The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004 06-01CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, June 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: X Shaun Wardle X Bill Nary X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird X Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance: by Mayor Tammy de Weerd 3. Community Invocation by Cortland Walker with LDS Church: Presented 4. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve 5. Consent Agenda: Approve A. Approve Minutes of May 4, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting: Approve B. Approve Minutes of May 4, 2004 City Council Regular Meeting: Approve C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: VAR 04- 002 Request for a Variance for reduction of the setback of the existing house on Lot 21, Block 5 from 20 feet to 13.55 feet for Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC — south of East Ustick Road and east of North Locust Grove Road: Approve D. Order Granting Remand to Planning and Zoning Commission: PP 04-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 single- family residential building lots and 2 common lots on 5.273 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC — south of East Ustick Road and east of North Locust Grove Road: Approve E. Development Agreement: AZ 03-024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Glacier Meridian City Council Agenda — June 1, 2004 Page I of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Springs Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. — north of East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road: Approve F. Temporary Easement Improvement Project, Approve G. Approve Bills: Approve 6. Department Reports Contract for the 2004 Waterline Eagle Road Waterline Extension: A. Police Department—Chief Musser: Discussion of K-9 Dog from Police Budget: 2. Shared update Improvements building on Commission Purchase of Trained and Certified Police m Existing Capital Monies approved in Approve $2,500.00 purchase with Parks Director Strong on proposed and Plan for five acres west of police Watertower Lane: Present to P&R B. City Council Member — Shaun Wardle: Update on Golf Course: Further update in two weeks (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) FP 04-031 Request for Final Plat approval for 66 single family residential / office / commercial building lots and 7 common lots on 27.17 acres in a R-4 zone for Bridaetower Crossing Subdivision No. 7 by Primeland Development, LLP — southeast corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: Approve 9. Continued Public Hearing from May 25, 2004: AZ 04-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.06 acres from RUT to L -O zone for proposed Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. — northeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Girdner Lane: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 10 Continued Public Hearing from May 25, 2004: PP 04-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 commercial building lots on 3.06 acres in a proposed L -O zone for proposed Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. — northeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Girdner Lane: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval Meridian City Council Agenda — June 1, 2004 Page 2 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 11. Public Hearing: Trunk Line Water & Sewer Assessment, Connection and Miscellaneous Fee Proposal: Continue Public Hearing to July 6, 2004 Meeting 12. Public Hearing: RZ 04-004 Request for a Rezone of 9.47 acres from R- 4 to L -O and R-15 zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LLC — 2090 South Meridian Road: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial 13. Public Hearing: PP 04-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 15 building lots (14 office and 1 residential) and 1 common lot on 9.47 acres in proposed R-15 and L -O zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LLC — 2090 South Meridian Road: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial 14. Public Hearing: CUP 04-008 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for office and assisted living in proposed R-15 and L -O zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LLC — 2090 South Meridian Road: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial 15. Public Hearing: RZ 04-002 Request for a Rezone of 7.48 acres from L- O to R-15 zones for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development — east of North Linder Road and south of West Pine Avenue: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 16. Public Hearing: PP 04-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 52 residential building lots and 1 common lot on 7.48 acres in a proposed R- 15 zone for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development - east of North Linder Road and south of West Pine Avenue: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 17. Public Hearing: CUP 04-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of a mix of residential and commercial uses with reductions to building setback requirements for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development — east of North Linder Road and south of West Pine Avenue: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 18. Water, Sewer, & Trash Delinquencies: Approve Meridian City Council Agenda —June 1, 2004 Page 3 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 19. Continued from May 25, 2004: Ordinance No. Parks and Recreation Commission Ordinance: Table to June 6, 2004 Meeting 20. Ordinance No. 04-1080 : AZ 03-024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Glacier Springs Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. — north of East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road: Approve Meridian City Council Agenda —June 1, 2004 Page 4 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. •. r Meridian City Council Meeting June 1, 2004. The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:15 P.M., Tuesday, June 1, 2004, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd,William Nary, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree and Shaun Wardle. Others Present: Bill Nichols, Will Berg, Steve Siddoway, Brad Watson, Bill Musser, Gary Smith, Kenny Bowers, Doug Strong, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -call Attendance: Roll call. X Shaun Wardle X Bill Nary X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird X Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: I will go ahead and open up the regular City Council meeting. It is June 1st. It's ten after 7:00 and I'd like to welcome you all here tonight and we will start with roll call attendance. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: De Weerd: Thank you. Usually we ask a Boy Scout group to join us in the pledge and, Dave, I won't ask you tonight. But if you will, please, stand with us and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Cortland Walker with LDS Church: De Weerd: Thank you. And I didn't have a chance to see if Courtland Walker is with us today. Thank you for joining us. I assume it's a bishop? Bishop Walker will be joining us and leading us in the community invocation. Please come forward. Walker: Our Father in Heaven, we are grateful this evening to be met in this City Council meeting. We are grateful for the country that we live in and the freedoms that we enjoy. We are grateful this last weekend we had the opportunity to remember those that have served our country and helped keep it free and safe and strong and pray that each of us each day will serve and do what we can to make this a -- keep this a great nation, to make this a better community, and be good neighbors and friends. We are grateful for the Council. We pray that thy Spirit and blessings will be with them as they serve and that they may know that we support them and that they will serve the people in our righteous and a willing manner. And we, again, express our love to thee and Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 2 of 76 thank thee for all we enjoy and ask thy Spirit to be in this meeting, in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: Thank you so much and I do have a city water tower pin to -- thank you for joining us. Okay. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: We got one request on the regular part of the agenda on Item No. 11. Our city engineer has requested that we continue that Public Hearing, which we will do when we come to it, to July 6th, 2004. And other than that, I believe everything else is as published. So, I would move that we approve the agenda -- revised agenda. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded do approve the agenda as revised. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of May 4, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of May 4, 2004 City Council Regular Meeting: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: VAR 04- 002 Request for a Variance for reduction of the setback of the existing house on Lot 21, Block 5 from 20 feet to 13.55 feet for Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC — south of East Ustick Road and east of North Locust Grove Road: D. Order Granting Remand to Planning and Zoning Commission: PP 04-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 single-family residential building lots and 2 common lots on 5.273 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC — south of East Ustick Road and east of North Locust Grove Road: E. Development Agreement: AZ 03-024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Glacier Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 3 of 76 Springs Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. — North of East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road: F. Temporary Easement Contract for the 2004 Waterline Improvement Project, Eagle Road Waterline Extension: G. Approve Bills: De Weerd: Item 5 is the Consent Agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve the Consent Agenda as published and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. 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 6: Department Reports A. Police Department — Chief Musser: 1. Discussion of Purchase of Trained and Certified Police K-9 Dog from Existing Capital Monies approved in Police Budget: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 6, Department Reports. We will start with Chief Musser with the police department. Musser: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my first item on here was a discussion for direction from you and the Council in regards to a purchase of a certified and trained K-9 that we have been currently using in the department. It belonged to Officer Jake Nichols. Jake Nichols has resigned with the department and starting here in June with the Boise police department where he will not be authorized to utilize his K-9. The K-9 is familiar to us. It's a well-trained dog, has recommendations both of our certified instructors to the department for retention, if possible, and I do have monies in the budget. However, this would be a capital expenditure of 2,500 dollars for this K-9 and I 11 1 Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 4 of 76 was just looking for direction from the Council at this point tonight as to proceed with this purchase from this former employee. De Weerd: Thank you, chief. Does the department liaison have any further comment? Bird: No, other than the fact that you do have an officer that's willing to take this dog on? Musser: At this point we have about three that are showing an interest in becoming a handler and we will do a selection process on it, Councilman Bird. Bird: Okay. Madam Mayor, if there is no other discussion, I would be glad to make a motion that we purchase this dog. A very cheap investment. De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further discussion? Rountree: I have a question for the chief. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Chief, what's the service life of the K-9? Musser: Of this K-9 here? Rountree: Yeah. Musser: He is approximately four years old at this time. We are projecting we will have at least another useful five years of life out of him. Rountree: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary Nary: Chief, on the continuing cost for maintenance of the animal, approximately annually what is that for each of those animals? Musser: Councilman Nary, I don't have that number right in front me at this time. However, we do have a base budget that's set up that has been rather generous for us in the past two years where we usually have had money left over. I would say just offhand without having the numbers in front of me, would look at an average cost of just under 3,000 dollars per year for maintenance and feeding of the animals and, then, we have separate combined line for any type of emergency vet costs that we may see. Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 5 of 76 And, luckily, this year we haven't had any vet costs, other than updates on shots. That's been it. Nary: So, we have adequate money in the budget to purchase this animal, as well as the maintenance for the remainder of this budget year? You think we are probably covered on both? Musser: Councilman Nary, that is correct. Nary: Great. Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: This dog was already budgeted for. The handler just left the department and so it would be a matter of assigning a new handler and purchasing the dog, because it was that officer's dog; is that correct? Musser: That is correct, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Nary: Great. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, chief. Okay. Mr. Bird. Bird: Madam Mayor, I'd move that we purchase Mr. Nichols' police dog for the sum of 2,500 dollars. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the purchase of the K-9 dog. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 2. Shared update with Parks Director Strong on proposed Improvements and Plan for five acres west of police building on Watertower Lane: De Weerd: Okay. Item two. Chief, are you going to take that or is Mr. Strong? Musser: I'll go ahead and turn it over to Director Strong at this point. De Weerd: Okay. Strong: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, on display there is a site for a remote control car track on the -- almost five acres next to the police station that was discussed in a previous Council meeting and we were asked to bring back more of a concept Meridian City Council June t, 2004 Page 6 of 76 drawing to how that area would lay out. So, this is what we have come up to show you conceptually what that five -acre area would look like, at least in the early stages of the development. And just as a frame of reference, you're all familiar with the police station, this is the grassy field that right now our department maintains, essentially, for weed control, other than I think there is a landscaping buffer right there that's in place right now and irrigated. So, this would be initial improvement to the area and the reason for this is that we have interest from a remote car enthusiast group that you have seen presentations on to develop a racetrack. So, dropping that, the dimensions for the race track into that site, it would cover this area and that's, essentially, the boundaries of the race track area with the track falling inside that with some -- some opportunity for a location to stand and operate the remote control and have some spectator area. This area from this yellow line down and up to here would be the future development for the K-9 training area next to the police station. This yellow square right there would be a future building for use by the K-9 unit and training of the site. And this location the outline shows what was originally shown as a future expansion of the parking lot, which would mirror this parking lot that's already in place at the police station and just extend on. The dark yellow area is a proposed area for additional parking that would accommodate this racetrack area in the park and, then, this would be a green buffer zone in the area. This is the irrigation canal running through the area and it's covered I think to about there, so that this portion of the canal is open that would be used for training. So, that's, roughly, the layout of the area. The proposal would be, at least initially, and in our budget proposal for 2005, some money to develop a parking area here, either gravel or possibly paved, depending on the cost of an area there. The area of the track would be developed and maintained entirely by the car enthusiasts and, then, we would put in enough irrigation to be able to plant grass and maintain a grassy area in between the parking area. So, with that I guess it would be best handled with questions at this point. De Weerd: I guess my only comment -- and sometimes it's a disadvantage to have a little institutional knowledge, but it seems to me like that piece of property -- and I know we have had this conversation, though -- had been talked to with the BMX bike riders as a potential to doing something for them, since they cannot use the skate park, and I don't know if there is any portion that could be jointly -- I would imagine that remote control park would need to be flat and is not really a good shared use with the BMXers, but do you have plans for anything for our bicyclists? Because they have had several groups come in front of both the parks commission and the Council. Strong: Madam Mayor, a possible site that Chief Musser and I have discussed would be this area up in here. Now, this -- this proposed yellow parking area wouldn't necessarily be that large, it could be the border there and it would leave this area here for potential development for. I think what the BMX bikers were looking for originally was a hard surface area to ride on, rather than just more dirt mounds, which you see around in different locations around the community. They wanted a hard surface area to practice some of the skills, apparently, that they use for some of the competitions that they are in. That certainly is still a potential for that. We have -- following a presentation by the Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 7 of 76 group last year that had some interest in BMX bikes, there hasn't been an organized group come forward yet to pursue the matter any further. What we have right now is a group that in the remote control car racing group that will finance the development of that area on their own and maintain it on their own, so it gives us some incentive to move forward with -- with that part of it. It would require further development or further pursuit of a partnership to get something going with the BMX group. It would require some hard surface area and, then, some hard areas and I think one of the proposals that Councilman Wardle suggested was just a half pipe to start with and some hard surface areas like that that would be relatively inexpensive. But at this point we have no specific plan for that, but it looks like there would be some space left for some at least minimal area for them to ride their BMX bikes. De Weerd: Thank you. Any further questions? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Doug, did I hear you say this portion -- this is an open ditch right through here and that was partly for training? Is there water running through there? Because if this is going to be a dog park for folks, I don't -- I guess I'm a little curious about the safety of that. Musser: Councilman Nary, Members of the Council, that section does include the open portion of the lateral, which does come through the property at this time. It's not tiled over, other than up in the upper portion of the photo there. Part of the reason why we are leaving it open is there are a number of K-9 groups in town that do Shiatsu qualifications and other types of trials where they want open water to be able to run their dogs through or have them cross over the open water areas and we also want it for police K-9 training as well and that's the whole premise behind this portion of the park is to have that mixed use between the police function and for the various K-9 groups to be able to do off lead type of work inside of an enclosed area, but, yet, it's still open. So, yes, we would have that open and, then, they are aware of it. De Weerd: And I guess anyone who would bring their dogs down there, they don't just leave them there to be baby-sat by someone else. Musser: Well, Madam Mayor, we hope that it would be posted and clearly noticeable to all folks that they have to be with their dogs while the dogs are in there. It's not up us to take care of them. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor. Just a comment for Director Strong as far as the mixed use and pursuing that. I think when we talk numbers and we talked at the budget hearing and we talk about the park, I think we have all committed and, you know, depending on L Meridian City Council June t, 2004 Page 8 of 76 the cost and principle that partnerships are beneficial for the city in the fact that we have the car enthusiasts, you know, kind of being impetuous here for the city, but, in addition, I think it would be great to bring that -- those groups or at least if you could get some of the names from the mayor of the people that had an interest in those hard surfaces and try to have at least estimates for maybe a time line and for dollar value for a hard surface, such as a half pipe, for that to be included. It was a -- I understand that the area that we are looking at is for the car enthusiasts is probably a little larger that we were expecting, but to have something in there I think would be helpful for us. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Wardle. You still have a copy of that petition they submitted to -- those are the names I continue to hear from. So, they would be your best start. Strong: Excuse me, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just for clarification, this isn't something we have pursued very aggressively at this point with the number of construction projects that we have currently going in the parks system with current resources, it's -- it's not something that's risen to the top yet, but, certainly, something that's potential in the future and we do have those names and can start to work with them to see where their interests are and whether there is any resources that they want to bring to the table. If not, it would mean a budget proposal that would look at a minimum hard surface area for BMX bike users and probably skateboarders or in-line skaters or anybody else that would show up, potentially. I think if we did that we would want to bring it back, now that we have some proposed development for this site, bring it back to the Parks and Recreation Commission and, then, back to Council with something further developed at that point and how it would fit into this site. De Weerd: Yeah. Doug -- and I don't think it would be bad to start working with them now, talking to them about the budget constraints and, you know, depending on the resources they can bring, it certainly is something they can start working on to design and, then, you can work it into a budget year when you have a better idea of what kind of monies you would be requesting. So, it -- and I know your time is limited, but you may also address the commission and see if they want to put together a little subcommittee that can focus on that. Strong: Okay. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle Wardle: Just a quick follow up. While we are in the design stages of this particular park, I think to at least get a feel for what -- if we are looking at another group, for what their activities may be to make sure that those activities are congruent with the police station, with the police force, with the other uses out there. I think that's important in the planning stage and monetarily wise we can look at some of those things down the road, but to make sure that everything works together and that the police department is comfortable with those kind of uses, as well as the rest of the public uses as well. Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 9 of 76 De Weerd: Thank you. We have had a lot of great ideas. It's all yours now. Strong: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I believe when this last came to you, you wanted us to bring back a concept, so that you could act upon moving forward, as I recall. Is that correct? So, I don't know what kind of action that requires this evening, but we would need further direction at this point how to proceed. Rountree: We could move it forward with the Parks and Recreation Commission. Bird: That's right. That's what we have got them for. De Weerd: So, Doug, the comment was to have it addressed through the Parks and Recreation Commission, then, you can bring it back. Strong: Okay. B. City Council Member — Shaun Wardle: 1. Update on Golf Course: De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Okay. Item D. Councilman Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, earlier this spring we met to discuss the Cherry Lane Golf Course here and I volunteered to spear head the -- sort of volunteered to spear head the efforts here for the City of Meridian. We did set a deadline of June 1st to bring back some comments and so while I have had small updates in the past several weeks, this was more a commitment to the public to at least continue the process. We have had discussions with Cherry Lane Recreation and are continuing discussions and so I would request another two weeks to have something a little more definite or at least at slightly lengthier presentation for this body. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree Rountree: Just a question for this evening, Shawn, is it -- the citizen's committee report has been issued, has been out for public comment and consideration. Have there been any comments received to date? Wardle: I have not received comments. The citizens report was placed on the website the day after our pre -Council hearing -- pre -Council hearing and so to this date I have not received any direct comments, nor have any been forwarded to me through the city clerk's office, so -- Rountree: Okay. Thank you Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 10 of 76 Item 7: (items Moved from Consent Agenda) De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Okay. We had no items moved from the Consent Agenda. Item 8: FP 04-031 Request for Final Plat approval for 66 single family residential / office / commercial building lots and 7 common lots on 27.17 acres in a R- 4 zone for Bridaetower Crossing Subdivision No. 7 by Primeland Development, LLP — southeast corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: De Weerd: So, we will move to Item 8 is FP 04-031. Start with staff comments. Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is a proposed final plat for Bridgetower Crossing No. 7. It is located in the area circled in red up in the northwest corner of the Bridgetower Subdivision near the intersection of McMillan Road and Ten Mile Road. The plat includes 59 single family attached townhouse building lots, three commercial lots, four office lots, and seven common lots on 27 -- just over 27 acres. What we see here is the original preliminary plat and this is a blow up of that area as originally proposed. There have been modifications to it. In the final plat as proposed tonight, the main change being the addition of a new public street that connects between McMillan Road and Ten Mile Road. That change has been reviewed and approved by ACHD. Planning staff has reviewed the change and deemed it to be in substantial compliance with the original preliminary plat. However, in reviewing it today -- what we drew in red is the approximate boundary of the C -G zone under current zoning and the remainder is zoned R-4. There is a proposed residential lot down in this corner. It is Lot No. 56 of Block 10 that encroaches into the existing C -G zone and we would prefer not to have a split zone on the lots. It also does split through the common lot through here and across one of the commercial lots. What we would propose in a new -- a new condition of approval and I have handed a copy of this to Councilman Nary, where we would just require that the applicant submit to the city, prior to the city engineer's signature on the final plat, the revised metes and bounds legal description to remove the split zoning on Lots 55, 56, and 68 of Block 10. Basically, just be a clean up to avoid the split zoning. I did speak briefly with legal counsel just prior to the meeting and believe we can proceed in that direction and would look to Mr. Nichols for any further direction. But that would be one additional proposed condition of approval that does not currently show up in the staff report. The applicant has submitted a letter agreeing to comply with of the conditions of approval in the staff report and I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meddian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 11 of 76 Bird: Steve, does the applicant have knowledge of this new request or -- Siddoway: Yes. Bird: -- new deal? And they are in agreement with that? Their letter states that? Siddoway: Yes. We can turn to the applicant if you wish. Bird: Okay. De Weerd: Please state your name and address. Stiles: Sheri Stiles, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens Street, Suite B, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. De Weerd: Thank you Stiles: We did hear about this this afternoon and I guess pending any -- I'm not sure if Mr. Nichols has come to a conclusion if that is an appropriate way to go. I would like to be able to either revise those legal descriptions, so you can amend the annexation and zoning ordinances or we will change the plat to meet those lines. Either way. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think that we could do a corrected legal description to the zoning portion of the annexation and zoning ordinance. It's a very small change, it would just simply align the boundary of the zone with the way the plat's laid out, so I don't see it as a major change, just do a correction that way, instead of going through a whole rezoning process. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions? Any further comments? Stiles: There is one condition that is shown in the conditions of approval and it's a standard condition and that's the one to provide perimeter fencing. We would like to not have to fence the commercial areas of this development. We will be fencing the residential portions, but because of visibility issues and wanting, you know, people to see you down the road, we don't intend to have any along those frontages of the commercial and office buildings. De Weerd: Okay. Steve, do you have any comment to that? I'm sure that's agreeable to staff. Siddoway: I believe that that would be just fine. The condition seven on page three talks about temporary construction fencing to contain all debris shall be installed along the boundaries of the phase, unless permanent fencing already exists at the subdivision boundaries. You know, if they are moving forward with their residential phase and it's Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 12 of 76 completely enclosed with either permanent or temporary that meets the intent of containing the debris. De Weerd: Okay. Stiles: Any other questions? De Weerd: No. Any further questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Sheri. Stiles: Thank you. De Weerd: Council? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve FP 04-031, final plat for Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 7, eliminate the perimeter fencing on commercial lots and also take care of the legal descriptions as noted by the attorney. Nary: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve FP 04-031. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. We are entering the public hearing process of our meeting tonight. We do have a process that we follow. We do ask that anyone who would like to provide testimony all be sworn in at the same time. So, if any of you are going to testify on any of these public hearings items nine to 17, if you will, please, raise your right hand. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? (Affirmative answers.) Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from May 25, 2004: AZ 04-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.06 acres from RUT to L -O zone for proposed Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 13 of 76 Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. — Northeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Girdner Lane: Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from May 25, 2004: PP 04-008 Request for Preliminary. Plat approval of 8 commercial building lots on 3.06 acres in a proposed L -O zone for proposed Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. — Northeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Girdner Lane: De Weerd: Thank you. We open -- we generally open with staff comments, then, we ask the applicant to come forward and present the application. He is given -- he or she, I'm sorry, is given 15 minutes to present the application. The public comment process is three minutes, unless you're a spokesperson for a group of people, then, you will have ten, and at the end of that public testimony the applicant is asked to come up and respond to those comments and is given ten minutes. So, I will open the public hearings on nine and ten, the continued public hearing, with staff comments. Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This one has been before you previously and was a continued item, so I'll just refresh your memory as to where we are and turn it back to you. But Southstone Subdivision is located on Eagle Road, just south of Silverstone and surrounded by the proposed Sutherland Farm Subdivision project, just east -- or just north of Victory Road. The main issue that I believe is outstanding on this one is concerning the zoning of the property. The request has been to rezone the property to L -O or limited office. The Comprehensive Plan does designate it as medium density residential. The area just north of it was approved as an office development as a use exception as part of the Sutherland Farm project and we have the aerial photo. This is the Sutherland Farm project that surrounds it. These are the office lots and Southwood sits here. This is the proposed layout for Southstone and the staff report did recommend approval of it based on the land use consistency matrix that we had anticipated being adopted at the time and was continued for the applicant to determine whether to be continued pending a text change to the Comprehensive Plan, to be denied, or to engage the Council's interest in moving it forward as proposed and with that I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: No. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? Since you were sworn in, if you will just state your name and address. McKinnon: Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber, Meridian, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 14 of 76 McKinnon: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, anytime I have got the opportunity to lead you in the pledge of allegiance, I would be happy to, being a former scout and a proud American. I honestly have no problem with that. De Weerd: Well, thank you, Dave. I appreciate that. Nary: We are here every Tuesday at 7:00. McKinnon: Funny thing is is I usually am, too. Just a couple things. Steve gave a pretty good outline of it. Steve, if you can go back just to -- there you go. Perfect. Sutherland Farms, as you all know when I worked for the city, Sutherland Farms was a project that actually past across my desk and we went through this project and at that time when Sutherland Farms came through they really wanted this piece to be included as part of it. This is the one we are talking about tonight. Because, of course, it has access to Eagle Road and has access to Easy Jet, which is the collector road that runs through it and it made perfect sense with the office uses, surrounding it on all three sides, they thought this would be a great addition for that. Recently I have met with Trevor Roberts, the developer from Sutherland Farms and he is interested in developing that whole street right now. He's got a concrete placing company lined up right now to complete his half plus 12 of Easy Jet. As you know, ACHD will let you build a portion of the road, leave a portion unfinished and sidewalk unfinished. I met with Trevor on site, met Richard Evans, the developer for this site, and they both agreed that now would be the appropriate time to develop the entire site and to build the entire roadway. In addition to that, there is a small creek -- actually, it's not a creek, but, actually, a ditch -- an irrigation ditch that runs across Trevor Roberts, Sutherland Farms property, runs across this property, across Sutherland Farms and dumps into the Eight Mile. Trevor is interested -- Mr. Roberts of Sutherland Farms is interested in eliminating that ditch at this time and eliminating that ditch he would like to have this be vacated as well, this ditch portion vacated as well. We are happy to accommodate him in doing that, but at the same time, if this project isn't able to move forward at this time, we don't want to give up our water rights for this, because it's a timing issue, we don't want to give it up if we don't have to at this time. I understand from meeting Anna and meeting with our representative from Pinnacle that there was some support for this project and just wanted to gauge what your support would be for this project tonight. We would like to move forward, we'd like to complete the project with Sutherland Farms at this time and considering the fact that it's currently surrounded by office uses that, granted, the office zoning, the L -O zoning, is an apparent, it's R-4 zoning masquerading as L -O or I guess backwards, it's L -O masquerading as R-4. The use is office surrounding it on three sides. Eagle Road is adjacent to this site. Furthermore, it's on an arterial and on a collector. I understand your reasoning for wanting to wait for the Comprehensive Plan amendment to change prior to setting a precedent, but state code says with regards to comprehensive plans that they are a guide and that you do have some discretion to go beyond that and I know that is past as a Council you have taken action on other projects and recently on other projects as well to allow zoning that doesn't match the Comprehensive Plan and I asked that you give some consideration as well to this Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 15 of 76 project. With that I guess I would ask if you have any questions and we would really like to move forward with this project tonight. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions? Okay. No. Thank you. McKinnon: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Is there anyone who would like to testify on this application? Okay. Council? Any further comments from staff? Siddoway: None, thanks, but I will respond to any questions if you have any. Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Hearing no comments, I move that we close the public hearings on Items No. 9 and 10 for Southstone Subdivision. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Items No. 9 and 10. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Discussion? Hearing none, do I have a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the request for annexation and zoning for Item No 9, AZ 04-006, subject to all staff comments. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 9. Is there any further discussion? Nary: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 16 of 76 De Weerd: Mr. Nary Nary: Well, I guess I'm a little confused, because I guess I thought when we talked about this a couple weeks ago we had come to some consensus that we didn't feel we had enough support in the Comprehensive Plan to support this -- this particular type of zone and I -- and I did hear what Mr. McKinnon stated and I guess I'm not -- I guess I'm still a little unsure of whether or not we think it's adequate and I don't know that I heard that from staff either, because I think we just set it over for them to tell us if they wanted us to deny it, so I guess I hadn't heard anything differently this evening. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: My recollection is is that this got the effect of the matrix that we didn't move forward with. Nary: Right. Rountree: Staff did have a legitimate explanation of how this related to the guidance and the existing zoning that was adjacent to it in their recommendation to us to approve the matrix. We didn't approve the matrix not because of their argument in support of the matrix, but just that we didn't feel like that the matrix was not the right tool to make those decisions and that this process probably was. So, as opposed to hearing that argument and that supporting again, I make that motion to approve it, but if that's not sufficient to -- maybe we need that staff comment entered back into the record, but I believe it's in their correspondence. Nary: Okay. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: And I'm having the same recollections as Mr. Nary. I believe the only reason we held this over was to ask Mr. McKinnon, who was not available for the initial Public Hearing, to ask his client whether they would like to have this continued until a Comprehensive text amendment -- not a map amendment, but a text amendment could be issued or whether for certain property reasons they would rather have the project denied and so those are my recollections and -- Rountree: Steve's about ready to pop now. Siddoway: No. De Weerd: Mr. Siddoway, before you pop -- Meridian city Council June 1, 2004 Page 17 of 76 Siddoway: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I believe everybody is right. My understanding is that the staff report does support the rezone, but the Council was uneasy in making the findings as had been written in the staff report. My understanding is that last time it had been continued to find out whether to -- to continue it pending a text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan or to deny it if it was better for their client, but there are findings in the report to support it as well, so it's really a judgment call of the Council at this point. De Weerd: And I guess, Mr. Nichols, if we could get a legal opinion on this. And I guess the concern, too, is -- if we are setting a precedent and, you know, what we might be opening it to. Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, first, Steve, just a question to you. Is there anything in the Comprehensive Plan text that would prohibit this requested rezone? Siddoway: It does not match the median density residential designation that it is under. Nichols: But that's from the map. Siddoway: That is from the map. Nichols: Okay. In the text apart from the map -- Siddoway: I know of nothing -- I can review the findings that are in here, but I know of nothing that would prevent it in the text. Nichols: Okay. Given the -- and I guess another question, Steve. From a planner's standpoint, with the planned development surrounding it on three sides with office uses, would it make sense to keep this medium density residential? Siddoway: No. In fact, we were in support of it going to office through the consistency matrix. The consistency matrix that we had developed would have supported it in this case. Nichols: And the consistency matrix would have supported it because of what the surrounding approved uses were? Siddoway: Both the surrounding approved uses, the size of the lot, and the fact that it has frontage on an arterial. Nichols: Okay. Which is, generally, not suitable for residential development. Siddoway: Correct. Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 18 of 76 Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the law in this state is that a comprehensive plan is, as Mr. McKinnon stated, a guide. It's not -- does not have the force of a zoning ordinance or subdivision ordinance, it's an attempt to try to sort out what future land uses will be down the road. With the planned development, then, you have a legal circumstance -- not a physical one, but a legal circumstance which effectively limits the use of this particular property and you can take that into account in determining whether you should vary from what the map designation is for this particular parcel. With regard to precedence, as Steve has pointed out, you have some unique circumstances here that I don't think you open it up for precedence to -- just simply because what a person wants to do with the property doesn't match the land use map, that they can point to this to say do something different. Here we have unique circumstances because of those surrounding uses and because of the arterial and the collector street that they would have to at least fit into those circumstances as well in order to argue that it's precedence. So, I don't believe it's a precedent setting factor. It's probably one that we need to do some thinking about to see if we can do some things in the text of the comp plan long term to take into account what, essentially, becomes an odd lot because of the uses around it -- that are approved around it. So, that's a long answer to I think it's okay, if the Council so chooses, to zone this L -O, even though the map designates it medium density residential. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: And I just -- I'm just recollecting the last public hearing we had -- not the last public hearing we had this open, but when we heard the application and we had this very argument and these discussions and while we didn't have a vote, I assumed that we were just putting on, because what we wanted to do was instead of patch this actual problem, we wanted to address it in a text amendment that would -- that would really allow these kinds of things to happen, because I don't think we had disagreed as a Council that this shouldn't be zoned L -O, but I think that the process that we had was not in place for that and rather than, I guess, patch that, we had agreed to look at continuing that, but I'm certainly up for -- in my mind I guess the discussion was closed, but we can certainly reopen that. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Call for the question. De Weerd: Okay. The question has been called for on the motion to approve Item No. 9, AZ 04-006. Mr. Clerk will you call roll. Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 19 of 76 Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Nary, nay. Berg: Two ayes and two nays. Mayor De Weerd. De Weerd: Aye. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS. MAYOR AYE. De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 10. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: It's been requested by Brad Watson to -- oh, ten. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Charlie. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we request the -- or approve the requested preliminary plat for Item No. 10, PP 04-008, for Silverstone Subdivision, subject to all staff comments. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve PP 04-008. Is there any discussion? Mr. Clerk? Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yes; Nary, yes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: Public Hearing: Trunk Line Water & Sewer Assessment, Connection and Miscellaneous Fee Proposal: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 11 has been requested to continue or to, actually, postpone to July 6, 2004. Bird: Do you want to open the Public Hearing, Madam Mayor, and, then, continue on there, don't you, so we don't have to re -notice this? De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Clerk, do you want me to? Berg: Yes. Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 20 of 76 De Weerd: Okay. I will open the Public Hearing regarding the trunk line water and sewer assessment and, again, to note that the city engineer has asked that this Public Hearing be continued to July 6, 2004. Mr. Bird. Bird: Madam Mayor, I move we continue the Public Hearing for the trunk line water sewer assessment connections to July 6, 2004. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue the Public Hearing for Item 11 to July 6. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Public Hearing: RZ 04-004 Request for a Rezone of 9.47 acres from R-4 to L -O and R-15 zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LLC — 2090 South Meridian Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 04-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 15 building lots (14 office and 1 residential) and 1 common lot on 9.47 acres in proposed R-15 and L -O zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LLC — 2090 South Meridian Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 04-008 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for office and assisted living in proposed R-15 and L -O zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LLC — 2090 South Meridian Road: De Weerd: Okay. Items 12, 13 and 14, if Council has no objection, I will open all three for the Public Hearing on RZ 04-004, PP 04-007, and CUP 04-008. 1 will open these public hearings on these items with staff comments. Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The proposed project is outlined in black for you on the -- it's on the east side of Meridian Road and abuts Meridian Greens Subdivision to the east, just below the Southern Springs commercial project that was recently approved to the north and it is 9.47 acres in size. They are requesting a rezone -- I'd point out this is already annexed. It is currently zoned R-4. They are looking to rezone the property to L -O and R-15. You can see the aerial photo, it's basically in pasture today. The proposed preliminary plat -- a little difficult to see the site lines, so I'm going to move forward to the actual site plan. It's a little easier to see. Along Meridian Road there is the office portion of the project. Road coming in and bisecting here. Then, the next portion of the project is a multi -family residential planned development and, then, on the other side of the Ten -- the Ten Mile Creek crosses the property in this location and there is a proposed alzheimer's facility on the east side of the Ten Mile Creek. This is the proposed elevation for their facility. Just flip through these. You should have the staff report that spells out all the staff conditions of Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 21 of 76 approval. I would just like to highlight briefly some of the outstanding conditions or outstanding issues for Council as spelled out in the recommendation. Similar to the project that was just approved, the Comp Plan -- Comprehensive Plan designation for this land is medium density residential -- is it medium or low? It is medium. Thank you. The Comprehensive Plan shows the area to the north down to Calderwood as commercial, in the Comprehensive Plan and the proposal would be to nudge or transition from that commercial designation to an office designation, on the subject property. That issue is spelled out, as the first bullet point, on the cover sheet on the recommendations. The second thing to point out is that the applicant has revised their site plan since the one that was discussed at Planning and Zoning Commission. One of the major points of contention at the Planning and Zoning Commission was the orientation of the parking lot at the alzheimer's. There were several parking stalls that faced directly east towards the existing residences. The revision removes those parking stalls and places them on the south and this is now a drive aisle, as you can see. The third item -- the third bullet deals with pathway. The Comprehensive Plan does require a mix -- a multi -use pathway along the Ten Mile Creek. They do show said pathway along the south side that would be continued through the Southern Springs project. However, it's shown as six feet on it and the applicant has agreed to revise the dimensional standards to ten feet per the city parks department standards for multi -use pathways to landscape the area beside it and that, I have been told, has been reviewed by the parks director and the parks department is in approval of that proposal to have the landscaping up to the pathway and maintained by the project. The last item has to do with the required buffers. The landscape ordinance would say that since this is an office multi -family and residential care facility next to single family residential, it would require a 20 -foot buffer between land uses. The project as proposed shows a 15 -foot buffer on the east and in a couple of locations on the south it's as narrow as 15 feet. There was a letter faxed from the applicant today, which, I believe, the clerk received and should have been copied for the Council, dated June 1st, requesting the exception to the 20 -foot setback and allowing it to go down to 15 feet. This also is going to be a judgment call for the Council. There is in the planned development ordinance a statement that on the perimeter of planned developments setbacks should not be reduced and, then, it says that buffers between land uses are also required per the landscape ordinance. Whether the Council sees to hold them to the full 20 feet or to grant the exception as proposed, what they are proposing to do is take that narrow area and increase the number of trees and plantings in there to help solidify that buffer area a little more. But I think those are the only four outstanding issues. The pathway is really taken care of. I would point out for clarification that their site plan shows this internal path system coming up and looping and does not show it actually connecting to the southern property line and it must connect to the southern property line, so that it can continue in the proposed Larkspur project to the south, which will also be continuing that multi -use pathway in the future, potentially. And with that I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions for staff at this time? Okay. Before I ask the applicant to come up, we have received a number of written statements, both via e-mail and mail. With this being an open Public Hearing, we cannot comment or Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 22 of 76 return -- return letters commenting about those. They have been received and entered into the record and are a part of the consideration on this application. So, with that said, I would ask the applicant, if they are here tonight, to, please, come forward. Were you sworn in, sir? Perez: I was. De Weerd: Okay. If you will, please, state your name and address. Perez: Rob Perez, 4148 North Westview Way, Boise, Idaho. I'm here on behalf of Calderwood Community, which is the entity that has acquired the land and currently has ownership. I'd like to just give a brief overview and, then, turn it over to my colleagues. Doug Clegg, who will be the owner and operator of the senior housing complex to the easterly portion of the property and, then, to Scott Stewart. Some of you may know Scott as the developer for the Generations Plaza downtown here in Meridian and Scott will make brief comments regarding light office. De Weerd: Mr. Perez, just to keep in mind that the total of your -- Perez: Is 15 minutes. De Weerd: -- presentation is 15 minutes. Perez: Understand. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Perez: We originally looked at this property approximately a year ago. A real estate agent had approached us to sell the land as four-plex, two story four-plex structures. We looked at the land at that point in time and determined that with approval of Southern Springs to the north and with the increasing traffic on Meridian Road that we have the highest and best use for the portion of the property at the corner of Calderwood and Meridian Road would be a light office usage that would provide a buffer, in our opinion to whatever usage we would ultimately arrive at the easterly portion of the property. We held two neighborhood meetings. At that time there were three issues that the neighbors told us were concerns. One was traffic, increasing traffic. Two was obstruction of views. And three were impact on property values. I'd like to just take a moment and address those things in terms of how we hopefully address those. One, Calderwood is a collector, as you probably know, and is used at just a fraction of its actual collector capacity. Secondly, the senior housing usage in the back, the comment multi -family was used. We are, actually, at R-9 density, but as you can see looking at -- we have about 46 percent of the site -- senior housing site landscaped, as opposed to the required 17 percent. So, the comment is R-15, which is the one step up from the R-8 medium density, we are really at closer to R-9. But regarding the traffic with senior housing, the seniors, for the most part, will not be driving, a number of them will not be ambulatory, and those that do drive will drive Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 23 of 76 outside peak hours, that's been the experience of those people that do senior housing. The light office enables internal access to professional services within a large residential area, which we all think will have a positive traffic impact. The second was obstruction of views, concern regarding loss of views. We have agreed in our neighborhood meetings to limit the structures to one story. We have also, as I indicated before, heavily landscaped on the buffer areas and although contrary to staff comments, our approval was approved unanimously at P&Z without any change, we have modified the parking in the memory care area and made some other accommodations because we felt that would be an enhancement to the project for the neighbors. The third issue was property values. We are looking at a senior housing complex here. It would not be used a comparables for any appraisers. And, again, we think that what we are trying to do here is you will see in a moment with my colleague Doug Clegg to get a sense of the quality of the projects. So, I think that ends my comments. I'd like to just have Doug Clegg, who is going to be the owner -operator of the senior housing complex, make a few comments. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Clegg: Thanks. De Weerd: Were you also sworn in? Clegg: I don't know, but I'll tell you where I live. De Weerd: Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Clegg: It is. De Weerd: Thank you. Please, state your name and address. Clegg: My name is Doug Clegg. I live at 1091 North Pinnacle Way in Eagle, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Clegg: And I'll try to stay brief, too, as Rob was. I was not -- just a clarification. I was not under the impression that the 20 -foot landscape buffer dealt with actual landscaping. In fact, when we worked with Wendy, she informed us that the buffer actually had to do with structures, with other contiguous projects, not landscaping, and I'm not real sure that -- the east property line over there, actually, the Alzheimer's unit is actually 22 feet from the east and about 28 feet or 26 feet from the north side of the project and I think the only place it would actually encroach is unit 14 down there and it's about 16 feet from the post on the patio there to the south property line, but maybe that could be clarified for us, because we are more than happy to change to make that work if you guys don't think that that's a workable deal. We have -- just to give you an introduction of who we are, we have been in long-term care services for -- since 1995 in Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 24 of 76 the state of Idaho and we are licensed with the Department of Health and Welfare. We currently have 122 units or beds. We have probably taken care of well over 700 seniors in the ten years that we have been doing this and it's been a treat for us. We have been looking at this project now in this area for well over a year and are doing this because your community needs this type of a project. To the best of our knowledge in a market study, there is not another project in the state of Idaho that reflects the total care campus that we are sharing with you tonight, which is independent, assisted living, and Alzheimer care. There is a need for that. I don't know if you guys know this, but this also is a gated community, it's very private, it's very exclusive. We have found in our experience that critical mass is important for seniors. They like to be together in large groups and having a multi -stage care project is helpful for their emotional and social well being. I have a small Powerpoint presentation. I don't know -- Steve, do you guys have that? These are some pictures of some of the projects that we currently own that I thought you might be interested in looking at. The closest one we have is, actually, in Eagle. It's just off of Eagle Road north of State Street downtown Eagle. This is a project that we just completed up in St. Anthony with Mayor Beck. I believe it is, anyway. You can just roll right through these. There is probably about 30 photos. This is an interior shot and an exterior shot of the facility we own in Soda Spring. That's the backside of it there. I want to point out, too, that all of our projects are in residential areas. This is one in American Falls. I don't know if you guys have driven to Pocatello on 84, but when you get to the water tower, if you look to the left that's the project off the freeway that you're seeing. That's our project there. I also want to comment that this particular project is nestled in an area of real estate that has the highest property values for that city. All the real estate that surrounds this are upper end residential. This is the interior of the project we just finished in St. Anthony. You saw the exterior of that earlier. This is an elevation shot of that project, which is similar to what we are proposing here in Meridian. Piano. Kitchen facilities. Administrative offices. That's another exterior elevation of American Falls. Another elevation of St. Anthony, Entry. Dining facility. It's a little bit dark. This is our Eagle project. This is the assisted living part of this project. You can just keep rolling right through these here. Kind of give you a feeling for the type of project that we are proposing here in Meridian. This is real similar to what we are proposing here. In Eagle this is also a gated community, which is similar to what we are proposing here. This is a water feature in the back that we have. These are the backsides of actually some town homes we built there. These were units that we sold. If you would pause on this photo for just a moment? I want to show you here the backside of this project is actually the Clear Creek Development project, which Doug Jayo did. All the homes that are currently under construction there are between 350 and 650 thousand dollars. I'm pointing that out, because I want the Council to understand that our projects do not devalue real estate. That is the farthest thing from the truth. In fact, this project was done for two years before any of these lots were finished and purchased, which means that consumers or homeowners sought out these lots, purchased them, and developed half million dollar homes right next to our project after they could see what we had completed. This is the interior of Eagle. Another shot of the inside of Eagle. That's the library. You can just roll right through these. Other shot of the library. Dining facilities. Another interior shot. Exterior elevation. Another shot of the outside of that particular project. I think that's it. I think that's it. I'll turn Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 25 of 76 some time over to Scott now and, then, if you guys have questions we would be happy to answer those. De Weerd: Thank you. Sir, were you sworn in? Stewart: I was not. De Weerd: Okay. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Stewart: Yes. De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address. Stewart: My name is Scott Stewart. I live at 1643 East Highgate Court in Eagle, Idaho. And, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I appreciate this opportunity to speak tonight. I'll briefly talk about the L -O portion and what we did there. One of the original reasons for this design, as Rob mentioned, was as a buffer from Eagle Road. We all know the number of cars that travel by there and were concerned about putting residential clear up to Meridian Road. So, we decided as we started some research that there truly was a demand for some professional neighborhood offices in that area. We have -- we are currently in discussions with a number of professionals, including a dentist, chiropractor, another group who wants to put a small office there for their company. We have had -- recently had a number of inquiries -- inquiries from other professionals who are interested in this area, because of its growth and what's going on in that part of the city that we are anxious to talk to and are very interested in this area. We have worked carefully with the city in an effort to provide very high quality design. We have built-in flexibility to allow for the actual users and the needs they are going to have as they put their professional offices. There we anticipate six to nine small professional office buildings. And, again, as we -- are going to -- we understand and know that we are going to need to combine a few of those lots to provide for that -- for that and for that flexibility. We have always been concerned about this buffer again for this senior community. Because of the high traffic on Meridian Road and to provide the quality of life we want for that senior community, we felt like not only will it provide services for them, but it will provide that buffer that they need. We appreciate the help of the city staff. They have been very helpful in helping us design this and put this together and we are very grateful for all that they have done and now we can stand for any questions that you might have. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, do you have any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Stewart: Thank you. Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 26 of 76 De Weerd: Okay. We did have a number of citizens that signed to testify or at least indicate their opposition. Is Lester Briton here? And I did see that you participated in the swearing in. Briton: Yes, I did. De Weerd: So, if you will just state your name and -- Briton: Lester Briton. De Weerd: -- address for the record. Briton: Lester Briton, 2019 Southeast 3rd Way in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Briton: And I do have copies of the letters we sent in and we have some pictures on the back and some drawings. I'm just going to read some of our comments on this. De Weerd: I did want you to know we did receive this. Briton: You did receive it? You did read them? De Weerd: Yes, we did. Thank you. Briton: Regarding the rezone of R-15, variances, and planned unit development for Southwood Subdivision, we have several concerns regarding the proposed Southwood Subdivision and the accompanying rezone request -- variance request and planned unit development request. Our home is located immediately adjacent to the proposed Alzheimer's facility and we will be directly affected by the development. R-15 zoning is incompatible with the surrounding area and the required criteria for rezone are not met. We see no justification for R-15 high density zoning on the back east part of the property that abuts our single-family resident neighborhood. The note on the Comprehensive Plan land use map was misapplied by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The step up in density referred to in the note would allow, for example, high density residential on half of the property, the step up, and low density residential on that other half, maintaining an overall density of medium density as shown on the land use map. This interpretation is the only one that makes sense. Otherwise, the land use map is meaningless as a planning tool. In all cases rezones must meet all of the criteria listed in the zoning ordinance for approving a rezone. The ordinance requires there to have been a change in the area or adjacent area that dictates the property should be rezoned. There has not been any change in that area that would justify a rezone to R-15. Meridian Road has always been an arterial. This has always been single family residential and agricultural. Another of the required criteria for a rezone is that the proposed uses will be harmonious and appropriate with the existing character of the vicinity and not change that character. It is impossible to find that the Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 27 of 76 uses allowed by R-15 zone -- that's up to 93 dwelling units at 6.22 acres proposed for R-15 zoning, would not change the character of low density four dwelling units per acre residential neighborhood that abuts this property. Another of the required criteria is that the proposed uses will not be hazardous or disturbing to neighboring uses. Excuse me. There would be a number of ways in which the proposed uses would be disturbing, even if the property develops exactly as presented. But three shifts per day of employees coming and going from the property with vehicle headlights and noise, the security lighting, daily garbage pickup, also experience in the health field, has made us aware that patients suffering from advanced Alzheimer's often moan loudly. We consider these noises and lights to be highly disturbing to the ambience of our home and backyard, which would be just feet away from the Alzheimer's facility. De Weerd: Mr. Briton, are you representing a number of -- Briton: Several of the people that signed are the abutting property owners. De Weerd: Then, who all is he speaking on behalf of? If you will raise your hand? Okay. So, he's providing testimony for you. Thank you. I'm sorry; we wouldn't have buzzed you if we had known that. Briton: That's fine. Thank you. De Weerd: Go ahead. Briton: We, therefore, do not believe the proposed rezone to R-15 can properly be granted. If, however, the Council does not agree and decides to rezone the property R-15, we have additional concerns we ask the Council to address as follows: A development agreement is necessary to protect the neighborhood and the city. If the land receives a rezone to R-15, then, the owners or future owners have every right to put high density -- 93 dwelling unit housing on this 6.22 acres. A development agreement should be required to tie to rezone to this development, rather than allowing any and all R-15 uses to be placed on the site. The development that is proposed is too dense and intense for the site. We would like to see a redesign of the site that meets all the requirements of the zoning and subdivision ordinances. The location of the Alzheimer's facility is incompatible and hazardous. We have heard -- excuse me. The Meridian police department told planning staff they had concerns about the location of the Alzheimer's facility, as documented by two separate staff planners on March 26. We have all heard of the instances where Alzheimer's patients have walked away from secure facilities. It would be a very short walk to the Ten Mile Drain. We would like to see the Alzheimer's facility relocated to the interior of this site. Additional information is necessary before reaching a decision. It is important to know the specific concerns of the police department regarding the location of the Alzheimer's facility. Do regulations regarding flood plain and wetlands apply to this area? We would like to see issues addressed before the Council makes a decision on the planned unit development. The setback and buffering requirements should not receive variances. On the revised site plan dated May 18th, a 15 feet wide landscape strip is shown between the Alzheimer's Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 28 of 76 facility and parking lot and our back fence. The notes on the site plan state five feet will be provided, 20 feet is required by planned unit development regulations. In the required 20 feet wide buffer we would like to see an eight -foot high masonry wall adjacent to our back fence. The wall would deflect the noise and block some of the excess light coming from the site. We would prefer the land abutting our property to remain zoned R-4 and would prefer no adjacent high density or institutional uses. However, if rezone proceeds, we would like to see a development agreement that would tie the rezone to the specific development proposed. We would also like to have the Alzheimer's unit relocated within the property to minimize its impacts on us and also to improve the safety of the facility's residents. In any case, if the development proceeds on this property, we would like the 20 feet wide buffer as described above. Thank you. Any questions? De Weerd: Any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: No. Thank you very much. Briton: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Rebecca Briton? I think -- okay. Doug Olsen? Okay. Thank you. Richard Openshaw. Openshaw: My name is Richard Openshaw, I'm at 2049 Southeast 3rd Way and I also am adjacent to the property. It's right behind me. Just a couple of things. When I bought that property -- had I known there was going to be a facility like that there, I would have never bought the property there in the first place. My in-laws in California lived next door to one and it was a nightmare and so I have an experience with that. So, I do know what it is like. It's a lot of noise, a lot of yelling, because the people in those things have a tendency to, you know, not know what they are doing and, you know, and where they are half the time. Also, Chuck Fuller was the builder of that property and I was concerned when I bought that property at what might be there and he told me at the time, along with other neighbors there, that the city had told him at that time -- and I couldn't get a hold of him, he's out of -- he lives out of state now -- that whatever went in there would have to be agreed on between the city and whoever developed it and the owners of the property that abutted it. So, that we all agreed on what would be there. And the only other thing is when they are talking about Calderwood, I think there needs to be more study on Calderwood Road, because that road is a nightmare now. We -- if you ever have to get out there in the morning between about 8:00 -- oh, about 7:30 and to about pretty close to 9:00 o'clock, you can't get on there, because of the traffic on Meridian Road and what it's doing is it's forcing the people to go out to Overland Road. Also, since the high school went in down there, the traffic on 3rd Way has increased by a lot as it is, because they are coming through and going all the through to Victory, because of that road going through now, and Calderwood is going to bring all that traffic in there from all those places and the Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 29 of 76 businesses and everything, that's a small road, it's not a -- if you have been on Calderwood, it's not a very good road and it's just not -- I don't see where they can say that it's holding -- or it's going to be able to hold all that traffic. All those people are going to be coming down there and going through into 3rd Way into our division and that is going to be disruptive to us. Thank you very much. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. I had Glenda Openshaw. Okay. Marie Olson. Okay. Thank you. Bill Pagent. Okay. Thank you. And Linda Pagent as well? Thank you. Gary Phillips. Were you sworn in, sir? Phillips: No. De Weerd: Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Phillips: Yes. De Weerd: Thank you. Please state you name and -- Phillips: Gary Phillips. I live at 332 East Calderwood Drive, Meridian, Idaho De Weerd: Thank you Phillips: I have one question in regards to what Mr. Perez that presented talked. He was stating that the actual density that was an R-9 -- somewhere between an R-8 and an R-9, so I'm curious why they feel that they need an R-15. And it's just -- maybe somebody -- you know, it's a question I have and I need to have answered in my mind. If, for some reason, this project doesn't fall through, like they were stating in this letter that was sent to you guys, what happens to that once it's designated an R-15, there is no going back. So, that means that anything can go in there, just about, and I have concerns about that. Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. I will have -- Mr. Phillips, I will have staff answer your question right now, if you don't mind. Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The number on the zoning designation sets the upper limit of the density, which they can go. The current zoning options for the property would be typically R-4, as it's currently zoned, R-8, and the next one after R-8 is R-15. We don't have an R-9 zone. It doesn't mean they have to develop up to 15, but they would need that to do anything more than eight. They would also need it to do the townhouse style buildings and the care unit. They want to do -- that would be allowed in R-15 through the conditional use process. As staff I do understand the concern that what if it's rezoned and, then, this project doesn't happen and, then, someone could come in and do 15 units to the acre. The remedy for that would be the development agreement as a potential solution to keep the proposal to the densities as proposed tonight. Thank you. Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 30 of 76 De Weerd: Well, the plat would as well. Correct? Siddoway: The plat would, although there is multiple units on the plat. I suppose the Conditional Use Permit would, even more so than the plat. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Blaine Bennett. Please, state your name and address. Bennett: Blaine Bennett, 343 East Calderwood Drive in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you Bennett: Most of what I have to say I have already said, either myself or my wife, in a letter, so I'm just going to take a minute, but one of the biggest concerns I have with the project is the claim that Mr. Perez made at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting a few weeks ago, that the neighborhood was in agreement with this project when he held a neighborhood meeting in late 2003. November, I believe it was. And at that meeting what he proposed was an independent gated community and the neighborhood was in approval of that. And it appears like now there has been a bait and switch. The other thing that I'd like to mention -- and I mentioned this in our letter, too, is that, really, I think the operative word here for those who are especially adjacent to the Alzheimer's unit is transition, not a stark contrast, and what we saw here in their presentation was all very attractive, but I didn't see in the Alzheimer's unit a motel -hotel like structure -- motel structure that I saw there, I didn't see residential homes right contiguous to it. The facilities that they showed in Eagle, there were some nice homes, but it didn't look as though that was an Alzheimer's unit, it looked -- you know, the same type of structure at all. So, I think, really, I'd like to urge you, Mayor and Council, to consider the neighborhood and the quality of it and really put some emphasis on the transition. We are not opposed completely to the project, but just the way that they have it laid out and also the density and we would just ask you to consider citizens of Meridian before businessmen from Eagle and Boise. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Mary Jane Bennett? Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Hearing none, I would ask the applicant to come up and respond to the testimony. Please restate your name and address. Perez: Yeah. Rob Perez. 4148 North Westview Lane in Boise De Weerd: Thank you. Perez: Our original neighborhood meetings had contemplated high-density single-family housing, patio homes, which were about seven to the acre and a gated community. We had always talked about the potential for senior housing and even in our original meeting referenced Spring Creek as a potential. Certainly, in our neighborhood meetings we have had numbers of those for, you know, numerous developments. We Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 31 of 76 make no commitments as what housing will look like, but certainly our general direction has always been senior housing. The housing to this extent is the result of Spring Creek having an interest in the property relative to studies that they have done about the demand on the marketplace. Briefly, in terms of R-15, one time step up from R-4 to R -B, that's allowed. That's why I think P&Z unanimously approved this project. With regards to traffic lights and other issues, we have redesigned the parking, which we thought addressed those concerns and apparently tonight there is a change of heart, we are willing to certainly continue to work on those issues. Heavy landscaping. You can see the number of trees that butt up against the memory care facility. This is not a flood plain or wetlands. The Army Corps of Engineers has been consulted on that. They govern any activities along the Ten Mile drain. Traffic issues are really for this project a non -issue, particularly given the light usage of Calderwood as a collector already. Harmonious usage here. Again, this -- we have had numerous contacts from people not here to testify about their interest in putting their mother or father or the combined in the complex. Let me just end with my comments and, then, Doug can address some quick technical response regarding the construction issues, and that is a comment from Brad Bankson, who owns the sliver of property just to the north of us and Brad said this, he said: You know, I'll take a senior housing facility like this next to me anytime if it compares to having teenagers. This is not a four-plex, two story complex. This is not high-density housing in terms of high traffic impact. This is not high-density housing in terms of loud and raucous behavior. This is going to provide almost 22 FTE in new jobs to this community. You saw Spring Creek, the high quality of construction, the commitment to quality. We can talk about what we like and don't like in our backyards. The fact of the matter is we are all going there age -wise. We all have parents that are going there age -wise. There is a need in this community. We can show you the data. We think we are servicing it in a way that's as harmonious as is possible and as with the Planning and Zoning, we would urge your complete endorsement. Clegg: I just -- I had a couple of -- De Weerd: Restate your name and address. Clegg: Thank you, Madam Mayor. My name is Doug Clegg, 1091 North Pinnacle Way, Eagle, Idaho. One is that -- I just want to draw your attention to the elevations that are here in front of you. This is what we are going to build out here. We have designed our projects specifically to be a residential area. I mean they could not have a project that has a higher quality construction, there is no cottage lap siding on these, there is stucco exterior with rock, we have 40 -year architectural type roofs, and we are willing to sign a development agreement. We are not worried about that. We have every intention of going through with this project and doing everything we are proposing we are going to do tonight. I think that there can be some stigmas in the community, and especially with our potential neighbors here about Alzheimer care and I want to emphasize that we spent a lot of time designing this project. In fact, I think we went through eight drafts before we ever came to the city with this project and we not only counseled with the fire marshal, but also with the police department about this Alzheimer unit and I can promise you that the location of this Alzheimer's unit is the best location on the site. It's Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 32 of 76 isolated. It's secure. It's surrounded by more fences than I can get anywhere else in this project, unless I'm going to build a compound. That's the only other way we can do that. The only exit on that building they can even get out of that is not fenced is a front door and it has a keypad and mag locks. There is no way for a resident to get out of that facility. In addition to that, to meet some of the concerns that the police department had, we have actually committed to put surveillance cameras on the exterior of the building, so that if somebody for some freak chance got out of that facility, that we could manage them -- or find them. Is that my buzzer? De Weerd: Yes, it is. Clegg: Okay. Thank. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions for the applicant? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: One thing I -- it may have been stated, I just -- I guess I haven't seen it is what amenities besides the path is there for this planned development? Clegg: Including the professional office? Nary: I don't think of an office as an amenity, so -- a path -- Clegg: Yeah. I'm asking you including the professional office part of the project, meaning the whole ten acres or just the senior development part of it? Nary: Yeah. The item -- the item for the conditional use permit includes a planned development, so -- Clegg: Yeah. Nary: I mean -- and the planned development in our ordinance requires two amenities and I heard one on the pathway, but I was wondering -- I didn't hear what the other one was. Clegg: That is a great question. In fact, that's probably one of the redeeming qualities of these projects -- could you show the site plan again? In the center of the site plan you will notice there is an octagon building there. Do you see it right in the middle of that island? That is a 2,000 square foot recreation building that's been designed as a public facility for all the seniors that live on this campus. They will dine there; they will have family gatherings, birthday parties, social events, all types of meals, whatever they want to do there. So, that one other amenity that we have there. Does that count? Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 33 of 76 Nary: Yes. That's good. Clegg: Okay. Siddoway: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Siddoway. Siddoway: I would point out for the staff report that they also meet the ten percent open space requirement as an amenity as well. Nary: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. And I guess while you're still up here -- chief, did you have any comment? I know you mention of police concerns was noted in the public testimony. Can you comment on that, so the applicant can respond? Musser: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we were able to sit down with them and discuss security measures, location of fencing adjacent to the canal, because those are some of our concerns, knowing that Alzheimer's patients can and do frequently find access out of buildings. However, we were satisfied that these folks do know what they are doing, they have provided access, in particular, with mag lots or other identifying features which would prevent the residents from freely accessing the doors that only those folks that would have them would be able to go in and out. And they also increased their vestibule at the front, which would be the only free access, so that they have a little bit more capacity to put on some added controls. They also addressed the issue of if somebody get out and was able to track past the fences and across the canal area into the more open area, that they would have surveillance cameras, so we would be able to track and have some way of being able to find out where they were last seen headed to, so we could attempt to do a locate in conjunction with the fire department, if we were called out in that area. So, we were satisfied that they were meeting the criteria and the concerns that we had to provide for a safe and secure environment for the type of residents they would be serving. De Weerd: Thank you, chief. Clegg: And we appreciated all the input. It was very helpful. De Weerd: Thank you. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Could you point out the fencing for the Alzheimer's unit? Meridian City Council June t, 2004 Page 34 of 76 Clegg: Does this light work up here? Rountree: Yes, it does. Just be careful Clegg: It looks like something my daughter has on one of her Mr. Gadget tools. What happens is the fence comes out here; it runs this way, comes to here, comes around, comes out and, then, comes in. There is an exit, an exit here, and an exit here and all of these are in a gated secure area and, then, we have the main entrance here and this is the vestibule area that the chief was -- De Weerd: Well, I think that needs a battery. Clegg: Does it? It's probably just my -- De Weerd: Or is it my eyes? Rountree: It's not quite a bright as it should be Clegg: How is that? So, the fence, again, come around here, stops here. We have an exit here, an exist here, and an exit here and, then, we have the main entrance and this is the vestibule area that the chief was talking about that we had expanded. There is, actually, two doors here. I'm going to set my hand down over here so it's more stable. That didn't help. There is actually two doors. There is a door here and, then, there is a door on the interior. The administrative offices for this facility are right here. Anybody that wants to come in and out of that facility has to go through a secured lock, a mag lock right here before they even get to the outside door. So, it's going to be pretty obvious. If someone comes to this door and wants to get out, they are going to be in open view of the administrator and his staff that are in these offices right here and, then, they have to either have a card swipe or another key code or have to be let out by the administrator with a secondary button that they would let them out with. Rountree: Madam Mayor, we heard previously from Mr. Perez that this is the best spot in the location -- in the location. With that fencing configuration, I'm at a loss as why that same configuration couldn't be applied to the property on the southern end right across the street from the park, right -- Clegg: Right in here? Rountree: No, just the middle piece. Clegg: Right in here? Rountree: Right there. Five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. Clegg: Oh, over here? Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 35 of 76 Rountree: No. Bird: No, right in here. Rountree: Five, six, seven, eight, nine and ten. Clegg: Oh, right here. Rountree: Yeah. De Weerd: Yeah. Clegg: Gosh. Thanks. I need to learn to count. Sorry. Well, one of the -- one of the things we are trying to do here is create -- when we work with seniors, they want to be in an area that -- and surrounded by individuals that have the same level of care needs that they have. Access to this common area here is much more important for the folks that still have limited driving skills -- and maybe I need to explain this part of the project. The folks that live in these independent living units have 24 hour nurse call that tie into the assisted living facility and we also provide their meals, their laundry, their house keeping, transportation, and their activities. A lot of those activities are going to take place in this common area and most of them are going to want their meals on wheels, so we are going to have a golf cart and we will actually take the meals to their residences in these areas from the main facility. It's important for these individuals to be close to this common recreation area and also to where their meals and some of their indirect care and cleaning services are coming from. Having this facility here is not a problem per se, but there is a lot farther for these folks to travel to get out onto Calderwood from this -- nestled into this back corner, which is -- has a lot less traffic, is a lot easier for us to surveillance. If they get out of here and they come across the bridge and want to walk through here, we have got another whole group of staff in this facility that are going to be able to see them wandering through the complex. It's just a more secure, isolated situation. And folks with pre -dementia and sundowners typically perform much better with that disability when they are in a secured, regular, consistent environment. It's just a better environment for that type of a facility. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I heard some other issues from the neighbors that haven't been addressed by the applicant. One is concern about noise from the residents from the Alzheimer's unit. Would you speak to that? Clegg: Yeah, I can. The folks that we are talking about right are on a fairly consistent and regulated pharmaceutical regimen and I'm not going to say that nobody is ever going to -- never walk outside the building and communicate, but I can guarantee the Council that the folks that are staying in that facility are going to make a lot less noise Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 36 of 76 than a neighbor with a dog or a group of kids that are playing softball in the backyard or a bunch of teenagers having a barbecue. The possibility of a senior with Alzheimer dementia getting outside the facility, first of all, without direct of the care of -- the staff ratios in that facility are usually one to two or one to three, which means I have somebody there during their wake hours, one person for every three residents. That's pretty high. If somebody gets outside that facility, they are -- we are going to know they are outside and we are going to know that if they area a -- they are a noise pollution risk to our neighbors. We will know that before they ever leave. So, I think that that's a manageable concern. I think that they are running a lot less risk with this type of a facility than they ever would be just even having a regular neighbor next to them, because we can control the activities of our residence that are there. Rountree: Thank you. Madam Mayor? There were also some concerns expressed about security lighting and shift work. Three shifts a day was mentioned. I don't know if that's what you plan on. Could you speak to those issues? Clegg: Yeah. I would be happy to. This project will employ at any given time nine folks during the wake hours and three at night. So, that's the maximum potential -- possibly with housekeeping of employees that will be on staff. Now, we will employ 40 people, but you have to remember, this is 24 hours, seven days a week wake care. So, the total volume, meaning the peak volume of staff that will be there at any given time will be somewhere around nine to ten. Rountree: That's in all of your facilities or -- Clegg: That's correct. Rountree: Okay. Clegg: Yeah. We will have three to four in the Alzheimer unit, four to five in the assisted living and, then, right now our current plan is just to have one additional person during the wake hours to do house keeping for the independent living units additional person during the wake hours to do housekeeping for the independent living units and also help us to manage the meals for those people. So, somewhere around ten -- ten people. At night we will have one person in the assisted living and two people in the Alzheimer's unit that will be there 24 hours -- you know, from basically 10:00 o'clock at night until 6:00 o'clock in the morning. There are going to be shift changes, but as far as the Alzheimer unit goes, you will have one shift at 10:00 o'clock change and there will be two people that will change at that time, so you will have two vehicles arriving at that time. And, then, at 6:00 o'clock in the morning you will have three people come. And, then, the administrator usually comes on at 8:00 and housekeeping comes on about that same time. So, that is the volume of traffic that we are talking about five days a week and, then, on the weekend you wouldn't have the administrator in the Alzheimer unit. So, it's pretty amenable. There wouldn't be -- it would be comparable and much less than it would if you had three or four residential homes there. Much less than that Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 37 of 76 and probably closer to one or two families that were living an active lifestyle. I don't know if that answers all your -- Rountree: Security lighting. Clegg: Oh, security lighting. We don't have any security lighting per se, other than just parking lot lighting that's going to be required by the city. So, you know, we are going to have lights at -- you have a major directory or monument sign here. There is one over here. There will be some lighting at the entrance at the gates. There is a keypad right here. And the gates, just you know, they, actually, open at 7:00 o'clock in the morning and close at 6:00 o'clock at night or somewhere thereabouts and everything is closed. The only way anybody can get in and out of this facility after hours is if they dial into one of the residents that are living in the independent living units or they dial into one of the main facilities and get permission to access the project. So, traffic is pretty minimal after hours in this project and the rest of the lighting is pretty much just going to be your standard parking lot lighting at various locations for directions. So, we haven't planned any, unless, Chief Musser, wants us to do something that we are not aware of right now. Musser: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the only lighting that we'd probably have any concern with would be low ambient building lights, so they could at least light the areas that are fenced in the rear of the building, if there was somebody that was out in that area, so your staff could see them and you would have some lighting adjacent to that. That's similar to what we usually use on most of the buildings, it's usually on at the night in commercial areas and with the way they are constructed now, it's usually not overwhelming. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. Clegg, what is the -- how many patients do you expect to have in the Alzheimer's? Clegg: We have 16 units in there. Bird: Sixteen units? Clegg: Yeah. Bird: And you're going to have two staff people on at night? Clegg: Yeah. Bird: So, how do we get the one staff person to three patients? Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 38 of 76 Clegg: Well, that's during wake hours and that's a good question. At night most of the folks that stay with us will be asleep. There will be some of them that will wander at night that have sundowners. Bird: I have been around Alzheimer's and they are -- they don't work on the normal -- Clegg: They don't. Bird: -- time that we do. Clegg: They don't. And that is a good question. So, we will not have three to one staffing ratios at night. Bird: Thank you. Clegg: You bet. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Clegg, could you address the 15 foot buffer thing that was brought up by the staff? You needed -- rather than 20 you wanted a variance for that. Clegg: Yeah. Nary: I'm not clear from your testimony why you can't meet the 20 -foot requirement Clegg: Well, I think we are. The Alzheimer unit right here meets that 20 foot requirement and that was alluded to by one of the residences that it doesn't, but there was actually 21 or 22 feet from the edge of the building to the edge of the property and it is all landscaped, either hard-scape or landscaping. Nary: I thought the southern portion was where the -- Clegg: Right here -- this comes down to 15 feet. We -- the challenge we have with this parking lot is that the -- the fire department -- we, actually, originally, had a drive-thru -- you see how this comes out here and you can drive under a covered let -off area, on our original design, that's the way we had the Alzheimer unit also. We had to delete that so that the fire department, when they come in with their fire trucks, can make a full circle, and they have got some pretty strict requirements on what we can do. We pushed that to the very edge that we could -- we could do and, then, we added a whole bunch of extra landscaping here and 15 feet was as close as we could get in that area to accommodate that. And we will change it again. We will change it ten times, if Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 39 of 76 somebody can teach us how to do it, but we have gone through a whole series of getting my architect out with the old CAD circles and just going let's try this, let's try that, and we just -- we haven't been able to find a better way to do it that provides the maximum distance from the paved areas and that actual east property line there. Nary: And there was a request by a neighbor for a masonry wall. I assume it's just a wood fence that's there right? Clegg: Well, there is a mixture of fencing products there right now. We are not opposed to that. They are expensive and we would be happy to do that. Eight feet seems a little high. If they are worried about their view, that's -- their backyard is going to look like a blockade. I mean that's a tall fence, so -- Nary: Thank you. Clegg: You bet. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions? Thank you. Clegg: You bet. De Weerd: Okay. Any further information needed from staff at this point? Siddoway: Madam Mayor, I would just point out that the maximum fence height for the zone is six feet, although eight feet could, potentially, be approved as -- through the planned development. There is a planned development in front of you, but the standard requirement would be a maximum of six. De Weerd: Thank you, Steve. Okay. Council, any discussion at this point? Mr. Wardle? Wardle: Madam Mayor. I'm going to give my discussion and direct it towards the rezone. It will sound similar to the previous application. I think if we have got a problem within our Comprehensive Plan, that we need to fix it and not patch it and not patch it twice this evening. That being said, as far as the rest of the development, the largest problem that I see and that I hear -- I will just give you my thoughts -- has to deal with the Alzheimer's unit and the location of it, not necessarily the existence of it. I hear from the police department the need for lighting around the fencing areas, I hear from the neighbors the existence of that close to their homes as a buffer when there are other units which are more similar to the single family residential. And, then, I hear the concern about buffer and shows us how to draw it when we are trying to get -- in this area right here trying to get enough radius for the fire truck to make sure that this building can sit in this location and so those are the things that I have heard from -- from the plat application, I guess. De Weerd: Thank you. Any other comments? Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 40 of 76 Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: You know, I don't -- I guess I don't have as big a concern as has been expressed. I think there are ways to deal with some of the issues in regards to the assisted living facility. I think the development agreement is the way to go. The step up for the residential really is compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and that was the intent when we added those provisions to allow those types of changes, but I would agree with Councilman Wardle that that L -O in the front, although it makes sense, is inconsistent with the language that we have in the Comp Plan and we need to fix it and that was the reason I voted against the last project and that's my concern with this rezone. I think there is some -- I think there is very good things that this development could bring, I just think there is some -- some technical problems that we need to address and if we don't address them and we patch them, then, we never address them. And that's my -- that's my big concern is that by fixing them in the short run we don't actually fix the overall problem, we just keep patching it. But I'm not as concerned as the neighbors are. I think we can address those concerns. If this was an R-4 residential zone and it was just homes along there, you're going to have noise, you're going to have garbage trucks and vehicles and barbecues and -- I mean those are things that are -- those things are not something that we can really guard against. What we have to do is try to adjust to those things. I think this is a fair adjustment for the assisted unit area, but I am concerned with the L-0. We didn't talk about it very much and in the staff report, the basis for it is the same basis we had in the last one that Councilman Wardle and I voted against, which was the land use consistency matrix, which we denied. So, I don't have the legal basis to support the change for the rezone and if you don't have the rezone, you can't do the other things. So, although I like this -- I like this to some degree, I just don't think we have the support for it in our Comp Plan to do it. De Weerd: Is there any further comments? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I agree with the comment Shaun made about the Alzheimer's unit and how it's located. I'm somewhat satisfied with the response I got to the answer -- or to the question. As far as the concerns, I believe what Councilman Nary said is it is subject to development agreement, should address most all, if not all of the issues. One comment I would make about the development agreement -- and I don't know if we have ever done this, but there has been a fair amount of testimony tonight about how this particular facility would be operated if it were approved and I don't know if those kinds of comments can or would be subject to a development agreement, but I would suggest if Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 41 of 76 we get there, that that be considered, such as the type and amount of staffing for patient care and that sort of thing. De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, I guess I would ask if that's something that could even be put in a development agreement. Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you can specify in a development agreement aspects of the use that mitigate effects upon the neighborhood. I would be reluctant to write the staffing requirements in, because you could find -- particularly in this area where there is substantial regulation by the state and federal government with regard to residential care facilities, that you could have a difference between what your development agreement says and what the federal regulations say and, then, you have conflicts between the two that -- how does the developer or the -- actually, the owner and operator of the facility square those up. I think it's more adequate to specify in terms of what the outcome that you want to see, that the use operator would maintain security measures to minimize patients and residents gaining access to the open areas that they -- you know, those sorts of things, because, then, you would have a better -- better handle on any if there were repeated escapes, if you will. That would be easier to gauge than trying to do head counts as to how many staff people they had at any given time. So, I think you want to regulate what the effect would be, not necessarily how they get there. If they have to put on more staff to prevent the escapes, then, that's what they'd have to do. De Weerd: Thank you this, Council? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Any further comment? Okay. Where do you want to go with Wardle: Hearing no further discussion, I move that we close the Public Hearing. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. And that was closing the Public Hearing on Items 12, 13 and 14; is that correct? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion by Council? Do I hear anyone who wants to make a motion? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 42 of 76 Nary: I guess so we have something to talk about, I will move to deny RZ 04-004, the request for the rezone of Southwood Subdivision by Calderwood Community based upon the conditions in the city code for zoning amendments 11-15-11, that is not harmonious and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and there has not been an application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and that is one of the conditions we must find to rezone. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to deny Item No. 12. Any discussion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I guess I'd just like to hear the motion one more time, maybe discuss the rationale. Nary: Certainly. The motion is that 11-15-11 of the Meridian City Code requires that one of the conditions we must find to grant a rezone is that the new zone will be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and, if not, there has to be an application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. The staff report indicates the support for the L -O zone along Meridian Road is the Comprehensive Plan consistency matrix. We did not approve that consistency matrix. The staff report and even the testimony doesn't indicate specific Comprehensive Plan guidelines that are consistent with this amendment to the L -O zone along Meridian Road in a residential R- 4 zone. So, although it may make sense -- I guess from a discussion purpose, although it may make some sense, there isn't any -- there isn't any facts or testimony to support the change on the map with the text in the Comprehensive Plan to support that rezone for the L -O. All the testimony and information received is the report to move from an R- 4 medium density residential -- R-4 or R-8 for medium density to R-15 and not on the L- O and that is required by the code and I just didn't have enough evidence to make that finding. Rountree: Madam Mayor, my only comment on the motion, if we are having discussion at this point, is that on that technicality, assuming we act favorably to the motion does not make this issue go away. Nary: Sure. Rountree: And would simply postpone it. Nary: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 43 of 76 De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: It would be of some assistance, too, Councilman Rountree -- I mean in reading through the other requirements, the seconder can tell me if he agrees or not -- in reading through the rest of the 11-15-11 it also requires that we make a finding that the area included in the zoning is intended to be rezoned in the future. Again, I didn't hear any evidence that the area along Meridian Road was intended to be rezoned into office. Again, it seems to make sense, but we have this discussion and I do believe the one piece of testimony adverse to that condition was that there has been no significant change along Meridian Road. It's an arterial, it hasn't changed its complexion at all, there has been some changes in the zone north -- or the areas north of this property, but, again, that wasn't part of the testimony. I think the other areas in 11-15-11 says, again, has there been changes in the area, has there been changes that necessitates a rezone. Again, I think in the past when we have had rezone applications, we have stated a number of different times that to request a rezone and to support a rezone, that the applicant must show us why the intended zone that was there originally is not appropriate any longer and, again, I think all the evidence we have heard is for the area east of Meridian Road and not the L -O and this is all one application. I totally agree with you, Councilman Rountree, it doesn't make the issue go away. Part of the -- part of our discussion point on this, as well as the prior application, was I think we need to do a little bit more on our Comprehensive Plan and I guess my fear -- and maybe I'm the only one that has this fear -- is that if we simply Band-Aid this problem and sort of shoe horn it in and make exceptions to try to fit this in these requirements, then, we won't fix it. So, you're right, it doesn't go away. I think we need to address the plan and make the -- but the Comprehensive Plan, although as Mr. Nichols stated previously, is not an ordinance and the state code -- or the state -- the state's report has said that more than once that the Comprehensive Plan is not an ordinance, it is in our ordinance. So, we do have to make a finding that it's concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan and I just can't get there. Rountree: You lawyers just have a way with words. Nary: After that lengthy explanation, I don't know if the seconder still agrees with my motion or not. Because we may not have been on the same page. Wardle: The second agrees in principal -- Nary: Good enough. Wardle: -- to the motion, anyway. De Weerd: All right. I guess regardless of which direction you go on this, there is a message here to staff that -- and I think that it was Council who did not approve their matrix and I believe that was because of the Old Town designation, so there seems to be a little work -- you know, some work to do on that matrix or maybe even take Old Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 44 of 76 Town out to address in a separate form, but there is -- there is some measure that we do need to clean this up with. Siddoway: Madam Mayor, just to follow up -- so, with -- with changes to the Old Town or elimination of Old Town and addressing it some other way, is the Council interested in seeing the consistency matrix back or are you not interested in the matrix, but interested in something else? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I believe our direction last time was looking at a text change in the Comprehensive Plan. De Weerd: The text change would also support the matrix. Rountree: Once that's done, then, the matrix itself, as a tool, would be there. Siddoway: The matrix seeks -- seeks to -- not to get too much into that, but it seeks to set forth, based on the Comprehensive Plan designations, what zones could be requested and specifically addressing special circumstances such arterials and things that we have seen tonight. So, it sounds like some version of the matrix as a Comprehensive Plan amendment, with some modification specifically to Old Town and maybe there is others, you know, could be modified and brought back to the Council. De Weerd: Those were the two primary issues that came up. Siddoway: Old Town and the -- De Weerd: And the text. Siddoway: -- Comp Plan amendment. Okay. De Weerd: Uh-huh. Okay. Sorry. I didn't mean to cloud your discussion, but we wanted to emphasize the direction you were all going. Bird: Call the question. De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? The question has been called. The motion on the table is to deny Item No. 12, RZ 04-004. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Okay. Item No. 13. Nary: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 45 of 76 De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I'd move to deny PP 04-007 request for preliminary plat for Southwood Subdivision, the basis being that the rezone requested was not granted and, therefore, it would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinances and map. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to deny Item 13 for the reasons stated. Any further discussion? Mr. Clerk. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Item 14. Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, I'd move to deny CUP 04-008 for a Conditional Use Permit for Southwood Subdivision consistent with the fact the rezone was denied and the prior reasons stated for the preliminary plat. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to deny Item 14 as stated. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. We are going to take a five-minute break and reconvene - I can't see the clock. It's the glare; it's not my eyes. Rountree: At 9:25. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. (Recess.) Item 15: Public Hearing: RZ 04-002 Request for a Rezone of 7.48 acres from L-0 to R-15 zones for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development — east of North Linder Road and south of West Pine Avenue: Item 16: Public Hearing: PP 04-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 52 residential building lots and 1 common lot on 7.48 acres in a proposed R- Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 46 of 76 15 zone for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development - east of North Linder Road and south of West Pine Avenue: Item 17: Public Hearing: CUP 04-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of a mix of residential and commercial uses with reductions to building setback requirements for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development — east of North Linder Road and south of West Pine Avenue: De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and call our meeting back to order again. We are on items 15, 16 and 17, public hearings for RZ 04-002, PP 04-005, and CUP 04-006. 1 will open all three of these public hearings with staff comments. Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is proposed Rock Creek Subdivision. It is located on the south side of Pine Street next to the existing Treymore apartments project, which is immediately to its west and Roundtree Subdivision was proposed on the south side, but was denied by the Council previously, but would have been in this location here. The proposed site is outlined in black for you. You can see the aerial photo. There is a church property on the site to the east and the existing Sunrise nursing home facility beyond it to the west. This is the -- this is not south -- or Rock Creek, this is the Roundtree Subdivision and Treymore apartments project to the west. This is the proposed project. You can see the elevation and the proposed layout. The applicant is here tonight with some minor revisions. I would simply point out the four issues that are raised in the staff summary of the recommendation to Council as outstanding issues. The first is that the revised legal description had been required and at the writing of this was still being reviewed by the Public Works Department. That review is now complete and has been approved by the Public Works Department as accurate. The second item deals with the rear setbacks. This is similar to the discussion we had on one of the items on the previous project and that is on a planned development the perimeter of the project is not allowed to reduce the rear setbacks along that perimeter. The recommendation as written does require the minimum 15 foot rear setback, but during the hearing the applicant did testify that they were still seeking a 12 -foot rear setback and so it needs to be clarified what setbacks will be adhered to during the process tonight. I would submit that we can look for the applicant for some further clarification, but it is my understanding that the encroachment is a three-foot encroachment by the upper story balconies. Now, the ordinance does allow for an encroachment by balconies for up to two feet into required setbacks. So, they may be able to accommodate this simply by shifting the building one -foot forward and, then, allow a two -foot encroachment and that would still meet straight ordinance requirement without a reduction. The third bullet deals with a required meeting between the police department and the applicant and I would withhold any comments for the chief. The one comment I would point out is that there was concern about this area, which had been proposed as a tot lot, as not having many eyes on it and would be better if there was windows that were facing it. An alternative -- and I believe is what's being proposed tonight is to shift that amenity to the central portion of the project that would have direct visibility onto it and I believe would be meet the needs Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 47 of 76 of both the applicant and the police department. The final bullet asks for two items that it says have not yet been submitted. The first, being a schematic of how those amenity lots will be developed. I'll point out the amenities for you. There will be a barbecue area and if the tot lot is shifted, the tot lot would also be in this location. That would be two. They are also proposing a horse -- a series of horseshoe pits over here and where the tot lot was they would be replacing that with a half court basketball court. So, basketball court, tot lot, barbecue area and horseshoes. But to my knowledge we don't have specific layouts for those amenities. The second item dealing with the floor plans of the four-plexes, I believe the applicant has some floor plans tonight, but by shifting the tot lot out of this area, it may not be such a pressing issue if we are able to get adequate visibility onto the tot lot in the central location. So, with that I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions for staff at this time? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Steve, if you -- would you address what's going on in the front of the subdivision? It looks like there is a single parking lot for the two units and, then, an entryway. Siddoway: Yeah. Looking at the landscape plan for some additional help. It appears to me that there is a street buffer of trees right out along Pine Street. You would -- there is an access to these lots directly off of Pine Street and it appears to be separated from the rest of the internal circulation and the remainder of it funnels through this location and circulates as you can see. I'd also point out this stub here, there is an issue of a need for secondary emergency access and there would be a need to get this connected to some future project in this location before this project could be built out in order to do full build out of this project as proposed and that is addressed by the police department in conditions of -- or the fire department in the conditions of approval. De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Madam Mayor, another issue on circulation, Steve, is what happens in this direction in this area here in terms of access for it in the backside? And on this side where you showed that roadway? Will there be a cross -access agreement established so whatever happens to the west could also utilize that access for emergency use? Siddoway: There is some debate over whether the access -- I'll take the one to the west first, because I know more about that one. There is some debate over whether it should be emergency only access or if it should be a full cross -access for -- to allow residents from this project to go through the project to the west, as well as residents of this project to funnel through the proposed Rock Creek Subdivision and just have it be a joint cross - access agreement, so that they can use the -- the various curb cuts as alternate routes Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 48 of 76 should one be blocked. So, that is -- that is one debate. I do not see any provision for access along the eastern property line. I look to the applicant, maybe, for some direction and I can read through the staff report for any specifics that are in there while he's doing so, but it is a good question. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Steve, I guess to elaborate on it to the property to the east of that -- Siddoway: Yeah. Right here? De Weerd: Is that a stub street right there? Siddoway: I believe it is. I was going to get up and look at some of the maps and see if it is actually stubbed. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any further questions for staff at this time? Okay. Is the applicant here? Were you sworn in? Ralphs: I have been sworn at. De Weerd: We all have. But were you -- Ralphs: Madam Mayor, no, I have not been sworn in yet. De Weerd: If you will raise your right hand. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Ralphs: Yes, it is, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address. Ralphs: Rod Ralphs. My address is 850 East Franklin Street, Suite 406, here in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Ralphs: If it pleases the Mayor and the Council, I have some handouts. De Weerd: Okay. Ralphs: Madam Mayor, just as a preliminary matter, what I have handed out is a small eight and a half by eleven map and also a glossy of the Rock Creek Subdivision project and just as we leaf through here, I think it will answer some of the questions as we go. If you leaf through page two, that's a front elevation on our four-plexes and we have side elevations as well. Now, in all candor, this is prepared to address some of the Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 49 of 76 safety issues that have been raised by the police department and I had an opportunity to meet briefly with Chief Musser and it seems like we have been able to resolve that. So, just for ease of reference, that's available to you to check out the floor plans that we do have. Just to discuss a little more about this project, this is a 23 unit project with residential, a multi -unit attached residential here in the back. In response to Councilman Rountree's questions, the two units here off of off Pine are, actually, what we are asking to be L -O, Light Office, and they are going to have direct access off of Pine and what we expect in there would be things such as dentists or doctors or light office type applications. Here on the back -- and I wanted to address the tot lot issue as well. We did move it here, trying to be very sensitive to the needs of the people living there and also to the concerns of the police department, wanting to one make sure that the children have a safe place to play and it's also by the barbecue area, so it's very convenient. One of the other amenities that we did add was a series of walking paths and you will see those -- they come from the west and they will join here as they cross over the Nine Mile Drain and, then, they join in again here onto the east side of the project. And so among the additional amenities I would just add to what staff commented, that we do have walking paths as well. What we have got here is a fairly narrow property. It's divided by the Nine Mile Drain and in working with the different concerns of neighbors and, then, also looking at the different applications on the Comprehensive Plan, we feel we have come up with a very workable solution for this property. I know one of the concerns was the access there off the south end of the property and I would like to talk about the east side of the property raised by Councilman Rountree. Currently, you have a narrow lot just to the east that is owned by the Friends church and there is one of their trustees here this evening. I did have an opportunity to also meet with Pastor Redford and just visit a little bit about some of the interests and possible applications that the church had for that back portion. One of the layouts that he showed me showed a parking lot for further expansion for them. One of the concerns that he had was that it was a 150 yard walk from the back parking stall up the sanctuary, but that was one layout that I saw. To the east of him, though, as we go into this -- and if we could get -- go back a little in the slides just to show the overhead of the -- there we go. Show me the green one. That would be great. We do have a spite strip in here of 15 feet and that is owned separately and the city is very well aware of the ownership on that piece and what we should basically be asking, if we are going to be concerned about access to the east from our property, you would be looking at either condemnation or some other type measures to gain access to the east and so we didn't explore that. We had a chance to also visit with the church about some of the concerns also with that spite strip and so that's why we haven't provided for a sub to the east. The stub to the west -- if we can go back now to that elevation. Or, excuse me, to that layout. Thank you. What we have talked about here -- and you will hear me refer to Treymore -- there is -- as Treymore One up on the front where the senior apartments are and, then, just for ease of convenience, I call it Treymore Two in the back. I know that they have applied and they have renewed their application with the city and they are currently working with Planning and Zoning, but what we have proposed is -- as was referenced earlier, a cross -access between the two properties to allow an emergency access. That addresses some of the concerns that might be expressed by Treymore One residents for general concern of increased traffic along a road that goes along to Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 50 of 76 the west of them. In visiting with Chief Musser, we can put in mechanisms that are called bollards or some other such agreeable appliance or mechanism, so that it would be used just for emergency access. So, we feel like we have addressed it in the way. And I think I'm out of breath, but I think that addresses a lot of the questions that we had. We feel that this is a project that, in working with Planning and Zoning and also with the other concerns with this property, we feel that we have met those application concerns. One of the things that is -- that we have asked for is a reduction in the setbacks on the back. Now, why have we done that? A couple of reasons. We have a balcony feature on the back there. As Council is well aware, there is a code that requires a certain amount of open space on the upper units, as well as the bottom. We have to have a hundred square feet of -- on the back part here we have a 64 square foot, which is a nine -by -six foot balcony. What that means is that is counterlevered out six feet. If we go with 15 foot setbacks, then, we are just encroaching into that setback four feet. But if we can have the 12 feet, then, that gives us an even more greater advantage than to set the building back from the front setback even more. What we are trying to avoid is sometimes what we will see where we have a four-plex community go up, where those units are just jammed right there on the front of the street and it is a purely esthetic thing. We would need to -- if the Council felt strongly about maintaining that 15 foot, then, we have some other options available to us, but we are not -- certainly wouldn't be our first choice. The other thing I would -- I have just noted in researching with Mr. Siddoway and staff, there seems to be some inconsistent language in the code for Meridian, one that allows for setback variances when you go in for a planned development, then, another one that says that you can't do that and so when we go into design and plan -- and I can point to those references, if that would be helpful. But in looking through there, it allows -- it's under development -- or developer incentives and it allows for those setbacks to be reduced. And, then, when we go into where we start talking about the setbacks in a planned development, then, it says you can't. So, we are at a loss about which one we could go with tonight, but it seems to be an inconstancy and I had raised that with Mr. Siddoway today, we can address it here this evening. If we have to move the buildings forward to accommodate the various setbacks, then, what we would ask on the front is an additional foot and a half to accommodate our stair well. Stairs are allowed to protrude out the front two feet and from the front footprint of our building our stairs actually come out three and a half feet. And so what we would ask from the Council tonight is any one of a number of options. If you want us to push the buildings farther toward the parking, please, give us another foot and a half for our stairs, and if we are allowed to keep it there in the back, then, allow us to encroach instead of two feet for our overhang for a balcony, four feet. And that's all I have, if there are any questions. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Ralphs, I heard you say the balconies are nine by six for the upper -- Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 51 of 76 Ralphs: Correct. There was also -- and I know you're going for the hundred foot. Nary: Right. Ralphs: Okay. I didn't do math in school, but I mean that's where you're going. Nary: Yeah. Ralphs: We are also using some front access there. We have a front deck in front of the upper balcony and so if we could go to a front elevation. Siddoway: Which elevation? Sorry. Ralphs: The front. Okay. Up here in this area, if you were to divide this area in half, you would end up with 54 feet and so we would pick up the other on that. The code is not clear whether we can access that or not. That's porch and we would argue and we would certainly ask for that to be counted as far as our open space for these units. Nary: That's a porch in front of the front door? Ralphs: Well, you have -- you have the front door and you have -- actually, what I will do is I will have you refer to your packets that has the floor plan, would probably be the best way to go on this. Nary: We had this lengthy discussion with the other one that we talked about Ralphs: Oh. Okay. So, I'm probably walking into -- Nary: -- about 100 square feet -- about the 100 square feet and what the code says is 100 square feet of private open space. Ralphs: Okay. Nary: So, we had a lengthy discussion about not sharing that space, not having it wide open, that was -- that particular project they had no separation between the different units. So, I'm trying to be consistent with how we have this previous discussion. Now, the back certainly appears to me to be okay, but the front, that appears to be the landing for the front door; is that -- Bird: That's a common -- that isn't split. Nary: Yeah. I mean that doesn't appear to be a private open space, that appears to be the landing at the top of the stairs that's not private for anybody, so -- Ralphs: Well, then, what we could -- Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 52 of 76 Nary: Do I have this wrong? Ralphs: No, because that's how we were counting it and we had gone back to staff and said now just exactly what is counted as private space or, you know, this open space for the -- especially for the balcony areas. There is a couple things I guess we would do and I could suggest and my designer would probably shoot us, but if we can go back through to your elevation showing the main floor -- I guess we could put some type of screening around the first floor, so we can work on our patios in the rear and, then, also on the front a little bit of a divider there that would be in keeping, so that might make it a little more private. The other thing, of course, would be to just add more space on the back and we would go with the recommendation and if the Council is going to just expressly state that the front decking area there on the upper story of a four-plex is not to be considered in that counting and they are going to provide that clarification tonight, then, you know, we can certainly go back and address that as far as final plat approval, but it isn't that way in the statute, I believe. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I don't believe looking -- you can't -- you can't divide that landing up there on the second floor, it's got to stay open. So, I don't know how you could call it individual deals. I think it's all going to have to come off the patio in the back somehow. Ralphs: Okay. The patio -- Bird: You might have to squeeze the window down a little there and extend the width of your patio. Ralphs: Well, if that's the express finding tonight, then, I mean we live with that. But we would just ask for that clarification in the future as we are designing these units. I had an opportunity to speak with Planning and Zoning about this. I don't know if it was Mr. - - I believe it was Mr. Siddoway. I don't know that it was really clear whether it was private or not, and I certainly don't want to put Mr. Siddoway in a hard spot, but I -- and my short term memory is long gone, but I would only ask that if -- if we are going to ask that it be balcony or patio, that that's how clear it gets. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Rountree, do you have something? Rountree: Yeah. Are these going to be owner occupied? Ralphs: They can be. Rountree: Would you put the site plan back up, Steve? Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 53 of 76 Siddoway: You bet Rountree: Could there be provisions on either side of the drain to extend the pathway? Both of these lots look like if they are ever sold there is no easement or no way to extend that pathway if it were to go on through the city. So, it would end at this point, the way you have it laid out and I would prefer to -- and I'm not asking you to develop the pathway, but it would be nice if you would, but at least provide an easement or recognition that it would be extended. Ralphs: That it could be extended in the future. Rountree: Extended through either one of those lots. Ralphs: Oh, and have the option, either/or? Certainly. You bet. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Okay. Ralphs: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Now, I have two people that have signed up, Greg Embry. Were you sworn in at the beginning of -- Embry: Yes, I was, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. If you will, please, state your name and address. Embry: Greg Embry, 251 East Front Street with Spink Butler on behalf of Thomas Development. De Weerd: Thank you. Embry: Thomas, as was mentioned, developed Treymore One and Two and most important for tonight the senior center in Treymore One, the northern most lot next to Pine Street. Thomas isn't substantively opposed to Rock Creek, but has three concerns it would like to register. First, it would like to -- for a requirement to be imposed that the CC&Rs for the development be reviewed by the city attorney and would suggest that this might be an appropriate context to resolve any of the internal cross -access easement proposals that were in the staff report. Second, in the staff report, site specific condition number three -- and I may be misunderstanding this, but it talks about a cross -access easement for the internal residential owners to use the driveways within Rock Creek, but it lists in a parenthetical Lot 1, Block 1, that's, I believe, Treymore One. I think it should be Lot 3, Block 1, which would be Rock Creek. So, that might just need to be corrected. The major concern -- and I think the applicant is -- seems to be in agreement with this -- is the special consideration number C -- or letter C regarding emergency access and this involves the stub street and if you could, please, show the overhead -- the aerial or the vicinity map. And the concern is -- I'm not sure if this still Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 54 of 76 works. The concern is the stub street. The stub street is down here. We would ask that if that is to be used -- or, rather, Thomas Development is amenable to that being used for alternative -- emergency access, but not for cross -access, general access for the residents. The point being that the narrow strip to the west of Treymore Senior Center is built up against that, that narrow strip is a private 25 foot width driveway built by Treymore. The senior center drive -- some of their garages back onto that narrow strip and, in fact, I believe the City Council recognized the potential problems in denying Rountree the use of that for general cross -access. So that what we are asking is that if, indeed, we would be willing to allow an alternative emergency access along that, but we would ask that it be designed and built out with influence such as bollards or gates to prevent general access through that narrow strip on Treymore. And that is all. De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Rountree Rountree: You just indicated that you would have issues with access along your western boundary, because of the narrowness and the access that your residents have on that. What is your position about the remainder of that portion to the south being developed and utilizing that as an access? And I assume that's a private drive as well. Embry: Councilman Rountree, are you talking about the north side of the Nine Mile? Rountree: You just indicated that you have an issue with this being used as access for this area. Embry: Exactly. Rountree: Do you have an issue for that being used as access for this area? Embry: For general access, yes. And in the -- in the Roundtree application that was voiced and that was one of the City Council's reasons for denying the Roundtree application, that that be -- I think the City Council was fine with that being emergency access, but not for general access, given what's constructed right there with the senior center. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. I also had Maxine Johnson signed up. Okay. If you will, please, state your name and address. Johnson: Maxine Johnson, I'm with Summit Real Estate Services. We manage Treymore. Our address is 413 West Idaho, Suite 201, in Boise. De Weerd: Thank you. Johnson: And it's just the same thing that I said the last time I was here, which was for the Roundtree application and it's the safety of the seniors at Treymore that we are Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 55 of 76 concerned with and that is the narrow strip that you have pointed out for general access. We do -- have no problem with emergency services and whatnot, that it needs to be -- you know, if this goes through, that it would be very necessary. But we don't want any access through our property of the general public of those two different developments. De Weerd: Okay. Any questions, Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to offer testimony on this application? Okay. Would the applicant like to respond to any of the testimony? Ralphs: I just -- I think the big concern was about what is that cross -access going to be used for and we, in discussions with Treymore Two, that's emergency cross -access and, you know, the owners of those two pieces, whoever owns that, I guess, ultimately gets to decide who gets to use that and that's not what we are about tonight. So, we are just interested in emergency access and we have visited with the police chief on that and we think we have got an amenable solution to that by putting up the bollards. And that's all I have. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions from Council for the applicant? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Ralphs: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Steve? Siddoway: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, in -- I have been looking up some response to Councilman Rountree's initial questions about the connectivity. I would point in the staff report on page nine, item D, about the interconnectivity. It talks about both Idaho Avenue and Broadway Avenue located approximately 250 feet east of the subject site, so we are -- let me flip to the -- this is -- this is Broadway and this is Idaho and they do stub to -- those projects, eastern -- or, I'm sorry, western boundary and it says they have to construct stub streets to the west property line of Treymore Subdivision, which is the east property line of Meridian Friends Church. Now, it has come up that there is a 15 -foot spite strip in there. ACHD and city staff reviewed the traffic circulation pattern in this area as to whether these public streets will or should ever be extended to the west. Idaho Avenue, being this one, is too close to the existing church office to ever be reasonably extended as a public street. However, Broadway Avenue on the south side of the Nine Mile Drain is stubbed to an area where it could be extended if necessary. As proposed, Rock Creek does not provide any vehicular access to the east. If Broadway were extended, Rock Creek would have no opportunity Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 56 of 76 to connect. Staff recommends this issue be further discussed at Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, et cetera. So, my personal opinion -- I don't know that just because there is a 15 -foot spite strip there would be a reason to throw up our hands and say that it would never be connected. I think it does warrant some consideration as to whether it -- whether we do want public access across the south side of that drain and hope -- so that is what's in the staff report in relation to that issue. For the issue of the pathway, moving on, it looks like they are showing the one here and as Councilman Rountree pointed out, it really should be designed so that it can be extended across the project. I guess whether that's done now as part of the project or just as an easement is up for the Council. The perimeter setbacks -- I was trying to find the code reference for the Council. The copy of the code that I have available to me tonight doesn't include the revisions to the planned development ordinance, but it does state in there that the -- the perimeter of planned developments -- the setbacks along the perimeter should not be reduced. And, then, there was a reference earlier by one of the gentlemen relating to page nine, number three, and wondering if the lot and block should be corrected to match the lot and block in Treymore. I don't believe that that's the case. I believe that this intentionally references Lot 1, block 1, of Rock Creek, which is -- all of the circulation internally sits on -- on that lot. It's a requirement that internal to this project that they provide cross -access across the entire project and, then, the issue would be specifically in item number -- condition number four of the preliminary plat, on page nine of the staff report, states that -- provide the fire department, the planning and zoning department, approve secondary vehicular access to serve the lots south of the Nine Mile Drain prior to issuance of the 12th four-plex. Probably the question is over the word vehicular and whether vehicular refers to emergency access only or to all the residents of the subdivision. If you felt it should be emergency access only, then, you could just change vehicular access to emergency access and just make the one word change and that would be able to handle that. Or if you feel that the residents should have access back and forth -- we are not really conditioning the project to the west here. We would, basically, be giving access through this project if it were left open for residential cross -access. So, residential or emergency access, I guess that's the clarification that would need to be made there by the Council. De Weerd: Steve, what is a spite strip? Siddoway: It's a small piece of land that's owned by someone else, has no intention of developing it, but may not be interested in cooperating with the development to get the road extended. It would either require purchasing the property by the adjoining development that is trying to develop in order to get the connection through or it would require condemnation by the city. De Weerd: Thank you. Any further questions by Council? Since our staff got the last word, do you need to add anything to that? Do you feel a need to respond? Never ask an attorney that. Ralphs: If my crystal ball were working tonight and I knew how you were going to go, but I think we have been very clear that this is for emergency access only on the south Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 57 of 76 and it's not just a spite strip that we are looking at there on the east, but you're also looking at another property owner and we have no idea, you know, really, in any foreseeable future exactly what they are going to do with it. The other point that I just need to emphasize -- and we expressed this also at Planning and Zoning, is we have private streets here and we wouldn't be doing interconnectivity with a street there and so, again, just to reiterate, I think this is just a great application for this property and we have satisfied the requirements and we just ask you would approve it. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. My questions -- or could be my comment -- is you have a property to your east that you will, essentially, land lock. Now, they could get through this spite strip -- I don't know who named it that, but -- Ralphs: It's actually a spite strip would be -- De Weerd: Spite. Ralphs: It's in spite, but it's spite would be the -- De Weerd: In spite. Ralphs: Uh-huh. De Weerd: Uh-huh. But, you know, I guess we have very limited connectivity in this area and we just piece by piece continue to attribute to it and I -- that's just -- I don't have a vote, so you don't have to worry about me. But, you know, it's just -- well, I did earlier tonight. Rountree: May have another one. Bird: Almost got another one. De Weerd: I just -- it concerns me that we have a lack of connectivity and that's my comment as far as that's worth. Thank you. Ralphs: Thank you. Okay. Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: You commented about land locking to the east. It appears to me that the parcel that was before us previously, that would be, if this were to be approved, land locked to the west, so -- and, personally, I think this is a good concept, I like it, but I don't necessarily see how we help do anything but create piece of properties on either side that -- or at least on the west side -- the east side, at least, is owned and has some Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 58 of 76 plans for it and some frontage, but I don't know what you do in that situation. We certainly did the right thing with the previous application, however. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: In looking at the staff report, I mean I think there is two issues from the prior application, the Roundtree Sub, that are still problematic, I guess, to me and the primary one is this access. I recognize that it's not -- not trying to say that it's the obligation of this property owner to fix all the problems. They have got a strangely shaped flag lot to the west, you have got an issue of connectivity to the east, but I think Madam Mayor's comment is correct, is we can't simply just throw up our hands and just approve it as an alternative. I think there has to be some better connectivity between these properties and there needs to be better circulation to these properties and just an emergency access isn't likely to cut it. I'm not trying to decide for everybody else what it is today, but it doesn't appear that this is -- this appears to be just an immediate fix to one property, versus really looking at how to make this work together. The other is the 100 square feet of private open space. I think our code says that all residential planned developments shall provide each dwelling unit with at least 100 square feet of usable private open space, such as a patio or deck. This is Meridian City Code 12-6-2. It does say that the Commission or the Council shall judge each project on its own qualities and may recommend deviations from this open space requirement, when it is satisfied that the private and common open space proposed meets the intent and purposes of this code. So, what that says to me is that we could approve 54 feet of -- square feet of open space on these small decks that are being proposed, but we have to make the finding that everything else is adequate to address the needs of common open space. This appear to be 23 building -- 23 four-plexes, which adds up to over 80 units -- over 90 units of people, you know, if -- I think I saw an earlier one -- I don't know if it was in this one, but I have seen -- even if you're looking at two units or two people per unit, we are talking a couple hundred people with one small tot lot, one barbecue pit, horseshoe pits, which -- I'll just leave that alone. Whether or not those are adequate alternatives. There is very little green space in here; there is very little other space, other than that 54 square feet of private open space. I guess for me to make that finding that it's adequate, based on our ordinance, I need more evidence as to how that's -- how that's going to be available for everyone and whether or not there is truly adequate open space for the number of people, the vehicles and the like, that are going to be using this. So, I guess I can't make those two findings that we did not approve the prior one that was on the west side of this, I think those are probably my two concerns that -- we haven't closed the Public Hearing, so if the Council wants Mr. Ralphs to address those, that's up to the Council, but those are the two areas to me that are a concern. De Weerd: Any other comments from Council? Okay. Council, what would you like? Rountree: I have no problem if Mr. Ralphs wants to -- that's fine. Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 59 of 76 Bird: Also brought up a couple points. Ralphs: I'd like to touch on the 54 square feet, just for clarification. Are you talking about the rear balconies? Nary: Yes. Ralphs: Okay. And perhaps I didn't express that earlier. If we need to expand that space in the back to make that up on each of those units, we will do that. So, don't table us or kill us because of that, because we have expressed that we will do that. The other thing is that with the four amenities we are still at our ten percent open space as required by the City of Meridian. So, even though you're going to have a lot of people in there, when you start looking at the requirements for this size of a project, we have exceeded our open space and so I would address the issue first. I played horseshoes with my dad and that's about as often as I see it and that's -- I share your sentiment with the horseshoe pits, but I'm -- it is an amenity. But we have also -- that isn't our only amenity, with the half court basketball court, the paths and the tot lot and the barbecue area, we have exceeded that. I wanted to talk a little bit more about the connectivity -- and I didn't really want to get into this, because there is a lot of these issues you will see when Treymore Two or Roundtree comes back through, but if we go back to that flag elevation that just shows the aerial, this is what you're going to probably be hearing and I'm not counsel for the -- for Treymore Two when it comes through, but they own this. They are the ones who get to use that, okay? You're not land locking them. And while there may be some objection and there may be some concern about the amount of traffic that comes through there, our project is only for emergency access. You can arm wrestle with these guys about the suitability of the width of that thing and as far as what kind of access they have got. We have already got a cross -access agreement to Treymore Two. We have both been very good about working with each other and we will continue to do that. But I just need to let you know that as you continue to receive objections from Treymore One, okay, no one likes to have a lot of traffic going through there, but this back lot here is owned, along with that flag lot, by Treymore Two or Roundtree. And I will leave it up to their counsel to make that argument, but that's not our animal to skin tonight and you will have that access. I would also add we can tear out the bollards. We don't need to have them there. We were just extending that as a courtesy based on some of the concerns expressed by Treymore One about cross public access and so we will leave that up to, you know, the fire safety and the police safety people as far as what they want to do with that emergency access. But, again, you're not land locking any tonight. The church will have its plans. Your connectivity -- if the -- if you want to go in here and start doing some condemnation here on the back end, I don't know when that will happen and I don't know when the church is going to act. What we do know is that we have a project here and we have got these private streets here and we have worked with ACHD, we have complied with everything they have asked, and we would just ask you to approve it. Thank you. Rountree: Thank you Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 60 of 76 De Weerd: Okay. Council? Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, just a quick comment and, then, a clarification and I agree with Mr. Nary, I like the concept of the project and it seems when you add the additional open space per unit for the individual space, the developer has indicated they are willing to do that. I need just a quick clarification from staff, if I might on the setback issue. I don't know with that I have a resolution -- earlier, Steve, I heard you say one -- if we move one foot, we don't need it or -- could you, please, clarify that real quick? Siddoway: The ordinance states that even on planned developments you cannot reduce setbacks along the perimeter of the project, because they wanted to match up with what next door might not be a planned development. My understanding is the only encroachment is three feet of the balcony into the required 20 -foot setback. Is that -- or 15 -foot. I'm sorry. Yes. Fifteen foot setback. The ordinance does have a provision to allow balconies, specifically stated, to encroach into required setbacks up to two feet. So, by -- if we were shifting the -- the entire building forward one -foot, the balcony would project into the required setback two feet, which is allowed by ordinance. Is that confusing? Wardle: No. Madam Mayor, follow up? Siddoway: It's four feet? De Weerd: Well, maybe we need to ask the applicant, instead of having this dialogue going on back and forth. Wardle: Then, if the Council would agree, I would ask the applicant -- De Weerd: Okay. Ralphs: I just indicated I would provide some -- some cites for that. It's Meridian Title 12-6-6, going down to -- oh, no. And, then, go down to 11-9 at D-1 and you would also look at D-2. The following encroachment shall be permitted in any rear yard, an unroofed balcony in the rear yard provided that such balconies shall project no more than four feet into such yard. And what we had asked is if we could get two more feet on that balcony, again, to get us up to the hundred feet and that's by sliding the building forward and so we are not right there looking over the fence into someone else's backyard. Or going with our 12 -foot setback in the back. And I just -- I understand there is some pretty strong sentiment about not making a change for that periphery, but as I point out, there seems to be just a bit of a discrepancy in the code that's easily fixed, but it appears that on one hand you can change the setbacks and on another you can't. In either event, if we are allowed to slide the buildings forward, we would ask for two more feet for a variance here on 11-9-D-2, which would allow us to have a six foot balcony into the yard, but, then, also on the front, just because of the depth of our units, they are 37 feet deep, we have got a stair well that comes down, as you saw in the Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 61 of 76 elevations from the top floor that goes straight out and it, actually, extends out from the front footprint three and a half feet and so we are allowed to do two, but if we move it up closer, then, we would need that extra foot and a half for the stairs. Does that help? Wardle: Sure. Nichols: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Madam Mayor, the correct code is 11-9-2, D-2. De Weerd: I just had a clarification, Mr. Ralphs, if I can ask you. Ralphs: Sure. De Weerd: On the open space, where -- I don't know when you talk about the private space and you're including the porches or -- Ralphs: The balcony only. De Weerd: -- balcony, is that part of the open space as well? Ralphs: No. De Weerd: Is that just for private -- Ralphs: It is not part of our calculation. Correct. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further, Council? Bird: It didn't answer Shaun's question. De Weerd: Did that answer your question, Shaun? Or is that clear as mud? Wardle: Madam Mayor, it answered my question. I guess the question on how we make it happen is up to us now. De Weerd: Thank you. Ralphs: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, if there is no further discussion, I would entertain a motion. Bird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 62 of 76 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the public hearings on 15, 16 and 17 on the Rock Creek Subdivisions. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on Items 15, 16 and 17. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Discussion? Or motion. On Item 15. Mr. Rountree. Mr. Wardle? Rountree: I was just going to -- Madam Mayor, I was just going to make a comment. It would be helpful for me to -- if one of us knew the numbers on the setbacks and it's -- I think Shaun has got it figured out, if you want to do that. If not, we can struggle along. Wardle: I'll tell you what -- because I don't think we need them for the rezone or the preliminary plat, so I will make those motions, if someone wants to look them up. Okay. Let's do the first one. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Wardle: I move that we approve RZ 04-002, rezone for Rock Creek Subdivision. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 15. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Clerk. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. Item 16. Wardle: Madam Mayor, if I could ask the attorney for some specifics -- reference that code again for me, please. Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if may first ask some questions of my own. De Weerd: Yes. Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 63 of 76 Nichols: If I understand correctly, if the balcony can extend four feet into the rear yard setback, then, there is no setback problem with this development, because the testimony from Mr. Siddoway was the balconies extended three feet into the setback and now that code section specifically says they may extend four feet. So, apparently we have -- I have missed something here. De Weerd: We are having a team huddle there. Bird: It might be midnight, but we will get done. De Weerd: Thank you for the question, Mr. Nichols. Siddoway: Okay. I'm going to try and work my way through this. It is even more complicated than I thought. Okay. The box represents the building and -- De Weerd: Who is the artist? Siddoway: The front setback is currently 15 from the sidewalk, but they were asking for an encroachment of three and a half feet for the -- on, no. How many feet for the stairs? For the stairs. Three and a half. Okay. Yeah. A three and a half foot encroachment for the stairs project into that front. The rear -- they have the rear designed as a 12 foot setback from the building to the property line and the full six feet width of the balcony projects over that, so they were saying that a four foot allowed projection, they would ask for an additional two. Now, if we say there has to be a full 15 feet of setback that shifts the project towards the front an additional three feet, which would provide 12 feet from the front of the building, still having a three and a half foot encroachment within that 12 feet for the stairs, but the balcony is still a full six feet wide and they would have the four feet allowed by the ordinance cited by Mr. Nary -- or Nary, I'm sorry. The attorney Mr. Nichols and -- but there was an additional two feet beyond that. I was just pointed out that these setbacks are measured from the back of sidewalk to the front of the building. De Weerd: Well, sure would seem with the six foot balcony, it would really limit what you could do on the other property with the balcony being that close, so I -- I don't know. I'd almost like to see you push it up towards the sidewalk. But, you know, of course, I don't have a vote. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I have got to comment before Shaun makes his deal. I would agree also, I think we need the 15 foot in the back and I can live with the 12 in the front, with even the three and a half, because that gives us nine foot from that balcony to the actual property line, if we go to the six foot balcony, so -- and I -- I just feel that it's more neighborly to Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 64 of 76 do something like that and to bring it up, you're losing three foot off of the front. Three foot of front yard isn't that much in my book. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Bird. Very nicely said. Mr. Wardle? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Wardle: I will attempt to clarify this in my motion. I move that we approve PP 04-005, preliminary plat for Rock Creek Subdivision, to include all staff, applicant, and public comments, In addition to the plat to approve on the perimeter boundary -- or, excuse me, to keep the 15 foot setback on the perimeter boundary, allowing an additional two feet of patio to encroach upon that, to reduce the front setback to 12,feet, and allow an additional three and a half feet of stairway to encroach upon that. Bird: Second. Wardle: And, in addition, if the second will agree, the walking path mentioned before along Nine Mile. Bird: Easements? Second agrees. De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further discussion? Any discussion on the bollards? Or connection to the -- Nary: Emergency exits. De Weerd: Do the emergency exits? Just keep it as proposed. Wardle: Yeah. Madam, I believe it was part of the staff, applicant, and public comments. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any further comments? Mr. Clerk? Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle? Wardle: I move that we approve CUP 04-006, Conditional Use Permit for Rock Creek Subdivision, to include all staff, applicant, and public comments and, in addition, to include the applicant comments regarding the 100 feet of individual open space and to approve, again, 15 foot rear setbacks, with the two foot encroachment for patio, 12 foot front setbacks with the three and a half foot encroachment for the stair case. Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 65 of 76 Bird: Second. De Weerd: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 17. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 18: Water, Sewer, & Trash Delinquencies De Weerd: Okay. Item 18 is the water, sewer and trash delinquency. This is to inform you in writing, if you so choose, that you have the right to a pre -termination hearing at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, June 1st, 2004, before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and to defend the claim made by this city that your water, sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. Your service will be discontinued on August 1st, 2004, unless payment is received in full. August 1st? Is that wrong? Unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her water, sewer, and trash delinquency? Hearing none, they are hereby informed that they may appeal and have the decision of the city reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho State Code. Even though they appeal, their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn-off list is $16,489.81. Okay. Any discussion? How about a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the delinquency turn off schedule for June 2nd in the amount of $16,489.81. Bird: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 18. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 19: Continued from May 25, 2004: Ordinance No. 04-1080 Parks and Recreation Commission Ordinance: De Weerd: Item 19 is continued from May 25th, Ordinance No. 04-1080 for the Parks and Recreation Commission ordinance. I guess where we left off is Council had not all Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 66 of 76 had a chance to take a look at the final amended draft or organized draft and -- do you have comment? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I think part of the discussion that we had previously was a provision regarding a youth member -- Bird: Yes. Nary: -- and I guess my comment would be is that provision of the Code -- it looks like it would be 2-2-1, subsection B-4. There is an additional line added into that code that says: And an additional position may be added to represent youth which may be, at the time of the appointment under 18 years of age. I guess my preference would be to add that -- take that line out of section four and put it in section three. Section three is the general requirement of both residency for both within the city limits and without, members of the area of impact, but they are all full members. My particular purpose is that if there is a youth member that is selected for the board, that they be a voting member, just like the other members of the commission. So, if we took that line out of section four, then, actually, we wouldn't be -- other than one amendment, deletion of the work and in that section, all of the positions, the Council member, the parks director, the member of the joint school district, are ex -officio members, but the youth member could be a voting member if selected to be on the board. That's the only change I noted. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? I had several in 2.2.3, the duties talk about to work in conjunction with the parks department and to advise the Mayor, but as you read further down, it starts to have some conflicts. It says to advise the parks and recreation commission, department staff, the city, and the mayor in A-1. Then, in a further one it talks about that the parks and recreation commission shall be deemed advisory and report to the Mayor and City Council, which struck out parks and recreation director. It talks about -- so, you know, there is just inconsistencies in 2-2-4 on the fees it says make recommendation subject to approval by. I think that's already been established that it's advisory. So, they can do all they want, it's still advisory. But -- so just to clean that up and make those more consistent. I guess, secondly, budgetary is a large priority or it was since the inception of the commission and it's kind of lost in item A. I would like to see that item as B under duties, instead of part of A under supervision of recreation areas, that it has its -- its own item and also 14 might be another possible addition to a duty, as it can appoint members to sub committees and focus on specific areas. That seems to be separate as well to supervision of recreation areas. Then, they deleted B, which talks about reports, and, I'm sorry, I'm one of those anal people who feel that our commission should be making reports to this Council that they are advisory to, in forms of their recommendations and also in forms of an annual report to bring accountability and also direction as to the direction of the commission. Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 67 of 76 So, I don't know why that was taken out. And, then, B and C on page five of six seem a little redundant. So, those are my comments. Nichols: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Madam Mayor, I believe that the monthly reports that were stricken was one that was to come from the parks and recreation director and so it didn't really have anything to do with the commission itself. And I believe that was one of the reasons it was stricken. De Weerd: Well, the last part of that did say the parks and recreation commission chairman will submit an annual report to Mayor and Council. And I really like that part and it hasn't really happened with our current director, where the report from the commission got a little bit changed when that report was given to Council. So, the need is not as clear that they should represent their own opinion. But I still would put that out for discussion by Council on how they would like that best to be presented to them. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I do agree on certain items here, but I believe this is something that the commission worked hard on themselves. I do, I like the yearly report. I don't believe we have ever had an annual report and we have all sat as liaisons. Usually, the liaison has come back with a monthly report at times if anything has been brought up. I just think that this is a -- reading this against our old one, I just think this is 180 times better. It's not perfect. It's based off of a -- off of an ordinance that has been successful for upteen years in another city, that has a very active parks and recreation commission, and I think we will find out real fast how active our parks and recreation commission wants to be by having this. It is an advisory board to the Mayor and the Council. It -- you know, I don't think it's -- it's not taking any power away from the director, but, in the same token, it's helping, I believe, the director and it's helping the city, because you're having seven people jump in there. I -- I know there is probably some flaws in here and I agree with you on a couple of the items, but on the overall, the redo of it is much stronger and much better, as far as I'm concerned, than what our old one was. De Weerd: I would agree with you, Mr. Bird. Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: The one -- as I'm rereading this, since we are looking at this again -- and I think this is -- this is similar to what's in the Boise City Code, but what I'm reading is in 2-2- 3,13, it says all actions of the Parks and Recreation Commission shall be subject to approval by the Mayor and Council and after such approval shall have the force and effect of ordinance. And I guess I'm not -- I'm not comfortable with that language, only because I don't know that we can really -- I don't know that we can say that an action of Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 68 of 76 the commission, if we approve it, without what the method is to approve it, that that is similar to an ordinance. If it's an ordinance it's a crime, a violation of it would, then, be prosecutable and I think the language is fuzzy for what that's intended. I think it's -- if the Mayor and the Council approve of an action and want it to be an ordinance, then, they have to pass an ordinance. Bird: Where is that at? Nary: 2-2-3,6. Rountree: B. How about have the force as enacted by the Council? Nary: Yeah. I mean the action, I think, ultimately is ours. I mean -- and so it's really a responsibility of action is the Mayor and the Council's, not the commission. They, again, are making an advisory decision or recommendation and, then, if the Mayor and Council want to approve that, then, if we want it to have the force of ordinance, then, we would pass an ordinance. If we don't want it to have that or we wanted to have some other impact, then, we should just say what that is. But I don't know whether by ordinance -- I guess I'm afraid of having -- and we have dealt with this occasionally in Boise, of having posted rules in the park that we try to enforce as crime, that aren't incorporated into an ordinance specifically as to what they are. And I don't know that that's what's intended. I guess that's just the way I read that, that it may be going beyond what we really want the parks and recreation commission to do and, really, the burden should be upon us to pass an ordinance specifically to address whatever they recommend. De Weerd: And I think they did get this from Boise. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Mr. Bird. Bird: And I -- Bill, I'm glad you brought that up, because that is a very very good point. Yeah, I don't want to -- I think whatever we are going to try adhere to, we better have an ordinance to cover it, and that's up to us to make that. They could give us a recommendation, but, I don't know, this is a much better tool than what we had. And, like I say, there is flaws in it that we can probably work out, but we need to get it worked out and changed and get done. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Where did you want to jump shift 2-2-3, A-8? De Weerd: I'd like to see that as its own item, as item B, and just title it budget and -- so its -- it's listed as a primary function. Meddian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 69 of 76 Rountree: Could that wording be fashioned into that duties statement? Because it seems to me that's more appropriately a duty than a separate paragraph. De Weerd: Yes. Rountree: And I agree with those points that you have raised about your read of being inconsistent and your changes probably make that easier to administer for all of us. Nichols: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nichols Nichols: Madam Mayor, on the annual report from the Parks and Recreation Commission I just noticed that we had moved that provision under subparagraph C, which is on page five of six. So, there is still a provision for submitting an annual report. De Weerd: Well, thank you. Nichols: And, then, to -- with regard to 2-2-3, A, which is supervision of recreation areas, and, then, I think what we need to do there is just simply revise that and take that part of it out and just say -- just remove that supervision of recreation area -- and those are all duties, and, then, we have got all the duties, which includes the budgetary function and the rest of those things and, then, it becomes a checklist for the commission to go through, instead of knowing the budget is off in this part and everything else is in another part. That would seem to flow a little better. We just simply strike those words supervision of recreation areas. Rountree: Because all of those things are duties and supervision. Nichols: If you want us to, we can change it and put budget number one or something like that, but I think this way it becomes kind of a laundry list for them to go through. Bird: I think it's a good idea. De Weerd: That would clarify it. I guess, then, the only thing I see, you know, subject to approval by Mayor and City Council, I think that's pretty clear when it says that it's advisory to Mayor and Council and that any recommendations or ordinance changes would be subject to approval, but -- so if that could be cleaned up. And just to, you know, clean up duties it says work in conjunction with parks department staff to advise Mayor and City Council, that should be also consistent through this as well. And those would be, I think, then -- Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 70 of 76 Bird: If you're going to delay this, I want to add something in there. I want it known that the meetings will be run under the Rules of Roberts. We need to get that in all our commission meetings. De Weerd: Okay. And that means that the Council liaison can insure the Rules of Roberts. Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the only people I know that really know Roberts Rules of Order are our committee chairman in the legislature and FFA kids who go to these parliamentarian debates. De Weerd: No. Union people do, too Nichols: Okay. Bird: Any ex -president of the Meridian Athletic Association knows it, too, because they get a book when they get elected. Nichols: But, anyway, I don't know that you want to tie -- I would advocate that you not -- despite my friend -- or Councilman Bird's attention, if you want to tie them down to Robert's Rules of Order, because, then, you get into whether it's a motion to lay on the table or a motion to postpone to a date certain and some other things, they can get pretty well hung up, when the whole idea is to make sure that when they do take an action that everybody understands the action that they are taking and particularly where they are a recommending body, rather than an adopting body, some of the formalities may not be quite so strict. If there are particular issues that you wise to address, then, maybe we can address it through a training session on the Parks and Recreation Commission or with the chairman or some particular things to help their meetings move along or address some of the issues that maybe come up and so I would -- before we put it into the ordinance, maybe we try a little education first. Bird: I pull my motion. De Weerd: Okay. He will withdraw his comments. Bird: I withdraw my comment. Berg: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Berg: If I could add my two bits -- or, actually, three points. De Weerd: You bet, Will. Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 71 of 76 Berg: Draw your attention to 2-2-A, in the last sentence it talks about staff support being from secretarial service. I want to just make it clear that the city clerk's department will do anything that we can to help that department, especially for noticing any other kind of recordkeeping that we need to do. I don't know if you need to have it in there, but we will support that. De Weerd: Doug, you have that on public record. Use it. Berg: On B just below it, it talks about the commission adopting bylaws, rules, and regulations for proper conduct of the business, so I don't know if you got into the Robert's Rules of Order or whatever you may have, they may have separate bylaws that they can adopt and have the Council approve as far as how they are going to run their meetings and so maybe you can look at their bylaws if they have some currently or whatever it may be. Bird: Bill is going to give them a lesson. Berg: And, then, the last item is if you want to make this a structured commission, like the Planning and Zoning Commission, on 2-2-5 that talks about the meetings, I would suggest that you set meeting dates, one that we don't have to try to make sure we publish a notice that we are having a meeting, because that's what has to be done right now, if they are meeting on the second Wednesday, and do that. We don't have to have a public hearing to change this ordinance, we can change it like we have in the City Council and the P&Z, but that would make it very structured for anybody that says when does the P&Z -- or P&R Commission meets, we can say the second Wednesday of each month at city hall at such and such. If it varies from that, then, we can do a notice. That would probably keep the burden of trying to keep up with the notices for the secretarial staff or the parks and rec. department. Those are my only just structural suggestions. De Weerd: Thank you, Will. Anyone else? How about you, Doug? Any comment? Strong: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there has been quite a lot of work put in the ordinance and I think the suggestions I'm hearing would make it read clearly and I can't think of anything else that I would add to it. De Weerd: Thank you. Well, Councilman Nary wants to withhold any further comment, so he can change it again. Nary: No. No. De Weerd: There are bylaws and they probably haven't been visited since Keith and I stepped off the commission. That's probably how old they are. Doug, are you familiar with any bylaws? Strong: I am not. I have not ever seen them at this point. Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 72 of 76 De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle Wardle: Madam Mayor, I recall that during my tenure we briefly revisited them, so I know that there has been knowledge of them, probably not much work done, but they can certainly -- that would, obviously, be the next step. De Weerd: If you can resurrect your copy, either that or I'll have to dig for mine. I'm sure I still have them. Okay. Is there -- and, you know, just for clarification, Mr. Bird, I know in my tenure as president and Mr. Moe's tenure as president annual reports did happen. Bird: Yes. I agree with you. But they haven't happened for -- in your tenure as liaison or my tenure as liaison or -- De Weerd: Well, Mr. Moe was during my tenure and, yes, he did submit reports Bird: One year he wasn't. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Anyway -- De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Well, we will put this on what seems a reasonable time frame, Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Madam Mayor, I believe we could probably have this on next week. My only question is I need to -- if I may. I need clarification on how you want to address the actions of the parks and recreation commission shall be subject to approval by the Mayor and Council. Do you want to have -- do you want me to change that language to. say -- I think I know what was intended and what was intended was if they decided to put up a sign in the park that said no smoking or something, that -- and it came to you and you said, okay, we agree to smoking in the parks, that you wouldn't necessarily have to pass an ordinance, but if you want us to address each one of those regulations by ordinance forum as a method of approval, then, I would be glad to change the language to say -- and after such approval by enacting an ordinance, I mean that's kind of redundant to, then, say shall have the force and effect or ordinance. But however you wish to do it, why we will reflect it accordingly. I just need a little more clarification from Council. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess, Mr. Nichols, I think -- I think it either isn't necessary, because if they are making a recommendation to the Council and we agree with it, then, we would either Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 73 of 76 enact an ordinance or we need it as part of this ordinance a method in which to criminalize rules and regulations. That their either be a provision that allows that to be an action we can take or we don't need it. So, either one of those scenarios is fine with me, I just -- the way it's written it doesn't have -- it doesn't feel to me -- it feels like it's overreaching without having some -- some teeth in this ordinance that says when we pass something or we agree with a recommendation for some rule and regulation that there is some ordinance provision that says we can point to a judge and say here is our -- here is the substance of reason why this is an ordinance and this is a crime. Or it isn't necessary, because they will just recommend it and we will create an ordinance for it. Either one of those things. It doesn't matter to me. I don't know what the rest of the Council's preference is and I didn't hear anybody else on the youth member on whether or not we want to be a voting member, if we select one. Bird: I want it to be voting. If a youth is going to be here, I want them to be able to vote. Nary: Sure. De Weerd: I heard all the heads nod. Rountree: Uh-huh. Yeah. De Weerd: Okay. Strong: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Strong: To address the question of ordinance, I need a clarification. As I recall when we worked on the general park ordinance last year, we had a provision that any rule that we would post at the park would be brought forward as a recommendation from the commission as a resolution and, then, we could post rules in a park to regulate activity. So, that's the way we have been pursuing it since then and we have done that on a couple of occasions with different things and that seems to me like that would cover this question of anything that we would need to enact to be enforceable within a park setting or a recreation environment. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yeah. And that -- that rings a bell, Doug. I didn't remember the language in it, because this code that we have on our laptop isn't updated. That includes that. And that may be adequate. We may just need a cross-reference and Mr. Nichols can check to see whether or not there is some language we can simply tie the actions of the commission here to that other ordinance that allows that to become an ordinance for the Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 74 of 76 purposes of enforcement and I just don't know what that language is, so -- I'm sure Bill can check that out. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we continue Item 19 until June 8, 2004. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to table Item 19 -- or continue 19 to June 8. All in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 20: Ordinance No. AZ 03-024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Glacier Springs Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. — North of East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road: De Weerd: Okay. So, Mr. Clerk, would the next ordinance be number 04-1080 or one? Berg: Madam Mayor, I'd prefer that we go to eight zero, so we can keep in consistency of how we approve them. De Weerd: Okay. Berg: Because if we continue this on, we might have a couple more ordinances that goes in front of the parks. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Could you, please, read this ordinance by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 04-1080, an Ordinance finding that Jim Cobble and Shirley Cobble, the owners of certain real property generally located on the north side of Victory Road East and South Meridian Road, Meridian, Idaho, to be known as Glacier Springs 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 and that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated Low Density Residential District (R-4) 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 ` ' r Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 75 of 76 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. You have heard this ordinance by title only. Is there anyone in these empty seats that would like to hear it read in its entirety? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve Item 20, Ordinance 04-1080, with suspension of rules. Bird: I'll second that. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve this Item No. 20. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. And I just wanted to make note that the ITD meeting we have are 20 minutes of fame in front of the board is on June 18th at 3:00 p.m. Please mark it in your calendars. Bird: That's AIC. De Weerd: It is, but you need to be there. Bird: At their building? Rountree: No. It's at District III's office, I believe, is the -- Bird: At District III? Is that on Chinden? Rountree: It's on Chinden. De Weerd: Okay. And so, please, let all your friends know that want Ten Mile Interchange to be there. They won't get to talk, but they can sure show public support. Bird: And we won't be down to the thing. Don't forget to remind us. De Weerd: I would accept any comments on the scope of work draft that I gave you from -- on the Ten Mile Interchange and next meeting I'd like to discuss the burning " q Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 76 of 76 ordinance, because we have a burning issue here to get it done. And I would like to show you the fine work that our -- both our police and fire officers did on a CD that I have every 15 minutes and I think it's about 15 or 20 minutes to show and so I'd like to give you that at next pre -Council as well. Anything further? Nichols: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nichols. Nichols: If you can -- just back to the parks matter. I think we have a way, if you can open up two browsers, since you're hooked into the internet with these network cables, you can pull up the city code online, along with your other stuff here, so I did that and the -- we have adopted a definition for a park rule that says particular rules or codes of conduct the parks and recreation has adopted and the City Council has designated by resolution as those for which a violation may lead to exclusion from a city park. So, I think we change that one section in the draft by inserting the words by resolution, that will take care of those kinds. Anything else is going to have to be by ordinance. Nary: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Okay. Council? Bird: How do we get that at home? De Weerd: You have on it on your e-mail. Nary: No. It's a different -- from what Mr. Berg has said before the meeting is if you have dial up, you have a different web address. De Weerd: I know. It's in our e-mail. Terry sent it in your e-mail. Nary: Today? De Weerd: Uh-huh. This afternoon. Nary: Oh. Okay. De Weerd: So, if you have any questions, please -- you know, you might try it between now and Friday, so if you have any questions we have an opportunity to respond. We should adjourn, so, then, we can talk. Bird: Move we adjourn. Rountree: Second. Meridian City Council June 1, 2004 Page 77 of 76 De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:06 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR TA Y DE WEERD OF M rdr v \ cs OR4ro9�L''; AL 9 f] 90 9p �Gsr is, , .O\`; •�''� COUNT ' ""-C,r!i,t��Na ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY DATE APPROVED