going to be and we are really showing you where even the private drives are going to be. So, many of these are already in place. Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Canning: Mr. Seal, just to save you some breath, we weren't contesting 5-B -- Seal: Okay. Canning: -- 5-G, or paragraph three. Seal: Okay. So, which ones are you -- Canning: Okay. 5-D, 5-H -- Seal: And I suggest that I can kind of go through these and clarify -- Canning: Okay. Seal: -- for you and, then, if we got any disagreement we can talk. Canning: I'm sorry. Go ahead. Seal: Thank you. Public pedestrian gathering areas, the requirement was 400 square feet. When we showed the original gazebo, which was about 422, that was kind of a concept plan, but because of parking and restrictions and stuff, we would like to have a range two to four hundred square feet. I mean 400 square feet I think is about a three or four car garage. So, it's a pretty good size seating area. I think 200 square feet is certainly going to be -- or 300 square feet is going to be a reasonable gathering area. We would like to have some flexibility in that. 5-G is just along here these particular buildings right here where there -- those sides where they are kind of drive lanes, for example, here, they are requiring some architectural features. All we are asking for is glass be included as part one. In other words, that could be an enhancement. Again. I don't see that that's a problem. Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 41 of 67 De Weerd: Oh, glass? Are you kidding? Bird: That's an enhancement. Seal: 5-H -- and I think this may cause a little bit of confusion in here, the issuance of building permits shall be deemed approval. All we are trying to say -- and maybe Mr. Baird can appreciate that -- is the development agreement speaks a lot about design. We have had lenders sometimes, even though a building permit is ready to issue, they will say, wait a minute, you have got a development agreement that's conflicting with it. We are concerned. We are not willing to move forward. We ran into this with Kohl's. All we are trying to say is once you issue the building permit, that satisfies any conditions of the development agreement. And I hope I'm articulating that fairly well. But, in other words, we have run into that with Kohl's, where they hang on something and they just say, no, we are really not sure. So, that's our concern there. Again, we are not trying to change anything. Ownership of record. That's just very recent. Winston Moore just changed it to Blue Marlin Investments, but Winston Moore is still managing partner. And, finally, Kohl's. Kohl's, as you know, is -- owns this parcel right here. They purchased it. They are under a separate CU and they are under construction right now. We would prefer that this not be part of the development agreement. It's going to just make things I think a little bit more confusing. It doesn't make any impact on the balance of the project and we would simply ask it to be removed. And with that I would be glad to answer any questions. Perfect timing. Wow, I'm good. De Weerd: I tell you, Jonathan, you're getting real -- Bird: You're right on -- Seal: Some people say other things, but -- anyway, thank you. De Weerd: Council, questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Jonathan, you mentioned in some of your comments you want to build quality and I appreciate that, because I think that's what we are about as well. But there was an oxymoron in your comments early on when you started talking about the lots on Eagle Road and selling pads to various entities and you used the Walgreen's and that's a hot button for me, quite frankly, because I think Walgreen's is nothing more than a concrete block with metal shades on it and the Council has heard me and so has Walgreen's. So, some of those kinds of stores that have a look that might not necessarily -- a look A that might not necessarily fit with what you're trying to Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 42 of 67 accomplish. I know full well they have a look B and C and D and that is what I'm trying accomplish is to get something other than the look A that's the cheapest and when Wal- Mart puts them out of business there is going to be a lot of concrete boxes around the country that are going to be tough to remodel to make them look like something. Seal: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, I'm glad you brought that up and that probably was not a particularly good example, but I think it will be. Walgreen's actually approached us about this corner down here. Walgreen's is going over here and the reason they are going over there, because Winston Moore didn't want them on that corner in a big box. So, again, I think speaking to your concerns, yes, it -- you know, the old saying, money talks and you know what walks. Yes, I have seen him do it before. He turns down products like that and that is a true case. I think what you will see over here at some point is a Walgreen's. It's probably in their marketing, just for that exact reason, so -- Rountree: Okay. De Weerd: And it was a good example, because it gave you an idea of what he's not looking for. And Meridian's never been in favor of a design review committee. It's an unnecessary step. But I think that this Council has had concerns about what design is and I know what El Dorado looks like is exactly what we are looking for. So, we appreciate that approach and we hope to capture that detail here, so that we know what is going in there. And I believe that we have met with you and Cornell early on and talking about -- I see straight lines there, but what staff has told me is you want to use accent with your design of the buildings and that sort of thing, elevation differences, will you be encouraging that and a quality look. Seal: Madam Mayor, I think, you know, I have sat here and looked you straight in the eye before and you have mentioned before, Jonathan, these are straight lines here, why it is straight, and I would say to you at the time we are planning on staggering them. You know, we have talked to major retailers out there in the industry. Sinco is one of our partners, which is, in fact, building one in Treasure Valley in Nampa, and they have said staggering the buildings back and forth is a death wish for you. You don't want to do that. But we can -- and as it said in the staff report and we haven't fought with that at all -- in fact, we met with Cornell on it -- we can do it through design. We can do it through relief, the ups and downs, things like that, things that I don't -- I don't have all the terminology, but we can do that through -- and I think we can capture for you what you're looking for and still assure the ability to lease the retail space and be successful. And, obviously, we need both, we need a nice looking project, but we also need a successful project. I mean if it's all empty, even if it's pretty, it doesn't look good. So, we are very sensitive to that and I think with staff we haven't taken any dispute to any of their design requirements. If anything, I think we are trying to enhance it. De Weerd: I appreciate what you have tried to capture and alleviating what is really wrong at Crossroads and -- or is it Crossroads? Family Center? What is it called now? Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 43 of 67 That dates me, doesn't it. But with the pedestrians given a safe crossing. It is a nightmare at that area and there has been some near misses and I know they are private parking lots, but we still take our responsibility for safety very serious and it looks like you have tried to identify some of that. Do you have any elevation examples of what you're looking for? And that is what we have seen on both of the south corners that gave us some -- some targeted looks in what they were looking for -- in what they were hoping to achieve and they -- the Council did integrate or adopt into at least the Findings, so everyone new kind of what it was going to look like. Seal: Sure. Madam Mayor, Council, no, at this point we don't and I would be deceiving you to say we could present something up here in front of you and say that's what it's going to be. What we don't -- what we want to do is shoot straight with you. What we can tell you -- and as it says in the staff report, we will go through -- I mean if you look at, for example, Building B or Building I, we don't have it here tonight, but I think we have got some nice architectural features. We are working on this, the same thing. Again, it goes back to the fact that, no, we don't want it to look like just a plain box, but we also have to take into consideration what the retailer wants. For example, G.I. Joe's, you know, we worked with them as far as enhancing their building, but we also had to balance that with what they wanted. And so it's a delicate balance between the two. So, to put up a pretty picture and say this is what it's going to look like is probably going to be misleading. I think that's Building C, isn't it? De Weerd: Do you want to get that -- Anna, do you want to put that up? I guess we have been sensitive to the comments that we get about the Crossroads and Meridian has said we want a step up and without a design review committee and that's all we are looking for detail to avoid any miscommunication. So, that's only what I was asking for. Seal: Sure. And, Madam Mayor, I think we are going to strive toward that and, again, this is Building C and I think you can see some of the relief. Cornell would do a better job at using the correct terms on this thing, but, you know, you're not seeing just a straight box type of thing, you're seeing some features -- and this is not a terribly great representation. But, again, it -- go ahead, Cornell, you will do a better job than I would. Larsen: Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Cornell Larsen, address is 210 Murray Street in Garden City. If Anna could go back to the picture with the gazebo, that might be a little bit helpful. This has got a partial elevation, what's going on in the background. The Kohl's facility has some canopies on it that are very similar to this, so we have tried to duplicate some of the canopies from Kohl's and drag them across into the shops and create some relief of the canopies, as well as add some cornice detail, pop some of these elements of the center operating entryways up and in addition to that we are trying to use a little bit different type of colors on each of these facilities as they go along, so it will have a little bit more of a variety. For example, on Building C, which is in this area of the shopping center, we will have a couple of tower elements here. We will be taking some of the colors of the block from the Kohl's and adding them to those elements on Building C and in addition to that we will probably be changing the colors a little bit, so each one of the facilities as we move along on each one of the store fronts Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 44 of 67 will have a little variety of color to give it a little variation. We are keeping the shops -- these shops are set back about five feet, I believe, from C and from Kohl's, but we also step the facades back out to give it a little more relief as we -- as we move along, as well as pull these canopies out. You can't see, but behind the gazebo this also has another element in here that's very similar to this, without the tension canopy element. Sort of right there. And so that gives it a little bit of variety and a little bit of difference in each one of the facades as they will move along. If we go back to the -- if Anna could go back to the site plan for just a minute. This building is a building that we don't think's been done anywhere in the valley right now and what it is -- the intent is that it will have retail facades on all of the sides, it will have maybe a common corridor down the middle, so that the tenants could, then, utilize the common corridor to access as their back door. The front facades will, then, vary, as opposed to just having a stark building, it is only one sided, typically, in shopping centers, so there will be some relief all the way around this building. It does have a drive-up facility right here, which will be a -- there will be a small coffee shop here in this corner. So, there will be pretty good relief on all of the sides of that, with the intent of three of the sides being store front sides that are -- that are accessible to tenants. In addition to that, we are duplicating that building in this location, again, as we move further up the site to try to gain some variety of style in the buildings as we move through the project. And be happy to answer any questions if you'd like. De Weerd: Jonathan, you were right, he does a much better job. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Cornell, I'll suggest to you my opinion. On those gazebos, I hope you'd integrate both types in there, not just use that one type. Jonathan. I hope both of them go in, because I think they are both very attractive and have, you know, their different looks and I think that does add and, then, we don't look like one continuous box or whatever you want to call it. I think it's a nice looking setup myself. Cornell: Mayor and Councilman Bird, in the case of the gazebos we have kind of strategically located these walkways so that they come across the fronts of these facilities and we have actually put a little more space in front of each one of these -- in front of the north and south side of the building, so that we could have some outdoor tables. We have got about 15, 16 feet of sidewalk in front of those facilities. So, the intent was that there would be able to be some movement from these pads across the fronts of these buildings potentially into these walkway areas as they move from the Eagle Road side back into the shopping center side. De Weerd: Well -- and it might surprise you, but I have heard several people who would like to dine outside even along Eagle Road. You know, there are ways that you can shield the sign of traffic, but it surprised me how many people have said they would love to have outdoor dining in Meridian. They have it at Louie's and that's one choice. Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 45 of 67 Cornell: Actually, Madam Mayor, we just did the same similar thing at Chicago Connection in El Dorado where we do have some outdoor dining along side of Eagle Road. De Weerd: Well, thank you. Cornell: And it works pretty well. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, I know that the staff has been back and forth with the applicant on a number of issues and I'm wondering if -- as opposed to us design reviewing every building on the record, if Anna could provide some specific comments or if there is additional testimony. I know staff has some issues and I'm sure the applicant would like to respond to. Cornell: Also, if I might take just a minute. One of the comments we had was the use of some -- potentially some smooth CMU or block on the buildings. The intent there is that you put a whole facade or wall of split face block, it looks like a whole wall of split face block. If you put a whole wall of fluted block, it looks like a whole wall of fluted block. It would be really nice if we could have the ability to put some smooth block in there to create some accent lines or some reveals in the facade. The intent would be to use a textured block most of the time, but it would be nice if we could add some -- some smooth block. I would be happy to answer any questions or sit down and turn it back over to Jonathan. De Weerd: Anna, do you have comments that might be appropriate for Cornell to respond to? Canning: I don't think it's necessary. I think he can sit down for now. De Weerd: Okay. Cornell: Thank you. Canning: Sorry, Cornell. De Weerd: Well, I'll give you the appropriate wording.Council, any questions for Jonathan? Bird: I have none at this time. De Weerd: Okay. There were a couple of items, Anna, that you had mentioned you had some differences. Did Jonathan answer some of those concerns? Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 46 of 67 Canning: Some. I need to go through it in detail. If Council was leaning towards referencing this document, I need to go through it in detail with you. It won't take very long. De Weerd: Okay. Council? Bird: Go ahead. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: With regard to the applicant's first -- 4.1.A.3, this is the smooth faced block and the seal clad panels. The language as written, the last sentence says smooth face concrete block, tilt up concrete panels or prefabricated steel panels are prohibited, except as accent materials. And that language is consistent with our UDC. So, that it achieves the same purpose. I think that perhaps they just missed the last sentence there. So, I think we are okay on item number one with the way the development agreement is currently written. I'd prefer to keep the text consistent with the Unified Development Code, so that I only have to interpret things once, rather than twice. With regard to the second one. 4.1.B, all free-standing buildings may cross adjacent property lines. The problem with that one is that the applicant doesn't own all adjacent property lines. It would seem to give cart blanche approval to go onto someone else's property. So, I know that's not what he intended, but it could be read that way. I think that the existing code would allow him to go across the property lines as is, so there is no need to add that clarification at this time. With regard to 4.1.C, we are okay with the -- the language they have proposed. I do want to say -- right now it says adjacent to residential lots. It should say or districts, including the county RUT district, which is a residential district. And I would agree with what they are proposing there. On 4.1.C the applicant probably doesn't understand that the way those uses are currently written is consistent with our UDC and we would prefer to keep it that way. Seal: Okay. We were just -- Anna, we were just concerned -- it almost implies that it could have been either indoor or outdoor and I know the intent with that and that's why we were a little bit -- I want to say concerned or just wanted that clarification five years down the road or three years or something, so I mean it doesn't say, wait a minute, that can't go outdoor. So, that was the only thing, but if it had -- if it's clear, I think we can -- Canning: I think we are okay with the way it is, because there is specifically one that says indoor, Jonathan, so I think that the outdoor is fine. Seal: Okay. So, one and two. And, then, I -- Canning: Three and four also. I would prefer to keep them consistent with the UDC -- Seal: Well, I think that on number three what we were trying to accomplish here is that, for example -- let's just say up here, this is commercial anyway and let's say that there is a type of service station or something there or something that has an accessory car Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 47 of 67 wash, that's all we are trying to do. We don't want to eliminate that. It's just that, you know, accessory car wash. So, in other words, I think if you were -- yeah, you don't want something that -- a full service type of thing like what you have out here, for example, on Eagle Road, and we don't have an objection to that. We were just trying to add that. De Weerd: Oh, yeah, because she's gotten some -- Seal: Oh, I know, I have heard about it. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: Well, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I would be -- I would caution you against allowing vehicle washing facilities as an accessory use, because at this point we don't know where they would go on that. If it's only on one lot or the applicant is willing to restrict it to that one lot as just pointed out, then, that would be -- I don't see a problem with that. But right now it would open it up to any lot, so -- Seal: Okay. That's fair. I like it when we agree together. Canning: So, that would be at the southwest corner lot? Seal: Yeah. Bird: Repeat that loud and clear into it for the public record, please. Canning: The vehicle washing facility would be allowed as an accessory use at the lot located at the southwest corner of the CenterPointe property. Bird: Okay. Thank you, Anna. De Weerd: And that was more of a minor, not a full blown like you see on Pine -- Rountree: As an accessory. Seal: Yes, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: As an accessory. Seal: That's correct. De Weerd: Okay. Seal: So, there would be just that first lot. Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 48 of 67 Caning: And number four I think was just a clarification, but the wire -- wireless communication facility is a tower. Seal: Okay. That's fine. Canning: I guess I don't care one way or the other. It is a facility and not faculty. Seal: All right. No, that's not a hill worth dying for. Canning: On 5-G that also references current code, but I think the applicant is correct in that glass can be used to break up that facade and that perhaps it's an omission of the current code, so -- Seal: Anna, what about five -- did we miss something? 5-E? Canning: Oh, yeah. 5-B is fine. We don't have any disagreement with that. Seal: Okay. And 5-D? Canning: 5-D -- what staff was concerned with was just that the generic statement that can be constructed of steel. We would rather reference the -- the elevations provided tonight. Seal: Madam Mayor, Council Members, that -- if we can go back to that -- that amenity with the covered gazebos. That's all we are concerned with. Again, I think it goes back -- Winston certainly would not be constructing something out of just bare steel, but it probably would be some type of steel. If you look at, for example, the arches over at El Dorado business campus, they are constructed by Boise Metal Works and they are steel. So, what we didn't want is somebody to come in and say you can't do this type of stuff, which I don't think is the intent. So, that's why we included steel. Canning: Yeah. And it's just staff would prefer to reference the actual items they have submitted was all. Seal: Okay. Canning: Now I turn the page. Sorry about that. Seal: What -- the square footage is okay? Canning: Yeah. That's fine. Seal: Good. Okay. Canning: On 5-G, the glass is -- staff feels is fine. This is a very odd hearing. On H -- Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 49 of 67 De Weerd: I think probably that's more of a Ted question. Is it? Or do you feel comfortable with it? Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I was going to seek some input from Anna with regard to 5-H. I would hesitate to give up any ability to enforce the provisions of a development agreement. However, if the planning director is convinced that at the time of the building permit you have assessed that they do, in fact, meet the restrictions, it's probably okay, but it's your process, Anna, so I think I will let you make the call. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, before they can submit for a building permit, they have to go through certificate of zoning compliance approval and during that approval we will check for all the design things. So, they will not even begin the building permit process until they satisfy the development agreement. So, I was okay with that. I reacted to it first, because I thought he was suggesting that the building permit supplant the certificate of zoning compliance approval, but given his explanation tonight, I can -- I understand why they want that and that's fine. Seal: Thank you. Canning: With regard to paragraph three, the ownership, of course, we would want to reflect the current ownership. The Kohl's -- what the applicant has stated is that they don't want this amendment -- the Kohl's to be subject to this amendment. I think what they are asking is that Kohl's be removed from the development agreement completely and that's a different issue, because the -- I don't think we want the old development agreement provisions that say a CU is required to still apply for Kohl's. So, I don't think we want one development agreement for Kohl's and another development agreement for the rest of Centrepointe. So, I mean that's a -- that's a question for Council, but it would seem inappropriate to have two different development agreements, particularly where they share a parking lot and one of the gazebos is not -- no. Okay. None of the facilities are on that property, but -- Seal: If we can go back to the site plan. Canning: It just would seem awkward to me to have two development agreements existing on the property. Seal: Madam Mayor, Council Members, we are really not -- we have an existing development agreement, we already have one addendum or amendment to it regarding landscaping along here that I requested. All we are simply saying is with this one -- because particularly the fact that at Kohl's it's already been approved under a CU that they own this, that there is an existing legal description, legal lot for that, that this be excluded from this one, quite candidly, otherwise, it's going to make it -- it's going to muddy the waters for us, I guess, if you -- you know, to be blunt on it. And so we are trying to keep Kohl's out of this thing, because it's just going to make it more difficult for us. I don't think as far as the intent, if you look at everything that you're doing, whether Kohl's is here or Kohl's is not in here, it's not going to change the spirit of the Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 50 of 67 agreement. It's -- and we really don't care as much -- even, frankly, the other one -- the other ones talk about a CU. Well, they have already been given a CU. So, it seems like it's a moot point. So, we are simply asking on this -- we are not trying to be cute here, we are just trying to ask that this particular thing -- and we can provide the legal description, which is in your letter, it's excluded from it. It will make life for us much easier. But at the same time it will accomplish what you want. So, you're not giving up anything. So, that's why we are asking for it. We don't think it's an issue. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Baird. Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess -- I don't have an understanding for how it muddies the waters, so I'd like to hear more on that. But my concern would be -- heaven forbid the Kohl's doesn't succeed and that portion of the site needs to redevelop, I think you would want these restrictions to apply to any redevelopment of that lot. I think it makes sense to have one consistent the development agreement for the entire development. Seal: Madam Mayor, Council Members, unless I'm missing something, let's say that Kohl's does fail down the road, the existing development agreement is still in place, which is -- as I understand it -- I'm not an attorney, no more than an architect, that essentially, the CU requirement would still apply to this. So, they would have to come back for a CU. So, again, unless I'm missing something here, you're not giving up anything, you're not losing anything in this process, but it -- like you say, it's going to make it cleaner for us, so that's why. Baird: Madam Mayor, perhaps -- again, sticking with the concept of one development agreement, we could specifically call out that that lot shall be subject to the CUP process, if it ever -- if the use ever changes in the future. I'm getting a shaking head from Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it's hard enough for us to follow develop agreements. To have one lot within an annexation that isn't subject to it seems awkward. When you have modified development agreements in the past, you have done some that say for Lot 1 the following will apply and you have modified -- we are going to basically have a full development agreement for the Kohl's property and a full develop agreement for the rest of the property all in one development agreement. I guess it's a matter of who's got the muddy waters. It looks like we are being asked to have the muddy waters at this point and, hopefully, it will never be an issue and maybe it's not an important issue, maybe -- maybe Kohl's could just redevelop under the existing code. Maybe the design regulations in place by the time that that might happen would be sufficient and we could just exclude it, but it would be easier to exclude it than to have two different development agreements going on. Seal: We again -- and, Madam Mayor and Council Members, you know, I may be repeating myself, but, you know, again, you enter Kohl's into it, they are not the easiest group of people to work with and they are going to scrutinize and they are going to ask Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 51 of 67 questions and they are going to come back and it's just something that we are, quite honestly, trying to avoid here. Again, going back, I don't think that you're losing anything. I can appreciate Anna saying -- I think the likelihood of Kohl's going south is slim and none and I would just ask at this point, yes, we are asking for some -- for some willingness or cooperation on the part of the city that they would work with us on this. If it was as simple as walking down the street and have somebody sign it, I wouldn't be sitting up here trying to argue that. We are asking given the circumstances for some understanding and cooperation on this and that right now Kohl's still has this under a CU under the development agreement. You can leave that, that's your protection. I think it's going to be a non-issue for ever, personally. Is there a chance? Yeah, there is always a chance. There is always a chance something will happen, but I don't think it will, so we are asking for -- we are not doing it just because we -- we want to, it's just it really is just going to create some real challenges for us, so -- De Weerd: And I believe that. Seal: With that I thank you. De Weerd: I believe that. Seal: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: I have seen some of their material. Seal: Yes. So, you can appreciate it -- De Weerd: Uh-huh. Seal: -- so we plead for cooperation. De Weerd: Okay. Seal: How is that? De Weerd: Council, any other questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Jonathan. Seal: Thank you very much. De Weerd: This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Anyone from the family center? I -- if you met with Bud, I'm sure he has signed you up as a promise partner and, you know, family oriented, smoke free, that's great. Okay. I don't see anyone who would like to provide testimony Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 52 of 67 on this application. Council, do you need any further information from staff or the applicant? Bird: I don't, unless they have got something they want to input that needs to be done in a Public Hearing. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, going through the letter, you just need to address the ones that I -- I suppose I wasn't okay with. 4.1.A, 4.1.B, and Kohl's. I think the other one's your thoughts were pretty clear. De Weerd: And, Jonathan, I thought you were -- were you okay with the clarification that staff gave you on the 4.1.A and 4.1.B? Seal: Madam Mayor and Council Members, yes, we -- we don't see a big issue. My only concern with 4.1.B is -- is I think it's a little bit misleading the way it is right now and that just gives me a little bit of pause. I'm not sure when I met with staff what exactly you meant by all free-standing buildings. So, if there is a way that Anna can kind of clarify that, so, in other words, a year or two years from now we are not getting into an argument, wait, we meant this, you meant that type of thing. That's really just my concern and I don't mean to nitpick, I know it's late and everybody's tired, but I also know in a year later memories fail -- or fade. Mine does. And so I just -- yeah, that's all I'm trying to strive for. De Weerd: Okay. Seal: If that makes sense. De Weerd: Okay. Anything else, Council? Canning: I can address that. The applicant has -- I believe in their application stated that there would be freestanding buildings on those lots. So, as you are seeing them now, they don't -- unlike the rest of the concept plan, they are not showing building envelopes for them and all that we did was pick up the language in the application that said that they would be freestanding buildings and put that in the development agreement as well and I guess we are just concerned that you would have a very large structure. We are anticipating a building that takes up perhaps the center half of those lots as proposed, so -- Seal: Madam Mayor and Council Members, we will live with it, then. I kind of understand where you're coming from and I think we can get it worked out. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, I think it's -- I think we have addressed all the issues, except for the Kohl's property and I look to legal staff for some additional clarification. While I welcome the business to the community and think that things are going to be great and Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 53 of 67 they are going to good economic stimulus, I also remember that there is big box retailers in east Boise that are currently vacant and empty in a short period of time. So, I just want the city to be protected in the event that -- that the property needs to be redeveloped. Mr. Baird is there -- do you need some time to address that issue or -- I know I'm putting you on the spot. Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think your choice is clear. The planning director has to administer these development agreements. Once it's drafted legal staff is probably not going to see it, unless somebody from the planning staff picks up the phone and ask us to help them interpret it. So, I think you need to look for -- to your planning staff for what they are recommending and that appears to be that one development agreement should apply to the entire project. De Weerd: But, Mr. Baird, I guess that wouldn't be retroactive to a CUP that's already been approved. Baird: That would be correct. The approved Kohl's is, in essence, grandfathered and it would only apply on redevelopment of that particular portion in the future. De Weerd: Is that clarity enough? Seal: Well, I guess, again -- and I know I'm probably repeating myself -- what we just really want to do is keep Kohl's off of this amended development agreement and I -- maybe I'm looking at it very simple here, but I just see that you have got a development agreement with a CU that still applies to Kohl's. If they go south you can still apply that. The condition right now would not apply to Kohl's, because it talks about the design of the other buildings. I mean Kohl's is there. I don't think you're going to knock a 95,000 square foot building down if they do go south, so the design and everything is there, it was acceptable then, I would think it would be acceptable in the future. So, again, I guess I'm just asking for understanding of the planning director in the city on this to assist us in this, because, otherwise, like I say -- and you made the comment, you have seen some of the documentation, it's very challenging for us and I would just rather not go down that road or over that cliff if I don't have to. So, again, I'm just -- I know I'm kind of beating a dead horse here, but I don't know how else to say it other than please. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, the CUP protects the city to the point that if they come back in they would have to adhere to the new development agreement, am I right, wrong, or indifferent? Canning: If the parcel were broken out and it kept the old development agreement and somehow we were able to remember that and find that when that redeveloped, then, they would have a CU requirement. I just I guess -- our ability to -- I think that the conception will be that Kohl's is part of this development agreement and -- it's bad. I'm Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 54 of 67 assuming we will fail, basically. And perhaps that's not good, but I just really doubt our ability to keep track of that one lot, especially since it's -- it's not even a lot, it's a parcel, it's not part of the subdivision, it's its own parcel and -- but I wonder if the applicant's concerns would be addressed if we amended that, rather than saying this amendment shall not apply to the Kohl's parcel. If we said something like shall only apply to the Kohl's parcel described on attached Exhibit A upon redevelopment of the property. Does that help you or is the problem that they -- Seal: I think it's just where ever -- and, again, maybe you can help out -- I'm sorry. It will be the signature block. As long as it's Winston Moore, Blue Marlin Investments, LLC, however you want to put it, I think we are fine with that. That's what we are -- the bottom line is that's what we are trying to avoid. We don't want to see three signature blocks, one for Kohl's and one for us. So, if there is a way of accomplishing that, I'm thrilled. And that's really all we are -- quite honestly, that's all we are trying to avoid here, so -- so if there is a way of putting it in there or something -- Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't think you can avoid two signature blocks, because the current application involves both property owners. So, your approval tonight, whether you have separate standards for Kohl's or not, they are going to have to sign it. Seal: Well, I guess if that's the case, then, there is -- De Weerd: You need to speak into the microphone. Seal: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm fading. I guess if there is no way to avoid it -- I'm certainly not a legal expert, I'm just trying to apply some -- yeah. Thank you. My common sense. So, if there is a way -- Baird: We will be having a side bar here, see if we can resolve your problem. Seal: Sorry to beat one item here. De Weerd: Okay. Council, is there any other items outside of -- Rountree: That's the only one that I -- Bird: That's the only one -- yeah. That's the only one I -- Seal: I think that was signed -- De Weerd: We are trying to -- Seal: I appreciate it and I apologize for making this night longer than it has to be. Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 55 of 67 De Weerd: They do have long memories, so -- this has been an unusual Public Hearing. Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Okay. Anna. Canning: Members of the Council, what we can do is we will put a reference in this development agreement that this doesn't include the Kohl's one and that there is a separate development agreement for Kohl's and we will separate them out. I think that Council's direction the last year has clearly been that we need more stringent design review than what's proposed in this development agreement and I think that you will find that the need to have the provisions of this development agreement apply to the Kohl's property -- I suspect you will want me to take care of that before the year end -- fiscal year end, so I think that those provisions will probably address the concerns for the Kohl's property. Baird: Madam Mayor, if I might add, as this development agreement is going to reference the existing one that applies to Kohl's, I would like to somehow process at least an addendum to the Kohl's one that cross-references to what you're creating tonight, so that they reference each other and I think that's going to require any signature from Kohl's. It's our best shot at being able to track it down the road and I think everybody can be happy with that. Seal: Thank you very much. Bird: Is that agreeable? Seal: Yes. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further testimony? Boy, you're highly paid, Winston, and so, you know, they brought you with them. Do you have any comment? Okay. Council, if there is no further comment -- Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close MI 06-008. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item 14. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 56 of 67 De Weerd: Do I have a motion or discussion? Bird: Madam Mayor, if there is no discussion, I'd move that we approve MI 06-008 and to include all staff, legal and zoning, and all applicant's and public testimony within this revised development agreement. De Weerd: Mr. Bird, do you know -- Bird: I'm not going to sit here and list it out. That's what we take minutes for. That's what we got a tape for. Canning: Madam Mayor, the maker -- De Weerd: No discussion. Canning: Oh, you need a second. De Weerd: Do I have a second? Rountree: I'll second for discussion. De Weerd: Okay. Discussion. Canning: Madam Mayor, if the maker of the motion could reference the October 20th letter from Mr. Seal and the revisions made thereto, that would help us in -- Bird: I reference the letter from Mr. Seal and I would reference the public testimony that Mr. Seal and our planning director had regarding that letter and the agreements they made. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird, if you will allow me at least to see if we are on the same page by nod of staff and applicant. 4.1.A and 4.1.B are to remain as is. And 4.1.C was fine with as the applicant commented in the letter. No? It was the other way around. Okay. Well, we appreciate everyone's agreement on that. With a -- no, the Public Hearing is closed, but I will muddle through this. We have 4.1.C.3 as an accessory use on the southwest corner lot. Bird: Yes. De Weerd: 5-B was okay. 5-D was fine. It did reference the elevations that were provided by the applicant. Staff was fine with 5-G. 5-H, the applicant was okay with -- no. Staff was okay with the comment. And we found an agreement that -- don't ask me to repeat on paragraph three about Kohl's. Correct? Bird: I agree with that one hundred percent. Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 57 of 67 De Weerd: I was close. Canning: Close, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Anna. Canning: On 4.1.C we were going to add residential lots or districts including the county RUT district. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: And on paragraph three, that wasn't the tissue, it was the following paragraph that begins exclude Kohl's parcel. And that was the one that we came up with a solution about the -- modifying the existing development agreement. De Weerd: Okay. Well -- yeah. Okay. Paragraph three was okay as per the letter. And the Kohl's parcel has been discussed ad nauseam. Okay. Okay. With that clarification, the motion and second are still in agreement. Rountree: Second agrees. De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further discussion? Okay. Mrs. Smith, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 15: Public Hearing: VAC 06-012 Request for a Vacation of 2 feet of the required 5 foot side drainage and irrigation easement on the east side of Lot 16, Block 12, of Paramount Subdivision No. 7 by Brighton Corporation – 1037 West Bacall Street: Item 16: Public Hearing: VAR 06-022 Request for a Variance from UDC 11-2A-6 that requires a 4 foot interior side setback in the R-8 zone to allow a 3 foot side setback on the east side of Lot 16, Block 12 of Paramount Subdivision No. 7 by Brighton Corporation – 1037 West Bacall Street: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Items 15 and 16 are public hearings on VAC 06-012 and VAR 06-022. Mr. Baird, I can open these two public hearings at the same? Is that appropriate? Baird: Actually, Madam Mayor, there may be some news from the planning director that might not make that -- require that. Anna, do you have anything to announce? De Weerd: Okay. Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 58 of 67 Baird: Or should we go ahead and open them? Canning: I think we better. Baird: Okay. I think you can go ahead and open them both. De Weerd: I will open these two public hearings, then, Items 15 and 16, with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, I get very articulate after the -- uh. Sorry. This is the Paramount Subdivision No. 7. You have two requests before you tonight. One is a variance and one is a vacation. What Mr. Baird was alluding to is that the variance may not be needed, but I think it would be safer to go ahead and let you know what that variance is for and have the applicant withdraw it if it -- if it isn't needed, because I only got a chance to talk to them briefly. The issue at stake -- here is the proposed -- or the subject property and it is located on Bacall Street, I think, in Paramount No. 7 highlighted there. And the house is built and it is built three feet from the property line. The five foot setback, this dark shaded area, is where the -- the building is encroaching into the five foot setback. We do allow these small architectural appurtenances to pop into the setback. In this case it ends up being about ten inches between the property line and that pop out. So, the variance is for the setback. What's shown here is the five foot drainage easement. It actually has a four foot structural setback. These are some photos that the neighbor provided and you can see that it's getting pretty close. Yeah. So -- De Weerd: I want to see one of our firefighters get between that house. Canning: You got to be -- so, that's -- there is a variance request and there is also a vacation request for the drainage and irrigation easement and that's the five foot easement that you see depicted on that -- that plan as well. We haven't -- actually, they have not shown the four foot structural setback. So, my understanding is that they have come to an agreement with the neighboring property owner to move their property over -- the fence over and the property line over one foot. Therefore, they would meet the four foot setback, so that variance would no longer be required. The adjoining property owner's house is about 16 feet from the property line. So, there is ample room to work with there. We are not encroaching into their side setback at all. But they are still asking to vacate the -- the two feet of -- no, it's -- yeah. Be two feet, yes, of the drainage and irrigation easement on this site. So, the ultimate irrigation and drainage easement will be eight feet, not ten feet, as required by code. So, the variance may -- there is some question as to where the variance would still apply just to the -- reducing that vacation easement. So, that's the situation as it stands, but my understanding -- they have been going back and forth with the neighbor, but my understanding is that tonight they do have a signed agreement between the two parties with regard to a future lot line adjustment. Do I need to point out that one of the proposals -- or one of the requests by Brighton is that -- that -- if they are looking for immediate occupancy Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 59 of 67 permits before the resident. The staff report was written for denial of the variance request. Therefore, the vacation request recommended denial based on the variance request. So, we don't need the variance, but we do need the vacation. So, you do have conditions of approval with regard into the property. Basically, it would be to put a French drain in that area to collect the water more efficiently than the -- because there is less area that needs to handle a little more capacity right there where the instructor is. So, there are conditions with regard to that. Public Works would like to see those facilities installed before they release occupancy as a whole. So, I think that gets to all the issues, but I can understand if I have confused you. And, please, ask me questions if I need to clarify something. Or ask somebody else questions that need to be clarified, one or the other. De Weerd: No. I think your comment about what Public Works is asking actually answered what I have, so -- Canning: Okay. De Weerd: -- Council, any questions? Bird: I have none at this time. De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Allen: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Gary Allen. My address is 601 West Bannock in Boise. I'm here tonight representing Brighton Corporation and we are pleased to have reached an agreement with the neighboring property owners over this this evening that is signed. You received a copy -- you should have in your packet or at least we gave one to the staff of the conditions that -- for that approval -- or the substantive conditions. So, with those stated, we are -- well, I think I - - maybe for a moment I can walk through how this would work from our point of view and what we would ask the Council to do tonight. So, we are asking for approval of the easement vacation for two feet of the easement that actually sits under the house. Secondly, we are willing to withdraw the variance in exchange for acceptance by the city of -- that the actions that -- in the letter that we -- we gave to the staff and that you may have seen, to allow the certificate of occupancy to be issued immediately and so, essentially, the property line would move over one foot and the fence would be moved and landscaping replaced, etc. I believe we are -- we are fine with the condition to place a French drain in that area, but what we would ask is to be able to bond that condition, rather than having to wait until we actually have that installed before we got -- were given a certificate of occupancy. So, with that small change, I think we would be willing to withdraw the variance request and we do want to make sure it's clear that when this is all over the easement would be eight feet from one property to the other, so that when we come in with the lot line adjustment for the -- to move the lot line over a foot, that's not going to move the easement over another foot onto the neighbor's property, so that it doesn't reduce the build-able area in their property. And our Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 60 of 67 understanding is that the staff was -- that was acceptable to them and would allow for any irrigation or drainage facilities that might be required in there. And I believe that is all that I had and be happy to answer any questions for you. I know this was a little bit convoluted how it came together and we were still scribbling on it in the hallway this evening. So, I want to make sure that you are comfortable with the way we are moving forward. De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: In my opinion, these kinds of things are getting to be more frequent than they should be. And my question to you -- and I'm not asking for blame, I'm asking for how does this happen and what can we do to stop it? Because I'm really not inclined to be real favorable to these kinds of errors. It's really not that hard to find property pins and somebody made a mistake that has professional liability insurance out there and it shouldn't be that the neighbors have to resolve this amongst themselves. So, I guess my question to you is how does it happen and what can we do to keep it from happening in the future. Allen: Right. Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, as I understand what happened here, there was a mistake as to where the foundation contractor measured from the -- I think he was measuring from the back of sidewalk, as opposed to from the pin and that created a one foot error. You know, I -- if I had to point fingers I think that was the main error. This was not caught on the city inspection when the city came out to do it. So, therefore, the house -- you know, that would have been the point at which it would have been easy to fix, relatively speaking, and so, you know, after that the house was constructed on top of it and by the time that my client knew about it, it was really too late to do anything about it at that point. There still may be discussions with the contractor and we are still talking with insurance companies about how to resolve it. I wish we -- we knew and, you know, we were -- and I don't want to point any fingers of the city, there is some -- you know, we kind of expect that those inspections will catch things like that, too, and, you know, there is -- I have heard long stories from a number of -- you know, from all over here and nobody feels like they are blameworthy, particularly, but it should have been caught there early on and wasn't and, you know, I think probably there are a number of steps there where you could say, well, shoot, just a phone call here or there would have -- would have fixed that and we -- you know, it just didn't happen, unfortunately, here. Now, there are -- both David Turnbull and Jay Walker are here in the room who may know more details about it than I do, but that's my understanding of what happened. Rountree: Thank you. Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 61 of 67 De Weerd: Len, do you have anything you want to add? Grady: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we did do a little bit of research on this issue and the applicant is somewhat correct, there was a change in code in how setbacks were measured and it was right about the time where that -- that house was being constructed. It used to be from the property line and, then, it moved to the sidewalk and right in that period that sidewalk difference is exactly the shift that that house is offset. Our inspector did go out and field measured from the sidewalks and also verified with the -- the contractor on site, that the house was property located. They did have a large dirt pile over the west side of the property, so he was unable to verify the other side -- basically, in the interest of customer service, he did what verification he could, relied on the contractor, who said that he had located the pins and the house was located property. So, at least I'm convinced that our inspector did what he could with the situation, you know. Of course, the other extreme is we could hire surveyors and require surveys and that type of stuff, but we are really trying to speed things along and do the best inspection we can with the resources, so -- short story is measuring from the sidewalk there was a change in code and that's where the shift in the house is. Rountree: I guess, Madam Mayor, a question for Len. Do we not require our contracted inspectors to carry professional liability. Baird: Yes, we do. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: While Len's there, do you have any problem with the bonding on the drainage? Grady: No. Not at all. We'd like to have some -- some input into that and, then, also there is an issue of the eaves. That was part of the staff report also that part of those conditions are that the -- not let the -- you know, that he remove some of those eaves, because it's really right on the property line. Allen: That condition's acceptable, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Anything else from Council for the applicant? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Grady: Madam Mayor, one final thing that I feel I should mention. All over it says applicant is responsible for the location of all property lines. We put that over all of our Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 62 of 67 documents, everything we can give the contractors, developers, basically it is their responsibility. Our hopes to pick those up and he does verify it, so -- De Weerd: Thank you. Allen: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Any final comment from the applicant? Any additional needed from Council? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: We have heard testimony from the applicant that there has been an agreement reached and still some work in the hall and I'd just like to hear from the property owners that they are in agreement with the -- I didn't mean to put you on the spot Carlson: No problem. I'm Eric Carlson. Address 1011 West Bacall Street, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. We are the adjacent property owners and we have come to agreement tonight with Brighton Corporation, all the terms have been accepted. We signed and we agree with everything that's been set forth to basically approve this -- the easement or vacation, excuse me. So, any questions for me? De Weerd: No. Thank you. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I guess I just want to express my appreciation to you folks for coming to agreement. I'm sure that everybody involved appreciates your willingness to be -- or offer concession in this particular sticky situation, so thank you. Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Rountree. Anymore questions for me? De Weerd: No. I think the sentiment is shared. Carlson: Okay. Thank you. Bird: Thank you very much. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any final comments before we close the Public Hearing? Council, are you -- what is your desire? Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 63 of 67 Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing on VAC 06-012 and VAR 06-022. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 15 and 16. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we remove from the docket the agenda after -- after the applicant asked to be withdrawn, I don't know if we need a motion, but I will make one that we withdraw the VAC 06-012 from the agenda. We don't need -- De Weerd: No, you need VAC, but you don't need the VAR. Bird: VAR. I'm sorry. I was one step in -- VAR 06-022, I would move that we remove that down -- remove that, then, we will do the vacation. Or do we need to do the vacation first? Wardle: Second. Baird: For clarification, the motion is basically to accept the withdrawal. Rountree: Accept the withdrawal. Bird: And that don't have to be done before the vacation. De Weerd: Okay. So, your motion was to accept the withdrawal for -- Bird: Withdrawal of the vacation -- of the -- De Weerd: VAR. Bird: Of the variance. VAR. De Weerd: Okay. And that was the second; right? Wardle: I agree. Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 64 of 67 De Weerd: Okay. I will ask for a roll call on that. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 15 on VAC 06-012. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we approve Item 15, VAC 06-012 pursuant to applicant's comments, agreement entered into the record, and the property owner's agreement. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. And that would include the conditions placed on by the Public Works Department. Wardle: Specifically regarding bonding on additional construction, yes. De Weerd: Okay. So, you would approve the bonding? Wardle: Madam Mayor, the motion is to approve the bonding with Public Works. De Weerd: Okay. And second agrees? Bird: Second agrees. Rountree: Madam Mayor, discussion? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: For the maker of the motion, does that also include the request for occupancy permit? Wardle: Yes, it does. Bird: Second agrees. De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Rountree: No. Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 65 of 67 De Weerd: Mrs. Smith, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 17: Ordinance No. 06-1271 : AZ 06-029 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.39 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Silversprings Subdivision by Reed Kofoed – south side of McMillan Road and west of Locust Grove Road: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. And thank you. Item 17 is Ordinance No. 06-1271. I will ask the Deputy City Clerk to, please, read this ordinance by title only. Smith: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. We have Meridian City Ordinance No. 06-1271, an ordinance CUP 06-029, Silversprings Subdivision for annexation of property being a portion of McMillan Road right of way and Lots 1 and 2 of Crestwood Subdivision No. 1 as shown in Book 28 of Plats, on pages 1757 and 1758, records of Ada County, Idaho, said parcel being in the north half of the north quarter of Section 31, Township 4 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada county, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territory situated in Ada county, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate city limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining -- tape run out. Sorry. Need to read a little faster. -- establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said lands from RUT, Ada County, to R-4, Low Density District, in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada county assessor, the Ada county recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by the law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading of rules and providing an effective date. De Weerd: Okay. You have heard the reading of Ordinance 06-1271. Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety? Seeing none, Council? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Wardle: I move that we approve Item 17 for Ordinance No. 06-1271, with suspension of rules. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 17. Mrs. Smith, will you call roll. Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 66 of 67 Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 18: Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(f) – (to consider and advise its legal representatives in pending litigation): De Weerd: Thank you. Item 18 is an Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67- 2345(1)(f). May I have a motion to adjourn into Executive Session? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we adjourn into Executive Session as Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(f). Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Mrs. Smith, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. EXECUTIVE SESSION: De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session. Rountree: So moved. Bird: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Do I have a motion to adjourn? Rountree: Move to adjourn. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council October 24, 2006 Page 67 of 67 De Weerd: All those in favor. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:30 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) _______________________________ ______/______/______ MAYOR TAMMY DE WEERD DATE APPROVED ATTESTED:______________________________ WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK