Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 23, 2004 C/C MinutesMeddian City Council March 23, 2004 Page 33 of 62 Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 13. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, I'd move the approval of AZ 03-025, Item 13, it's the Blue Marlin annexation and zoning request of 57.84 acres and for counsel to prepare Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law. The particular conditions of the approval would include the original -- the original request by staff to include the mixed use regional policies as outlined in the staff recommendations, to be included as part of the development agreement for the property, that the 3-A -- that the 3-A development agreement would eliminate the language for subdivision, because conditional use and planned development, I think, addresses those concerns. 3-B of the recommendation that the conceptual master plan sentence will now say: Development application or a site specific plan with any conditional use, that the findings will also indicate that the developer will provide further detail with the application for either conditional use or planned development as to a road -- as to a roadway system within the project and how ~. it's going to -- how the traffic is going to be moved throughout this development, consistent with whatever other agencies are applicable, ITD or ACHD. I think those are probably all of the conditions that I'm -- Bird: I'll second that. That was a good job. De Weerd: Would you like to repeat it? Bird: I think the Mayor is supposed to repeat that, as she calls for the vote. De Weerd: No. I like brevity. I will say that the motion is to approve Item 13, with the amendments as noted, for AZ 03-025. Is there any further discussion? Mr.Clerk, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Public Hearing: AZ 03-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 46.40 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC -east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road; Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 03-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 215 residential building lots and 34 common lots on 46.40 acres in a proposed Meridian City Coundl March 23, 2004 Page 34 of 62 R-8 zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC -east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road: Item 16: Public Hearing: CUP 03-070 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with request for reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and front yard setbacks for patio homes for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC -east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road: De Weerd: Okay. Items 14, 15 and 16. I can open them all at the same time. Does Council desire a short break? Bird: I would. Rountree: I would. De Weerd: I'm sorry. We started late, but we were here at 6:00 o'clock, so if you will allow us ten minutes we will reconvene at that time. (Recess.) De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and open the agenda again. I appreciate your patience with us. I will open Items 14, 15, and 16, AZ 03-037, PP 03-046, and CUP 03-070, and ask staff to comment. Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I wanted to spend a little time just giving you a little preamble to the development here. This property is, as shown on the Comprehensive Plan map here, it's light yellow. They have made it dark so you can see the boundaries of the property, but it is shown as single family residential. I just wanted take some time to point out some of the neighboring uses. You have a large five acre sub over here in Ada county. There is an issue of EI Gato Lane. This is EI Gato. And just beneath EI Gato is Pine Lane also. And; previously, the Council has approved the extension of Pine Street to the canal here, so that has already been pre-decided before tonight and there are subdivisions, Castlebrook Subdivisions on the north side of Pine in this location. I wanted to also point out there are industrial uses to the south. Here is the railroad tracks, an industrial designation on the Comprehensive Plan. We have got a mixed use designation -- actually, several mixed use, and this is high density residential in this area. This site is currently undeveloped and is largely -- Castlebrook, as I mentioned before, is being subdivided in this area here and, then, these are the large industrial properties in this area, which brings us to the layout for the preliminary plat. They are proposing 215 building lots and 34 other lots on 46.4 acres. This gives us a density of 4.61 dwelling units per acre. And this is pretty similar to what you would see in like an Old Town plat for Boise city or for the City of Meridian, for that matter. Perhaps a little less dense than what you would see there. It is a fairly gridded pattern, fairly Meridian City Council March 23, 2004 Page 35 of 62 regular street intersections, and I guess I bring those up, because I think it is shocking when you first see it. We are so used to seeing more curvilinear street patterns, that to see a gridded street layout come through is a little bit of a shock and I suppose that's why I wanted to bring up some of those items. They have submitted a planned development request. I'm going to hit on some of the points related to that. They have asked for reduced frontages throughout the development. They are fairly regular, 5,000 square foot lots. There are some patio homes that share common drives along this southern boundary as it comes up to the railroad tracks and they have asked for specific allowances on setbacks in those areas and particularly the front setback would be eight foot for the patio homes from the edge of the pavement or the shared common drive and what this would do is it would leave them more of a backyard and you can see on some of them they have a shared green space, so there would be a fairly large open area down here along those units. They have also asked on the street in this -- you see little strips of green through here, there is a pedestrian connection and, then, again, little strips of green. What that -- that's a five foot strip of green and, then, the house would be just five feet off of that. So, effectively, you get a ten foot side setback, instead of a 20 foot side setback as required by your ordinance. The lot size is -- 4,980 square feet is the smallest lot proposed. Most of them are in the 5,000, just a little bit larger than that: And the lot frontage requirement -- or proposed lot frontage is 49 feet, six inches. The standard for the city is 65 foot minimum. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the project to you. At the Public Hearing the applicant Kevin Amar testified in favor of the application and there were nine members of the public that testified in opposition. A lot of them did testify about the density of the project. The other testimony was -- I started to mention it before -- was regarding EI Gato Lane and there was a desire by the folks that live on EI Gato Lane that Pine Avenue would not -- or Pine Street would not connect to Black Cat. Sorry. So, that it not continue this length here and connect. But, as I said, that was pretty much determined when Castlebrook went in and that construction has occurred. So, we do have those connections already. Or we have planned for them, anyway. The Commission made two additions to the conditions of approval for the Conditional Use Permit. One was stating the Right-to- Farm Act on the plat. The second was a condition stating that buildings are -- would be limited to one story on two particular properties and those two properties are here at the far east end of the site. There is a small residential property between this development and the canal and they were concerned about two story properties looking into the site. I think you can see that -- you can see it right here. Small relative to its current neighbors. I think it's probably a couple acres. And with that I will end staff's testimony. De Weerd: Any questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant -- and you did participate in the swearing in ceremony; correct? Amar: Yes, ma'am, I did. De Weerd: Please state your name and address. Amar: Madam Mayor, Council Members, my name is Kevin Amar, address 114 East Idaho here in Meridian and I am here on behalf of Chesterfield Subdivision. I will start Meridian City Council March 23, 2004 Page 36 of 62 out -- I will start out by stating with respect to the staff conditions and the Planning and Zoning conditions, there were additional conditions that I will go over with respect to things that were asked of -- from the neighbors and we had agreed to, but we have no issues with any conditions that are before us this evening. We appreciate staffs effort and the Planning and Zoning Commission's effort to work with us. Also trying to work with the neighbors in resolving some of the issues that they had. That being said, with the -- Anna, could you put the area map showing the -- I guess the Comprehensive Plan? That being said, this project, which is located in this area, which on the Comprehensive Plan -- we did change the color just for ease of noting the area -- is a medium density residential area. When we first started working, this was the first 40 acres and at that time the only 40 acres that we thought we were going to be able to develop in this area, which was Castlebrook No. 1. At the time we got this one approved we were approached by this neighbor to work on this piece and we were able to get this one approved and they are currently working on the phase of that, getting the construction plans through DEQ. At the time that was approved, Dr. Louie, who owned it at this time, approached us to -- or we approached him, but conversations were working to work on his property. So, as we have tried to get all these together, making this whole area one feel and one subdivision. Castlebrook Subdivision No. 1, in meeting with the Comprehensive Plan and in trying to come up with a plan to be somewhat harmonious with the neighbors, had a designation of R-4. Castlebrook No. 2 has a designation of R- 8, with the interior lots being as a straight R-8 with respect to 65 foot minimums was the lowest. It was not a Conditional Use Permit or a planned unit development. But the surrounding lots were larger in size and, in fact, the ones along the Ten Mile Drain are 1,600 square foot minimum and a pathway. So, that being said, with this project now being called Chesterfield, we are continuing that same theme with this project, meeting the Comprehensive Plan, which is meeting density residential. When we first came to staff with this project we actually had 235, I believe, residential lots and, obviously, the density was higher than it is now, with five units to the acre. With the redesign and changes that we made with the plat to be more in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and with city standards, we are now at 215 lots, with a density of 4.6 units to the acre. So, if you look at it relative to the Comprehensive Plan, it is still definitely on the low side of what that Comprehensive Plan is, which is up to a maximum of eight units to the acre. The project itself, again, has the lots on the exterior boundary -- I should say on the east and on the northern boundary, compatible with and harmonious with what was approved previously, 65 foot minimum frontage or greater. Along the Ten Mile Drain we have provided lots even larger, again, harmonious with what was approved in Castlebrook Subdivision No. 1. We are also continuing a pathway from this location adjacent to -- it's actually on Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District's property adjacent to the Ten Mile Drain. That will be a pathway that will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. There was one parcel that would need to connect the pathway in Castlebrook No. 2 to this project. Eventually, we see that happening with the redevelopment of that parcel, so people can funnel to the Fuller Park and children also have access to the elementary school there, trying to look at an overall Comprehensive Plan of what would happen to this project in the future. When we held that neighborhood meeting, the project looked similar. We did make some changes to what we had here. At the neighborhood meeting the concerns from the neighbors was that Meridian City Council March 23, 2004 Page 37 of 62 this parcel was with respect to these lots. At the time of the neighborhood meeting there were smaller lots in there, more harmonious or more consistent with a 50 foot lot. So, we pulled lots out of this area, reducing the number of lots further, again, requiring a 1,600 square foot minimum home size in there, being consistent with what was approved in Castlebrook Subdivision. The other areas that were changed were these three lots at that time backed up to Mr. Hanikey's property, I believe is his last name, and there was also a stub road located at this location -- I'm going to give up on that pointer. It's not working real well. But a stub road that we did relocate. All of that came from the neighborhood meeting, trying to understand that this is going to impact the neighbors. We will also be fencing the entire site for less impact of the neighborhood association or the neighborhood group and neighbors that spoke. Some of the issues that came up were with respect to the fencing. At the time Castlebrook Subdivision No. 2 was approved, the concern from-the neighbor -- could you go to the area map again, please? The concern from the neighbor that lives at this location is that neighbor gained access from an old private bridge that crosses the Ten Mile Creek. It is not a safe public bridge, it is something that is used for private purposes. At that time and with this project we agree to barricade this road off, so no vehicle traffic could get to that bridge. One of the concerns that came up from the neighbors also was pedestrians being able to access that bridge and we at that time were asked and agreed to putting up -- rather than a barricade, put up a chain link fence across the right of way -- obviously, we have to get the issues worked out with Ada County Highway District, which we have spoken to them and we can resolve that and also with the fire department to make sure they have no concerns. But they will not be taking a fire truck across that bridge. That's -- farmers don't take their tractors across that bridge. It's a vehicle bridge and a vehicle bridge only. So, that was another concern of the neighbors and we will be putting up a six foot chain link fence that will be gated and locked. If the fire department needs a key, we will meet with them and make sure that they have that -- that information. With respect to these lots, one here and here -- I know it's not on the map, but those will also be single story at the request of the neighbor and the Planning and Zoning Commission. So, this project -- we have been through this process trying to listen all along the way as what can we do, understanding this will be a change to the area, but also understanding that the city's Comprehensive Plan calls for this change -- in fact, this is a lower density than what the Comprehensive Plan could be taken to, which is eight dwelling units to the acre on this parcel. This parcel has 4.6 dwelling units to the acre. With respect to the project itself, we have positioned open space areas in locations that are easily accessible to all the neighbors. We want to provide those open space areas, although there will be a combined joint use facility, open space, and also storm drainage. The storm drainage will be minimal. The depression in the ground is very very slight and it will be across the entire site. So, if you look at the project, you won't really notice a depression. It will be used in the events, but we will still have to meet the Ada County Highway District policy and the City of Meridian's policy for drainage within a 24 hour period. I know that's an issue with the Council members making sure that it's not a standing water situation and that is something that we are aware of and we are designing to -- and will have to be met at the time of construction plan approval. Also, with respect to lots in this area, the railroad track bordered the southern boundary. We positioned common spaces in this location also to facilitate, again, more of an easily Meridian City Council March 23, 2004 Page 38 of 62 accessible, open space area, providing open space that is usable for all the residents and easy to get to those open spaces. Now, in those open spaces we will have playground equipment, volleyball court, we will have a barbecue area and also an amenity of this pathway along the Ten Mile Creek. So, this project is a functional project as far as open space is concerned. The open space in this area -- in this project is nearly ten percent of usable open space, excluding such as this -- this pond is not counted, it's more a storm drain retention pond, it does have a discharge site, so, again, it won't hold water, but it's more of a pond, rather than usable open space. With respect to the common drives, we are asking for reduced setbacks from those common drives. The concern is -- and I have seen a lot of these, people use the drives to park cars and the garage to not put cars in. What we wanted is people to put their cars in their garage. We drive through Bristol Heights, which is an incredible subdivision and it's a nice subdivision, but, again, the garages are set back far enough that people do not park in .the garages. We want to reduce those setbacks, so that we actually require people to park in those garages, not allowing them to park -- the residents to park on the street. There is sufficient parking for people to visit on that street. That is something that we discussed with Mrs. Powell and we came to that conclusion, if we don't want people to park in the driveway, don't provide them enough room to park in the driveway and make them park in the garage, which is, really, where people should be. With respect to the other setback, we are requesting -- and I have spoken with the fire department about this project, but setbacks as required with the building department or the building code. One change that came from this was the fire department requested -- originally we had this entrance located in this location that was requested to be changed because of the fire code or fire department policy and we did relocate that working with the fire department for this approval. This project is in meeting with the Comprehensive Plan. We have met with staff and spent a lengthy process in trying to get this project -- this subdivision to the point it is to today, only due to the fact that we are trying to be harmonious with everyone involved. We understand with the respect to EI Gato or Pine -- I'm not sure what -- I think the latest consensus is this road will be called Pine -- we understand that the neighbors may not want -- they want it located in a different location than it is now, but that has been set by the approval of Castlebrook Subdivision No. 1. In fact, we are currently building that street as it intersects with Black cat. So, with that I believe I'd stand for any questions and I appreciate your time this evening. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Amar, those common areas that are supposed to be the amenities, it says on the staff report one is 1.1 acres and the other one is 1.2 acres. So, I mean they look fairly large up here, but I think it's because all the other lots are small. So, I mean it doesn't seem like, you know, one -- you know, a one acre parcel is more than really a pocket park in, I guess, our view. And you want to have all these additional amenities? Like a tot lot and a-volleyball court and a gazebo and it'd drainage, too. I mean I guess I Meridian City Council March 23, 2004 Page 39 of 62 don't know how you can really incorporate all of that into really being an amenity. I mean it sounds like a great idea, but, realistically, I think we have found a lot of those drainages don't work beyond drainage to be able to put all those other things in it and one acre seems awfully small to try to make that a real amenity for 260 homes. I mean that is a lot of homes and it's -- the amenity is supposed to relate to the homes, it's supposed to make it an amenity to them and I don't see how that really fits. It just doesn't work for me. Amar: Madam Mayor, Commissioner -- or Councilmember Nary, the pocket parks are -- there are -- if you call them pocket parks, there is one located here, here, and here. The idea is rather than have a centralized park that people have to walk to, have parks close to people's dwellings. What we are finding is when people live -- where people live they want their kids to play close to where they live, so if they have to walk to that area, people aren't as willing to let their children use that. When we do put parks in that are larger and centralized, the people that use it are the people across the street or next door to that park. So, the thought was let's break them up, let's use them in different areas, providing large enough areas for each one that people can use. One .acre, obviously, is a lot of park and I would direct your thought process to maybe Sportsmen's Pointe, if you have been through there. That is a familiar -- are you familiar with that common area? It is a joint use facility. It's got a volleyball court and a basketball court and I believe it even has a playground structure, but it is also a storm water area that can be used during the high events. I drive through it all the time. People are using that all summer long. When it rains does it get wet? Yes, it does, but it also drains out and is functional within the required time frames of Ada County Highway District and the City of Meridian. I'll also look back at Castlebrook Subdivision No. 1. The storm drainage areas that are strictly storm drainage in that subdivision, those also drain out in a reasonable time frame, within the 24 hour time period. So, I know you can design them to make that happen and, obviously, that was something that was specifically mentioned in Castlebrook No. 1 and No. 2, make sure these parks don't hold water. We don't want mosquito areas. I understand that. And we have been. able to achieve that request or that condition by our design. So, I have no problem. believing that these parks, although we say one acre is not large, when people are living in an 8,000 square foot lot, which is an average lot in Meridian, a one acre park is a large area and it's dedicated simply to a park, so you're able to put -- our thought was keep -- you know, if little kids are playing in the tot lot, little kids, big kids, they don't mix, little kids fight with big kids, so put a tot lot in this area, put a volleyball court in this area, put agazebo -- the gazebo and the barbecue area be more in these areas, so those residents that have the patio homes have an area to go to and gather at a common -- a larger common lot. So, we would -- rather than having all the amenities in one area, put them throughout the subdivision, so people have ease of access to it -- to a common area. Nary: But your first statement was is you wanted to make it accessible to the people so they don't -- if I have got a little kid and your tot lot is here and I live here, I got to go down there anyway. I mean so -- I mean I guess it seems inconsistent as to what you said as to why they are so small, but spread out, was the intent to get these people to focus on that common area, these people focused on this one, and these people to Meridian City Council March 23, 2004 Page 40 of 62 focus on that one, but if you spread out the amenity to a volleyball court here and a gazebo here and a tot lot there, well, that totally defeats the whole idea of what you have. So, it doesn't sound so much like an amenity. Amar: Madam Mayor, Commissioner Nary, we -- I guess we'll look for direction from you. We are trying to provide amenities that, obviously, in a planned unit development they are saying provide two amenities. Well, I don't know what two amenities are, so we are trying to put enough in there that this subdivision is a community -- that not just this one, but it's also cohesive with Castlebrook 1 and Castlebrook 2 and that they really are a cohesive community. In Castlebrook 1 and Castlebrook 2 the park areas are much smaller than what we have here, so we are providing much greater open space in this subdivision than we did in those subdivisions, understanding that there are more people living in here and that's reasonable to do. I understand that. So, putting amenities in this area -- and the barbecue area, I would focus that more on this area, simple because those lots are -- they are patio lots. That's what we are trying to focus those for, giving those people an area to go to. Tot lots, we can put those in -- I don't mind putting in another tot lot or something to make this a viable, good community, something that works for everyone. I don't know if I answered your question or not, but -- Nary: It wasn't really much of a question. That's okay. Thank you. De Weerd: No, it wasn't. Hey, do you know -- are you familiar with Summerfield Subdivision, the green space right when you go in the front? Do you know how big that is? Amar: I'm familiar with the subdivision, but I couldn't tell you how large it is. De Weerd: I think that -- do you know, Anna? Powell: Not off the top of my head. I can look on the zoning map and see if we can find out. Hold on. Amar: For a reference, when you're using a playground structure -- we are putting some in in other subdivisions right now, they are requesting an area just for the playground, obviously, of about 40 by 40 feet and that's for a fairly large structure, three or four slides and swings and different things. So, the area for just the structure itself is relatively small, obviously, in the size of a park of an acre that's a small portion. So, there still is -- we want to provide area that people can run, play, throw a frisbee. We have a project in Nampa that has about three-quarters of an acre and the park itself -- orthe playground structure itself takes one small corner and the rest of it's reserved and it's also a joint use facility. These are for play. We used to live across the street from it, so I'm fairly familiar with it, but baseball was played out there, football on Thanksgiving was played out there. There is an area that really was used by the subdivision. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City council March 23, 2004 Page 41 of 62 Powell: It would appear to be between three-quarters to an acre. De Weerd: Okay. That's where my daughter plays soccer several times a week and it's a fairly big open space. I guess you don't really think -- it's hard to really judge in green space how much that would be because of the size of the lots, but it is rather big when you see it and when you get a bunch of kids on it. Bird: That's Summerfield? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Bird: Yeah, that's -- De Weerd: That's a nice little area. Bird: I don't think it's an acre. De Weerd: That's what they said, three-fourths of an acre. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions for the applicant? Bird: Madam Mayor, I do have one. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Maybe -- and I might have misunderstood, but I understand the frontage on most of your lots are, what, 49 feet --are you proposing? Is that what Anna said? And with an R-8 it's supposed to be 65? Rountree: Fifty, I think he said. De Weerd: Anna. Powell: Madam Mayor, Commissioner Bird, I'm sorry, I wasn't exactly listening, but I think your question was the standard lot frontage is 65. I believe most of these are 50, but there is a couple that are 49.5. Bird: Okay. That's 50 and 49 -- Powell; Forty-nine and a half. Bird: Which 15 or 16 feet shorter than what standard R-8 is. Okay. Amar: Am I supposed to respond? De Weerd: If you have a response. There wasn't really a question, just like Councilman Nary. Meddian City Council March 23, 2004 Page 42 of 62 Bird: Yeah. Go ahead. You're welcome to respond. De Weerd: We are just making statements up here. Amar: With respect to the lot frontages, understanding that these all are smaller lot frontages, if I might direct you to this -- these lots in -- from here to approximately here are 65 feet wide or greater. No. I take that back. These are 60 feet wide or greater. These lots from this location to here are 70 feet wide or greater. The radius is maybe a little different. The smaller lots -- and, again, on the exterior here, the same situation. The smaller lots are when you get into the subdivision and we are offsetting those smaller lots by the additional open space and the additional amenities. So, in order to meet the zoning or the Comprehensive Plan of up to eight units to the acre, we can't do that with a straight R-8 zone, it's physically impossible to get up to eight units to the acre. As you can see here, this has 4.61 units to the acre and, obviously, these lots are smaller than what is your R-8 zone. So, again, we are trying to be consistent with what is called for in the Comprehensive Plan. A large part of that, I believe, with this area, it's next to a future commuter rail or what's hoped to be a future commuter rail, so the density in these areas needs to be higher to justify that -- the added expense or the viability of a commuter rail. So, I don't know if that's a response, but at least it's an explanation of how we got to where we are at today. Bird: Can I follow up? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Bird: I understand why you come in like that, but I have a real problem with a 49 foot frontage or 50 foot frontage, whatever you want to call it. It don't leave much frontage for the driveway to get up onto your deal or -- I don't know. I realize you don't get eight lots in an R-8 to a deal, because you'd have to take out all your other stuff for your driveways and everything. But I have a problem with that narrow frontage on the majority of the lots. De Weerd: Is there any further questions at this point? Okay. Or any further statements you want make? Okay. Thank you. Amar: Thank you. De Weerd: I do have a few people signed up. Is there a Gary Schweiger? Schweiger. Judy. Schweiger: I'm his wife Judy. Madam Mayor and Council, I'm Judy Schweiger and I live at 3515 West Pine. Anna, could you put that other -- the other one. Our property is this parcel and this parcel. We also farm the parcel across -- we lease this parcel and the 12 up to Ten Mile. West Pine from the ditch to Ten Mile is private road owned by seven people. All of it is farm use. The Wilders have sheep and the Jensens have pigs. So, we Meridian City Coundl March 23, 2004 Page 43 of 62 have a lot of agricultural issues and I think probably -- there was a lot of protest at Planning and Zoning. They addressed some of their concerns, I think, to the satisfaction of some of the other neighbors near Black Cat. Our main concem is along the ditch we are very concerned about trespassing on West Pine, which is a gravel road that we all privately own. We are concerned about children -- there being dogs, about children trying to cut through to go to the school and they did address that with the signage and with the gate that's supposed to be blocking -- chain link fencing. What we are concerned with, along the ditch there is 1,600 square foot homes that will have to be two story and my understanding is from the last hearing that the fencing is only going to be four feet high. I believe see-through vinyl fencing and, then, the walking path on the ditch and we just feel like that is -- we'd like to see one story houses. We'd like to see a six foot fence on a berm, so that we have protection between the agriculture and this many people living in this small area and we all have homes that are valued at approximately 300,000 and we are also very concerned about the value of our homes. And so that is our main concerns about our area. The other thing I'd like to address is the eight foot frontages. My husband and I are developers and builders and our experience is that that leads to absolute disaster. People pull out, they are parking, they don't have room to park in their driveway, they don't have room for guests, they block the mailman, they block the garbage trucks, there is trikes and bikes everywhere. It just becomes a ghetto type situation. And we strongly feel that that is a very bad plan. Those are my main issues. s De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any questions? Thank you. Okay. Rick or Faith Jensen. If you will just state your name and address. Jensen: My name is Rick Jensen. I live at 3720 West Pine. De Weerd: Thank you. Jensen: Madam Mayor and Councilmen, I appreciate your taking the time to listen to me. If I could have that other slide, that's a little bit better forme. Not that one. There we go. Now I got to position myself. Oh, yeah. Here we go. Okay. I live right here. This is my property. And if you can see those dark spots right there, down there in the corner, that s my house. And if you take a Icok at this piece of property right here and -- oops. Right here. And that dark spot, that's his house. So, the proximity between my house and this subdivision that's going to go in and these double story homes is just the same distance here and from the developer I'd appreciate the same consideration for a single story -- single story homes on that -- on that edge of the subdivision as they did down here in this corner in this area of the subdivision. That's one of my concerns. The other one I echo the concems of the Schweigers with the ditch here. That's a real issue. As you can see with all this subdivision going in all around us, we are rapidly becoming the fish in the fish bowl and the level of privacy that we think would be appropriate would be a six foot berm, non-see-through fence along this ditch area and around this corner. The other concern that the developer talked about, an issue, was the walking path and I guess he could clarify that for me if I'm wrong, but I assume that's going to be on the west side of this ditch and that defeats the purpose -- I was thinking they were going to Meridian City Council March 23, 2004 Page 44 of 62 do about fencing here and restricting the footpath and foot traffic down here to this private lane and on down to Pine -- on down Pine and down to the high school. The high school is right down Pine Street there and, then, there is, of course, the elementary school up there in the corner. You can see it -- the laser pointer is not working for me here. And this one's too smart for me. Oh, there it is. So, I have a real issue along the ditch here. I haven't been approached from anybody about a foot path along from here down and I guess it's my hope that if there is a foot path it goes this way and not continue down the ditch there. This individual, if you look at that black spot right there, I'm sure he -- he's within 15, 20 feet of that ditch, I mean his house has got a deck that goes pretty close to the ditch, so a foot path wouldn't go in there. My access to my property, my lane -- my driveway, if you will, is right on the ditch also again, an easement from the irrigation company. So, to head down the ditch beyond this point is going to be a challenge with the property owners on both sides. So, that's what I'd ask of the developer is the consideration along this area here for the privacy of the property owners on this side of the -- on the east side of the development. For the Council -- Councilman Nary and Councilman Bird, lalso -- De Weerd: If you could summarize. I'm sorry. Jensen: The density, the housing density I think is too much for this amount of ground. The reducing the lot sizes, the frontages and I think as opposed to squeezing in more houses -- fewer houses and accent the amenities for a better development. Thanks for your time: And just a last comment, I hope you got my letter that we submitted. Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Any questions for Mr. Jensen? Okay. Thank you. Okay. The next person we have -- is Tom Noll here? Tom, it says you're representing EI Gato neighborhood. You can have five minutes. Noll: Hey, that's pretty generous of you. I appreciate that. Thanks, Mrs. De Weerd and thanks members of the Council. My name is Tom Noll, N-o-I-I. I live at 5947 EI Gato Lane. I'm representing the EI Gato neighborhood. There is about 25 people. I can show you where it is. It's this neighborhood here. This is Black Cat and it's this area in here. As I said there is 25 people. I have visited all of them. There is not a single one is in support of this subdivision. There is some issues -- and Mr. Amar makes it sound like there were some harmonious public meetings and so on. I worked with the -- I didn't work with Anna Powell, but I called the Planning and Zoning and asked for the list of the folks that were notified of -- by the developer and through all these subdivisions, Castlebrook and Chesterfield, not a single EI Gato resident was ever directly notified. So, maybe they were harmonious meetings, but we weren't there and that's an issue that we have. We have -- we are very concerned about the traffic and -- because of all these --the Castlebrook and the Chesterfield Subdivisions, there is only one entrance -- and Iguess the word is egress, but it's right there opposite our street and even though the traffic study suggests that there will be no traffic down EI Gato Lane, we know there was no measuring on EI Gato Lane and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission asked incredulously why would anyone go west and I guess they are Meridian City Council March 23, 2004 Page 45 of 62 unaware of it, a Costco is going to be built in Nampa and the Nampa center is out there and we are concerned that there will be traffic on our neighborhood street. What we -- I'm not going to take up all the time and talk about the issues, because they are in the public record with our letters and such. I do want to emphasize that in the entire process, the planning process, no EI Gato resident was ever notified by the developer, by ACHD, by Planning and Zoning or any representative from the Meridian government, that we can -- and our recommendation -- we have the same issues with the setbacks and the housing density and so forth and we have an issue with the roads, but as Anna pointed out, that -- it may be too late for that issue. Our recommendation on this subdivision is to remand this or return it to Planning and Zoning to review the density and to present a more agreeable design plan, with more meaningful public input. What we would like to recommend, just in general -- this is not the last of the developments that will occur in Meridian and I highly recommend -- just my experience with where I work and such, we get a much better product when we involve the public and to exclude us for some reason or another -- well, it didn't sit well with the neighbors and I think it's not -- you're not going to get the best plan out of the developer or out of -- out of, you know, our support. So, my recommendation is to consider those issues and to have a little more thorough notification process in the future. But, as I said earlier, on this subdivision our recommendation is to remand it to Planning and Zoning to review the density, review the layouts, and present a more agreeable design plan with more meaningful public input. I appreciate you taking the time to listen to me. ' De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Noll. Any questions? Bird: I do, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Your road runs all the way to McDermott? Nolf: Yes, sir, it does. Bird: Okay. It runs through. Noll: It dead ends at McDermott at the present time and probably will stay that way. Bird: It does dump on to McDermott? Noll: It does. Yes, sir. Bird: Okay. Thank you. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Council March 23. 2004 Page 46 of 62 Rountree: Is it a private lane or a public road? Noll: It's a -- well, that's an interesting question. It's -- I'll tell you about that. This -- the street here is a public road, you know, with the ACHD right of way and so on. Parallel to it -- there is actually two roads right here and there is a dirt road called Pine and a paved road called EI Gato and they are separated by about, oh, 15 feet, probably. That's twice the eight foot setback. But they are separated right now and this dirt road that's Pine -- it serves these properties here. It actually runs along the front of those three and, then, down the front of those three and, then, back to a house back there. Rountree: So, that portion is private? Noll: That's correct. That's Pine -- that portion of Pine, the gravel portion, is a private road. Rountree: Okay. De Weerd: Any further questions? Thank you, Mr. Noll. Noll: Thanks. I appreciate that opportunity. De Weerd: Is there any further testimony? Okay. Would the applicant like to provide rebuttal? Amar: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council Members. Again, for the record, Kevin Amar. In response to some of the questions that were raised, I will try to take those in order and answer some of the questions that were raised. Mrs. Schweiger -- is that -- asked on a couple of the questions with reference to how do you access the school which is located over here in -- I forget the name of the subdivision, but behind Fuller Park. De Weerd: Parkside Creek Bird: Parkside Creek. Amar: Parkside Creek. Thank you. With Castlebrook Subdivision No. 2 we provided a pathway along the Ten Mile Creek. Now, that did terminate at its eastern boundary, but we also will be providing and have entered into a license agreement with Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District for a crossing that will connect this subdivision, Castlebrook 2, Castlebrook 1, and the future Chesterfield Subdivision to the public city pathway in Fuller Park, which gives access to the school and kids getting to the school. So, the concern of kids cutting through Pine to get to the elementary school is -- I think is a question that we have resolved with respect to -- kids can get through to that school across an access point that we are providing to Fuller Park. We understand Pine is a private road and for that reason we are fencing it off from public use. We are restricting Pine, as much as we can, from public use. No traffic will be on there, there will be no Meridian City Council March 23, 2004 Page 47 of 62 trespassing signs, we have fences up to keep people from doing that. With respect to the pathway along Ten Mile Creek, the four foot vinyl fence on that, similar to what is seen in Bridgetower, is simply to have avision -- or vision from the home to the pathway, so it does not become a safety corridor -- or an unsafe corridor. It's similar to what's done in many of the areas within Meridian. So, for that reason we did not do a six foot fence, we did not do a berm, we wanted to be able to see that pathway. The 1,600 square feet on the lots adjacent to Ten Mile -- again, that was consistent with what was approved at Castlebrook Subdivision No. 2. Those lots are larger. They can build very well on all those lots a 1,600 square foot house that is single story. We did not restrict those to single story, simply because that was not -- we are trying, again, to be harmonious with what was approved in Castlebrook Subdivision No. 2, carrying that through. With respect to the reduced parking issue asked about, that was something that we came up with trying to get people -- if you reduce the parking -- you can't reduce to anything less than 20 until you get below ten or eight feet, because people still think they can park in that area. We don't want those -- Anna, could you put up the subdivision map? That reduced parking is only for the lots that have the common drive. We do not want people using those common drives as parking areas. For that reason we restricted the parking. All of the other lots within the subdivision will have the 20 foot setback for the garage, so people can park in their front driveway. But if you let them park in those common drives, the concern was they would use those common drives for parking, rather than their garages. So, that was a solution that we came up with for the reduced parking. With respect to Mr. Jensen, the walking path -- and I understand he lives approximately in this location. So, he had two concerns, one being the house location from -- to his southwest, which is a common area, so there will be no houses built across or kittycorner from his property. It is a common area, which I think will answer some of his concerns. Also, the walking path will terminate at this location and will connect to the sidewalk, which will allow people to walk down the sidewalk and, then, through Castlebrook Subdivision No. 2 to get to the park and get to the school. We have no plans to put a pathway and I don't believe the city has any plans at this time to put a pathway along Ten Mile Creek. That's private property, we understand that, and we respect that. We were just trying to provide something that may happen in the future when property does develop. That whole area -- in fact, there are parcels for sale in that -- along the private Pine Street now. The church owns some property. It is listed. I do not know plans for a development of that, but it's, obviously, an area that is looking at redevelopment and many of the neighbors already have their property for sale for redevelopment. We have Berkeley Square that was redeveloped at a higher density than we have. Mosher Farms, another development in there that was -- is also a higher density and smaller lot than we have on average. Also, the project across the street from that, to the -- I guess it's in the north -- or southeast corner of Pine and Ten Mile that is actually four-plexes and commercial and, again, it's a higher density than what we currently have. So, it is an area of change and it is an area of redevelopment that I think people are aware of. With respect to Mr. Noll's questions, with respect to notification, in Castlebrook Subdivision No. 1 -- Anna, could you put up the -- thank you. In Castlebrook Subdivision No. 1 when this did go through we did notify the neighbors. We held neighborhood meetings on all of these, which is -- I understand it's not a City of Meridian requirement, we do think it's a good idea, for that reason we do hold Meridian City Council March 23. 2004 Page 48 of 62 neighborhood meetings, we do try to get input from the neighbors. All of these projects have been affected by those neighborhood meetings and all of them have had changed due to those neighborhood meetings. So, we did that mailing list from the City of Meridian who -- we mail to the same people that Meridian mails to. At the time that Castlebrook Subdivision No. 1 came in, many of these neighbors across the street to the west of us did come out. There were -- it was about a year and a half ago, but if I remember correctly there were four neighbors from across Black Cat to the west that did come and testify with respect to this project. So, those neighbors were notified and some did come and testify with respect to Castlebrook. We understand the frustration on Tom Noll's part. I'm not sure where he lives, but, obviously, it's further down EI Gato. EI Gato is a residential street. With the -- with this project, Castlebrook 1, we do have to make improvements to Black Cat Road at the intersection of Black Cat and Franklin. Those will be turn bays and additional areas for traffic to flow, making it easier to go to a major collector. EI Gato is not a collector, it's more of a residential street. It will make it easier to go to either Franklin or Cherry Lane and access -- access to the west of this process -- this project. So, although we may not have answered all -- or even been able to come to a resolution with all the neighbors, we have listened to their concems, we are. trying to mitigate their concems by providing -- by providing some solutions to their questions, by putting up fencing, by making lots larger, by requiring minimum square footages, adding amenities to this project. With respect to the PUD and things that we are asking, we are asking these trying to come up with a project that ultimately will 1 benefit the city. The eight foot parking setback -- if we make that a 20 foot setback -- I don't know that I care, I just don't want those common driveways to become places where people park, I want those common driveways to be driveways, people access their house and move on. The lots that sit -- could I have that map up one more time? The lots that sit here are set so there is a minimum of 100 foot frontage for each lot, which, obviously, gives enough room for guests and visitors to park in front of that lot. So, we feel that we have a project that has been thought out. We have worked hard with staff, we have worked hard with the fire department trying to come up with solutions for as many of these questions that have arisen. The density is something that has been looked at, it was actually reduced from the initial proposal. The lot sizes, Mr. Bird -- Councilmember Bird was concerned about, is similar to many of the projects that they are going through. Paramount has smaller lots than many of these. As I mentioned, Mosher Farms and Berkeley Square, Tuscany Village -- a lot of the projects that are coming through have some smaller lots, which gives you diversity within the community. Across the street from this we have Castlebrook Subdivision No. 2, which has the larger lots and Castlebrook Subdivision No. 1, which is even larger yet. So, with the consistency of all these, we are trying to provide a broad range of what can people do and what -- leave people's options open. We appreciate your time and I would be happy to stand and answer any further questions and if I did not address some of the concerns from the neighbors, I would be happy to address those also. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Rountree: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council March 23, 2004 Page 49 of 62 De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I have no question and I, actually, have a comment. It relates nothing to this particular subdivision, but you did mention in your discussion that -- when you were talking about pathways that there is a concept or a design for Castlebrook to cross Ten Mile and connect with Fuller Park. I'd just point out to you that Fuller Park is neither owned or operated by the City of Meridian and as far as I know Western Ada Recreation District, who owns and operates that park, has not been contacted by the developer and the touchdown point, even though it is along the drain, is owned by Western Ada Recreation District, not Nampa-Meridian Irrigation. Amar: I'm sorry, the -- would you state that last -- I just didn't -- Rountree: The ownership of that property is Western Ada Recreation District, not Nampa-Meridian Irrigation. So, I would suggest that you get ahold of Western Ada Recreation District if, in fact, you're committed to that by virtue of your subdivision approval. They might have something to say about that. Amar: Madam Mayor, Councilmember Rountree, we will contact Western Ada Recreational District. The comment with respect to who owns the property that we are putting our pathway on, the Ten Mile Drain -- there is a hundred foot swath all along the Ten Mile Drain that is actually owned by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. It was deeded to them from the Bureau of Reclamation in 1992, I believe. So, in order for us to put a pathway on that -- the southern side of that ditch, we do have to get access from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District.' We will not be building anything on the Western Ada Recreation District's property. We will connect into that public pathway that is on their property, but all of the construction will be within the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District to drain and we will contact Western -- is it Western Ada -- Rountree: Recreation District. Amar: -- Recreation District to coordinate. I spoke with them -- or a representative from them when we first went through and their comment was as long as you are not constructing anything on our property, we don't care. So, all we are really doing is providing access for the residents to that park and that was facilitated with a license agreement from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. And, again, I know this doesn't have anything to do with this project, but just as a -- Rountree: I just point that out. Amar: I appreciate it. De Weerd: Thank you. Any further questions? Or statements or comments or -- Nary: We will get to those. Meridian City Council March 23, 2004 Page 50 of 62 De Weerd: Okay. Amar: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Anything from staff? Powell: Just that I live on a 4,000 square foot lot and I love it. De Weerd: Thank you. Another statement. Bird: I live on an 8,000 and it's too big. De Weerd: Is there any discussion? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess for the purposes of discussion, you know, the density -- I understand what the neighbors' concerns are about density and if I lived on EI Gato Lane I'd probably say the same thing Mr. Noll is saying. I don't know that it -- I can't look in a crystal ball and know whether or not anybody's going to drive down that road significantly. Realistically, it appears that there is not real value to drive down that road just to get to McDermott to go left or right anyway. I mean, again, I don't know if there is a train there, if there is really rail there, that may be acut-through place. So, I understand that that type of traffic could occur. The density here I don't really have a concern with, but I guess what I'm kind of stuck on is the -- really, the design of these lots is small, smaller, and smallest. I mean it doesn't have -- it doesn't have, really, a feel of variety. I think the ones Mr. Amar cited either are a very self-contained, very small development, like Mosher Farms or Berkeley Square that is, really, a fairly small self-contained development that only has one housing type in it or ones like Paramount that have 800 homes in it. So, they really - - Imean neither one is a very fair comparison to me as to why this one fits the character of this area and all of the lots are fairly small and reduced, other than some that are along some people's homes and the rest of them are pretty small and the amenities that are being considered in relation to the smaller sizes don't appear to me to really provide the level of appropriate use or access from a variety of homes. I mean this -- Mr. Amar's testimony is each one of these areas was intended as common space or open space predominately for the people around the adjacent area, but, yet, their amenity really isn't clear at all as to what it's supposed to be. You know, if this green space was bigger, that might be more of an enticement to these folks. If this green space is bigger, that would appear to me to be more of an enticement for usage, but this amenity is really supposed to be an amenity and I guess I'm just not feeling that from the testimony that's been presented that it's really meeting the intent of what amenities are supposed to be to allow you to deviate from what's required. I think we all know -- and Mr. Amar is right that an R-8 really doesn't get you eight units per acre. I mean I think we all understand that with setbacks and the other requirements. But these small patio homes don't have Meridian Ciry Counal March 23, 2004 Page 51 of 82 the same level of concern maybe that Councilman Bird had to me, as an option and a variety, but the rest of these -- and, again, I don't know, maybe it's just your drawing, but the way the rest of these are presented, they look like pretty small postage stamp lots for pretty small homes that are going to be neighbor to neighbor and no significant variety of design or anything else in this project and I -- and that's the hard part I guess I'm having a hard time reconciling is the density amount doesn't concern me as much as the design of how this is all placed, with very little thought as to variety or mixes of housing. Amar: Do I get to respond to any of this? De Weerd: No. Unless they have a question for you. Any further questions. Do you wish to hear from Mr. Amar? Nary: Sure. De Weerd: Go ahead. Amar: Thank you for the opportunity, Madam Mayor. To respond to Commissioner Nary. The reason I bring up Paramount or Heritage Commons or some of these other projects is looking at this area I understand that those projects have 800 homes in them and so their variety is greater, but this project --and when I started this -- we started out with 40 acres out here and that first 40 acres has a density of 2.8 units to the acre. The next person came and said do you want to do ours and that has a density of about 3.4 units to the acre. This project has a density of 4.6 units to the acre. So, if you combine all those together, the density is still below three units to the acre. So, this area, really, should be looked at as a complete subdivision. Although they were approved in three separate subdivisions, it still is one area and it still provides in one area lots that are larger down to the patio home lots that we are providing in this subdivision. For that reason I brought up Paramount, I brought up Heritage Commons, I brought up Tuscany Village, just to compare to subdivisions that -- understanding they were approved in one large subdivision, but they are still similar to what we are doing tonight and with respect to this site, we have, obviously, the railroad tracks on the south, EI Gato on the -- or Pine on the north, and along -- really, a long skinny piece, so we are trying to, within that piece, be -- I don't know if creative is the right word, but design within that -- within those confines. So, that was what I would hope. When you look at these, look at this as a whole area of what has been approved out here, again, from the same developer trying to be consistent for the whole area. Nary: Thank you. Amar: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, what would you like to do? Bird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council March 23, 2004 Page 52 of 62 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Hearing no more further comment, I move that we close AZ 03-037, PP 03-46, and CUP 03-070. De Weerd: Do I have a second? Rountree: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on 14, 15 and 16. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.. De Weerd: Is there any discussions? Or comment? Statements? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: As a comment, I agree with the comments that Councilman Nary made. I know it's a tough site, I know it's theoretically consistent with the Comp Plan. I think one of the things I sense from past actions of the city in these kinds of things is that they are looking for creative approaches, some innovative design details, to compensate for the desires and the requests being made of the city in terms of waiving a number of requirements for subdivisions in terms of setbacks and road widths and frontages and side yard setbacks and those sorts of things and I guess I just don't see that that's happening with this particular development. So, I don't have favorable view of this particular proposal. With respect to the roadways that -- the roads are public roads. Anybody in the county is welcome to use any of these roads at any point in time as they develop, so that's not at issue and my concern. De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess what I'm thinking -- and I don't know what the rest of the Council thinks. Again, lunderstand -- I think what Mr. Amar's presentation there is -- there is some merit to what they are attempting to accomplish here and I understand his argument that there are other properties adjacent to this that if you look at it as a whole it provides some variety of housing. The problem is -- and it's not his fault, it's not the developer's fault, but they aren't one project. I mean they are three different projects and they have to sustain themselves, they have requirements to meet on their own, and although it would be nice to be able to attach Castlebrooks 1 and 2 and say this is just phase three, it really isn't. But I don't think it's totally -- I mean it's a totally poor concept and that it can't be looked at and so I guess I would be more inclined to remand this back to Planning and Zoning with some recommendations for redesign, rather than simply a Meridian City Council March 23, 2004 Page 53 of 62 denial, because I do think, again, the intent of the density and what was on master -- what's on the Comprehensive Plan I think you're attempting to get there. Again, I just have some concern with the design, the mixture, but I don't know what everyone else thinks. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle? Wardle: Madam Mayor, I would agree with the comments that Mr. Nary has given to us in the sense that if you look -- if you take the subdivisions that are mixed use that were represented, there is an overall theme and a feel and an overall connection of all of the amenities together and so while in theory you might be able to make that connection, in reality you can't -- I can't. I can't make the connection to those other subdivisions in the sense that this is just that smaller zoning area and so densitywise I have -- I understand the R-8 zoning and while I don't necessarily have a problem with that, I do with the smaller lot sizes and so would agree that the concept is there and I think that a remand would be -- would be prudent for us. De Weerd: Okay. When you make a motion, you need to give some direction for P&Z and for the applicant in what you're looking for, so do I have a motion? Nary: Madam Mayoi'? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I would move that we remand Item 13, 14, and 15? De Weerd: Fourteen, 15 and 16. Nary: Fourteen, 15 and 16 back to the Planning and Zoning Commission to review on the design, Iguess -- I guess primarily on the design in regards to both the amenities that are being requested, the reduction in lot sizes and frontages, for them to reevaluate on mixtures of housing styles and sizes of property for development and, again, for the open space, for them to review the open space and whether a greater or variety of open space should be required. I don't think we discussed the roadway system, but I think they are going to have to evaluate the roadway system as part of the design of the overall design of the current project and I think that would cover enough. If you think -- do you need anything else for direction, Mrs. Powell? Powell: Could you clarify the last statement regarding the roadways? Nary: Well, we didn't have a lot of information about the roadway system, the internal roadway system and whether or not -- I just assumed that as part of a look at the design, variety of density, the location of the amenities and open space, that roadway is probably going to be a part of that. I don't think we have expressed any concern with the roadway itself, but I don't know who you can redesign the property without at least Meridian City Counal March 23, 2004 Page 54 of 82 addressing whether the roadway system is still appropriate for whatever the design they look at. Powell: And just acouple --one other question. De Weerd: Anna, if you will hold on. first, can I get a second before we have discussion? Wardle: Second. Nary: I think that covers everything, unless there was something else that someone else had. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Shaun, you seconded --okay. So, Anna, I'm sorry Powell: I'm sorry. If we could -- there was -- I heard Councilmember Nary say that density wasn't an issue and I heard Councilmember Wardle say it was, so I was just -- wanted alittle clarification on that one. Nary: Which one? I'm sorry. Powell: Density. Nary: I think the issue that we have been discussing is primarily more with the lot sizes and the variety of lots and the necessity for the reduction in lots -- or lot sizes and not really on density, because I think the density is at least a lot closer to what's intended by the Comprehensive Plan. Powell: And, then, one final question if I might, just so I can help the applicant as they go back or help the P&Z as it goes back through. The Comprehensive Plan does call for a gridded pattern and we don't usually see that. Is that something that concerns you regarding the design or mixed feelings or is it just this particular design? Nary: At least for me it is a little startling. But, again, I don't necessarily think that that's something we have given direction previously and at least for me I don't have a concern with the grid pattern right now and, again, the roadway issue is going to probably be tied to the rest of the design of the project. Powell: Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, just my direction on the grid way system. I don't think I have a problem necessarily with the grid way -- with the grid system. My concern is a large grid Meridian City Council March 23, 2004 Page 55 of 62 of 49.6 foot lots all stacked up together is a little startling from a use standpoint, and so, like I said, I could probably become accustomed to a grid system in a newer form. De Weerd: Is that enough direction for the applicant? For staff? Powell: Well, he has asked me to ask about lot widths and my feeling from you is it really depends on the design and the unit types and the mix and the variety and that would depend on --okay. De Weerd: And I think Councilman Nary had mentioned, you know, the bottom portion of that, he didn't have an issue with, it's more that you would want more of a mixture of sizes and -- or choices or a transition as well. Nary: Ithink --just to be fair, I think Councilman Bird did at least express some concern about the potential of the widths there, as well as the parking issue, although I -- I'm not an engineer, so I don't know whether or not -- you know, what Mr. Amar is saying is correct. We did hear some testimony to the opposite effect that it tends to cause a lot of clutter, a lot of congestion, a lot of cars stacked up at driveways on the street -- again, I don't know. I liked having the mixture of those patio homes, I just don't know that there is really enough mixture here, so -- Wardle: Madam Mayor, I would also just second that notion from Mr. Nary in the sense that when I say 49 foot lots, I might be --Ithink having them all together in the majority of the subdivision similar to that is what I have a problem with and so while -- if you could mix some of those reduced lot frontages into a larger plan, I think it would be more cohesive. De Weerd: Okay. Well? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Call the question. De Weerd: Thank you. The question has been called. The motion is to remand Items 14, 15 and 16 to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Is there any further discussion? Did we need roll call? Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. Nary: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Coundl March 23, 2004 Page 56 of 62 De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Council, if you could excuse me. I found my daughter was in an accident, so I need to go. Item 17: Ordinance No. AZ 03-015 Request for annexation and zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Sasreland Planned Develooment by Quasar Development, LLC - northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 17 is Ordinance 04-1072 and I will ask the city clerk to please read this ordinance by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 04-1072, an Ordinance finding that Charles H. and Vickie A. Richardson, the owners of certain real property generally located at the northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road, Meridian, Idaho, to be known as Sageland Subdivision and which lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, have made a request for annexation in writing to the Council that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated Medium Density Residential District (R-8) and declaring that said land, by proper legal description as described below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith, and directing the city engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada county recorder, auditor, treasurer, and assessor and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to hear this ordinance read in its entirety? Hearing none -- before Shawn sticks his foot in his mouth -- is there any discussion? Item 18 was going to be continued, so we don't need to read that as well. So, I would entertain a motion. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird:' I move that we approve Ordinance 04-1072, with suspension of rules. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 04-1072. Any further discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll?