Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 09-072. Revised September 7, 2004 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, September 7, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers Roll -call Attendance: X Shaun Wardle X Bill Nary X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird X Mayor Tammy de Weerd Pledge of Allegiance: By Bill Nary 3. Community Invocation by Alex Chamberlain, with St. Luke's Chaplain: Presented 4. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve as Amended 5. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of July 27, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting: Approve 7-B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 04- 015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1+/- acre from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Secret Garden Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. — 2490 North Locust Grove: Approve as Amended 7-C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04- 020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 residential building lots and 1 other lot on 1+/- acre in proposed R-8 zone for proposed Secret Garden Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. — 2490 North Locust Grove: Approve as Amended 7-D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 04-022 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential and office in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Secret Garden Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. — 2490 North Locust Grove: Approve as Amended Meridian City Council Agenda— September 7, 2004 Page 1 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents andior hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888.4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Revised September 7, 2004 E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 04- 013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 13.5 acres from RUT to C -G zones for Stow -It Storage Facility by Lyons Development, LLC — southwest corner of Stoddard Road and West Overland Road: Approve F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 04-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a storage facility with a caretaker residence and future office/retail use in a proposed C -G zone for Stow -It Storage Facility by Lyons Development, LLC — southwest corner of Stoddard Road and West Overland Road: Approve 7-G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 04- 014 Request for Annexation & Zoning of 30 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Sienna Creek Subdivision by Sagewood Development, Inc. — north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road: Approve as Amended 7-H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04- 019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 136 single-family residential building lots and 13 common lots on 30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Sienna Creek Subdivision by Sagewood Development, Inc. — north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road: Approve as Amended 7-I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 04- 021 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a residential subdivision for proposed Sienna Creek Subdivision by Sagewood Development, Inc. — north of West Ustick and east of North Linder Road: Approve as Amended J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04- 018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for a re -subdivision of Lot 2, Tramore Subdivision consisting of 16 multi -family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 5.7 acres in an L -O zone for proposed Roundtree Subdivision by Big View Builders — east of North Linder Road on south side of East Pine Avenue: Approve K. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 04- 018 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a reduction to 10 -feet for the rear setback, minimum 5 -foot side setback, minimum 20 -foot front setback and no minimum frontage requirement for lots within the proposed development for Roundtree Subdivision by Big View Builders — east of North Linder Road on south side of East Pine Avenue: Approve Meridian City Council Agenda— September 7, 2004 Page 2 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shell become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents andlor hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-0433 at twat 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Revised September 7, 2004 L. Development Agreement: AZ 03-029 Request for annexation and zoning of 26.48 acres from RUT to R-8(PD) zones for proposed Sheridan Place Subdivision by CMD, Inc. — north of East McMillan Road and east of North Locust Grove Road: Approve M. Approve Bills: Approve 6. Department Reports: 7. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) B,C,D,G,H,I 8. FP 04-053 Request for Final Plat approval for 5 commercial building lots on 3 acres in an L-0 and C -G zones for Southern Springs Subdivision No. 1 by The Land Group, Inc. — east of South Meridian Road and south of East Overland Road: Approve 9. TE 04-005 Request for a one year Time Extension for filing the Final Plat for Southern Springs Subdivision No. 1 by The Land Group, Inc. — east of South Meridian Road and south of East Overland Road: Approve to 9- 15-05 10. FP 04-054 Request for Final Plat approval for 123 building lots and 14 common lots on 49.47 acres in an R-4 zone for Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12 by Lochsa Falls, LLC — west of North Linder Road and west of Chinden Boulevard: Approve 11. AP 04-002 Appealing the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission denying the Preliminary Plat for Sadie Creek Subdivision by FOLIO, Inc. — 2935 North Eagle Road: Approve Appeal not Preliminary Plat 12. Public Hearing: CUP 04-023 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a mixed-use development consisting of 120 multi -family units, 28,660 square feet commercial/office space and 3.43 acres of open space on 10.05 acres in a C -G zone for proposed Sadie Creek Subdivision by FOLIO, Inc. — 2935 North Eagle Road: Continue Public Hearing to September 21, 2004 13. Public Hearing: MI 04-007 Miscellaneous request for an administrative lot split of unplatted ground for Ronald Van Auker by Ronald Van Auker — northeast corner of Franklin Road and Gaudians Avenue: Approve 14. Public Hearing: AZ 04-017 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT to R-4, C -N and L-0 zones for proposed Leeshire Meridian City Council Agenda— September 7, 2004 Page 3 of 5 All msterials presented at public meetings shall became property of the City of Meridian. A,youe desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888.4433 at least 48 hours prim to the public meeting. Revised September 7, 2004 Subdivision by SWI Associates, LLC— 5603 N. Locust Grove Road: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial 15. Public Hearing: PP 04-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 89 building lots and 20 common lots on 29.69 acres in proposed R-4, C -N and L -O zones for proposed Leeshire Subdivision by SWI Associates, LLC — 5603 N. Locust Grove Road: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial 16. Public Hearing: CUP 04-026 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use Planned Development consisting of single family residential and commercial/office uses with reductions to the minimum requirements for lots size, side yard setbacks and minimum street frontage for proposed Leeshire Subdivision by SWI Associates, LLC — 5603 N. Locust Grove Road: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial 17. Public Hearing: CPA 04-002 Request for Text Amendment to allow applicants to request an L-0 zoning in areas designated as residential which are located along arterial streets and section line roads and also allow applicants to request that property with a Public/Quasi Public designation to be rezoned to a zoning district that is compatible with adjoining zoning districts and land uses upon redevelopment of the property by the City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Department: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 18. Public Hearing: RZ 04-009 Request for a Rezone of 16.49 acres from R- 4 to R-4, R-8 and L-0 zones for Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur, LLC — 2090, 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 19. Public Hearing: PP 04-023 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval for 56 building lots and 6 common lots on 18.94 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur, LLC - 2090, 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 20. Public Hearing: CUP 04-025 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use Planned Development consisting of single family residential, assisted living and office uses with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size and street frontage for Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur, LLC - 2090, 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 21. Water, Sewer, 8r Trash Delinquencies: Approve Meridian City Council Agenda— September 7, 2004 Page 4 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilitics related to documents andlor hearing please contact am City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Revised September 7, 2004 22. Ordinance No. 04-1098 : AZ 03-029 Request for annexation and zoning of 26.48 acres from RUT to R-8(PD) zones for proposed Sheridan Place Subdivision by CMD, Inc. — north of East McMillan Road and east of North Locust Grove Road: Approve 23. Ordinance No. 04-1099 Amendment to 2003 / 2004 Fiscal Year Budget: Approve 24. Ordinance No. 04-1100 2004 / 2005 Fiscal Year Budget: Approve Meridien City Council Agenda— September 7, 2004 Page 5 of 5 All materisls presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 8884433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Meridian City Council Regular Meeting September 7. 2004. The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, September 7, 2004, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Bill Nary, Charlie Rountree, and Shaun Wardle. Others Present: Bill Nichols, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Brad Watson, Bill Musser, Kenny Bowers, 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 the City Council meeting to order. It is Tuesday, September 7th. Thank you all for joining us here this evening. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, start with roll call attendance. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: De Weerd: Thank you. if you will, please, rise and join Councilman Nary in the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Alex Chamberlain, with St. Luke's Chaplain: De Weerd: Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Please join us or take this moment of silence or mediation -- mediation. I did it again. I'm going to -- Bird: Meditation. De Weerd: -- omit that from my thing. Okay? Meditation. Yes, please. Chamberlain: Let us pray. Lord, we are aware that many of us have already put in a full day at work, at home, and we pray for your spirit to quicken in our hearts and minds attentiveness to the matters that face this community. We pray for the City Council, knowing that at times they will feel like this work is a burden. Help them to see it as a privilege. When we are aware of short-term needs, help us to keep the larger picture and longer-term future in mind. When there are conflicts tonight and people are tempted to react, help us to respond. We pray that all would leave this meeting not only Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 2 of 73 with a sigh of relief, but with a satisfying sense of being heard and of making their own contribution to the future of this community. We pray this in the name of the Lord, the one who loves us best, Amen. De Weerd: Thank you, chaplain. If you will give me a moment -- Alex? I would like to present you with a pin and this is one of our new City of Meridian pins and thank you for joining us. Chamberlain: You're welcome. Thank you. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda. Council, we do have a couple of items on the Consent Agenda, B, C, and D that has some comments to be added to. Also G, H, and I. And if you would all approve, if we could move Item 17 below Item 20. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Okay. We will take care of the Consent now. That Consent, did they want to be brought off the Consent Agenda to the regular agenda? De Weerd: Yes. Bird: All six of them? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Bird: Okay. I would move that we adopt the revised agenda as noted. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as amended. All those in -- Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: On Item 17, it doesn't have a relationship to Item 20? Eighteen, nineteen, twenty? It's completely separate? I think that was the reason we had left it there at one point. De Weerd: It's completely separate. Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 3 of 73 Nary: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of July 27, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 04- 013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 13.5 acres from RUT to C -G zones for Stow -It Storage Facility by Lyons Development, LLC — southwest corner of Stoddard Road and West Overland Road: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 04-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a storage facility with a caretaker residence and future office/retail use in a proposed C -G zone for Stow -It Storage Facility by Lyons Development, LLC — southwest corner of Stoddard Road and West Overland Road: J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04- 018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for a re -subdivision of Lot 2, Tramore Subdivision consisting of 16 multi -family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 5.7 acres in an L -O zone for proposed Roundtree Subdivision by Big View Builders — east of North Linder Road on south side of East Pine Avenue: K. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 04-018 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a reduction to 10 -feet for the rear setback, minimum 5 -foot side setback, minimum 20 -foot front setback and no minimum frontage requirement for lots within the proposed development for Roundtree Subdivision by Big View Builders — east of North Linder Road on south side of East Pine Avenue: L. Development Agreement: AZ 03-029 Request for annexation and zoning of 26.48 acres from RUT to R-8 (PD) zones for proposed Sheridan Place Subdivision by CMD, Inc. — north of East McMillan Road and east of North Locust Grove Road: M. Approve Bills: Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 4 of 73 De Weerd: Consent Agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: On the Consent Agenda, I move that we take items B, C, D; G, H, I, and move them to 7 B, C, D, and G, H, I, and for the rest of the Consent Agenda to be approved and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda with the changes. 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: De Weerd: Motion approved. There are no department reports. Item 7: (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 04- 015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1+/- acre from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Secret Garden Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. — 2490 North Locust Grove: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04- 020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 residential building lots and 1 other lot on 1+/- acre in proposed R-8 zone for proposed Secret Garden Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. — 2490 North Locust Grove: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 04-022 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential and office in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Secret Garden Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. — 2490 North Locust Grove: De Weerd: Item 7 we have moved from the Consent Agenda B, C, and D, regarding Secret Garden Subdivision. You have in front of you a memo detailing some suggested Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 5 of 73 changes to that. Are there any questions for staff? Anna, are there any comments you need to make? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my understanding is that the memo from Brad outlined everything. De Weerd: Our attorney has suggested that if these changes are needed, they can revise the findings and they can be resubmitted for signature. Nichols: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you can approve the findings with these changes and, then, we will just simply revise the document, so that it does not have to appear on another agenda. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Would that be for all three of those items in one motion? De Weerd: Yes. Nichols: Yes, Councilman Rountree. This has to do with just Secret Garden and, then, there would be a similar motion with regard to Sienna Creek. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the findings for Item 7, B, C, and D, for Secret Garden Subdivision, with the inclusion of the comments dated September 7th, 2004. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 7 B, C, and D. 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. G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 04- 014 Request for Annexation & Zoning of 30 acres from RUT to R-8 Meridian Clty Council September 7, 2004 Page 6 of 73 zone for proposed Sienna Creek Subdivision by Sagewood Development, Inc. — north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road: H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04- 019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 136 single-family residential building lots and 13 common lots on 30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Sienna Creek Subdivision by Sagewood Development, Inc. — north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 04-021 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a residential subdivision for proposed Sienna Creek Subdivision by Sagewood Development, Inc. — north of West Ustick and east of North Linder Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 7, G, H, and I, are regarding Sienna Creek findings. Bird: Charlie? De Weerd: Are there any further comments from staff on these? Council, do you have any questions? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Do I have a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve Item 7 G, H, and I, for Sienna Creek Subdivision with the suggested change from staff, dated September 7th, 2004. Bird: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 7 G, H, and I, with the noted changes. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: FP 04-053 Request for Final Plat approval for 5 commercial building lots on 3 acres in an L-0 and C -G zones for Southern Springs Subdivision Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 7 of 73 No. 1 by The Land Group, Inc. — east of South Meridian Road and south of East Overland Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 8 is FP 04-053. 1 will ask staff to comment. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the first final plat for Southern Springs and, therefore, it's entitled Southern Springs Subdivision No. 1, but the preliminary plat for this final plat was, actually, Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2. So, I just wanted to make that as unclear as possible. This is -- encompasses all of Southern Springs No. 2 and it is in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat. I do not have a letter from the applicant. De Weerd: Is the applicant in agreement with staffs recommendations? The applicant is nodding his approval. Council, do you have any questions for staff or the applicant? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve Item 8, FP 04-053, final plat for Southern Springs Subdivision. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 8. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Clerk. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: TE 04-005 Request for a one year Time Extension for filing the Final Plat for Southern Springs Subdivision No. 1 by The Land Group, Inc. — east of South Meridian Road and south of East Overland Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 9 is TE 04-005. Start with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a time extension request for Southern Springs Subdivision No. 1 preliminary plat. So, this is not the piece you just moved on before, this is the one just to the west of it. This is the one that has the Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 8 of 73 frontage along Meridian Road. The initial request for the time extension was due to the fact that they had not received ITD's letter regarding what kind of access they would have. They may have more to update you on if you desire to hear that update. My understanding is they have also acquired the property to the -- just south of that, which has frontage along Calderwood, as well as Meridian Road. So, that would open up some additional access opportunities to them there. So, for those reasons they have asked for a time extension. Staff is supportive of that time extension. De Weerd: Okay. Does the applicant have anything further to add? No? Council, do you have any questions for staff or the applicant? Bird: I have none. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I assume, Mrs. Canning, the county engineer is going to make the other one number one and so at some point this will clear up and this will be number two. Isn't that how that works? Canning: Right. The final plats actually have nothing whatsoever to do with the preliminary plat names. They can be completely different. He just wants to make sure that number one -- the first one that goes through is entitled number one, the second one that goes through needs to have number two on it, and so forth. That's all. Nary: Okay. Thank you. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'd move that we give the one-year time extension to September 15th, 2005, for filing the final plat for Southern Springs Subdivision No. 1 by the Land Group. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve the request on Item No. 9 to September 15th, 2005. 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 10: FP 04-054 Request for Final Plat approval for 123 building lots and 14 common lots on 49.47 acres in an R-4 zone for Lochsa Falls Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 9 of 73 Subdivision No. 12 by Lochsa Falls, LLC — west of North Linder Road and west of Chinden Boulevard: De Weerd: Item 10 is final plat 04-054. Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the 10th -- excuse me -- the 12th final plat for Lochsa Falls Subdivision. They have made their way to the north boundary of the site toward Chinden. This is the approved preliminary plat and this is the final plat. The final plat is in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat. The applicant has submitted a letter asking that Item number 6-A be deleted as a requirement. That item is to show detached sidewalks adjacent to West Chinden Boulevard. Staff has been consistently requiring or asking for sidewalks along the state highways. ACHD does not necessarily require them. At times ITD does not require them either. Generally, they are supportive of whatever the city wants. In this case, as staff, we have been asking for those sidewalks. The applicant does list a number of subdivisions on Chinden that do not have sidewalks. You will note that those aren't Meridian subdivisions, though. This will be the first Meridian subdivision along Chinden Boulevard -- that has frontage along Chinden Boulevard, other than a short stub street from Paramount, which I believe hasn't final platted yet. So, the final plat is in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat. De Weerd: Anna, these sidewalks are detached, aren't they? Canning: They would adjoin the -- my understanding is they would adjoin the right of way. They would be outside of the right of way. Detached from the actual roadway, yes. De Weerd: And are you requesting any additional width for them? Canning: There is a 35 -foot landscape easement. They have dedicated 30 additional feet to ITD -- or there is a 30 -foot lot there and, then, a 35 -foot landscape lot. No, we had not asked them to widen the landscape buffer. De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to make comment on this? If you will please state your name and address. Martin: Justin Martin, 5606 North Ten Mile Road De Weerd: Thank you. Martin: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't have huge objections against this sidewalk issue. It's more of -- it's a busy road, everybody knows Chinden is busy, the speeds are higher than most of the streets out there, compared to Linder, compared to -- as the developments keep growing, the state highway is probably going to keep its speed limit up. The rest of the roads out there will have reduced speeds. I guess I just don't see where this sidewalk would be going or coming from. You know, we don't want Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 10 of 73 to encourage people to pull over on Chinden, I can't see us wanting to encourage people to be out there on a highway. Yeah. I mean I don't have anything besides that. Just concerns, I guess. And, obviously, if you want me to do it, I will do it. We will be happy to build it. Just from me looking at it, I couldn't see the reason, not knowing what it would connect to. De Weerd: I guess if we looked at just today I would agree with you, but who knows in the future what Chinden will look like or even what additional plans are and I guess that would be my concern is, then, you have an island that would not have that pathway or connectivity and that would be my concern. As well I guess there still are people who actually ride bikes and this would -- would offer a safer route to come off of Chinden to do something like that. And I don't -- I don't know if that's wise either, but, again, long terms, we have to consider that as well. But since it's not my decision, I will leave it to Council's capable hands. Council, do you have any questions? Rountree: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I agree. I think that we don't know what it's going to be out there in five years and I think that your plan ought to accommodate sidewalks. If you're stranded out there now, it's not very comfortable walking down the street and it's going to get worse. So, I would say that from my perspective it would be something that I would like to see incorporated in your plan. Martin: Okay. De Weerd: Any further comments? Is there anything else? Martin: There is really not. Bird: Thank you, Justin. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if I might, I did notice on Mr. Martin's letter he did point out that the two story side setbacks had been revised from five feet from the original approved seven feet. That wasn't all that clear in the staff report. That was done as a modification to his setbacks and was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. De Weerd: Okay. Any questions on that change? Okay. Okay. Council, what would you like to do on Item 10? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve final plat for Item No. 10, FP 04-054, for Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12 and retaining item 6-A speaking to detached sidewalks and identifying the comment from staff as it related to the setbacks. Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 11 of 73 Bird: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 10 with the changes noted by Councilman Rountree. Any further comments? Mr. Clerk. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: AP 04-002: Appealing the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission denying the Preliminary Plat for Sadie Creek Subdivision by FOLIO, Inc. — 2935 North Eagle Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 04-023 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a mixed-use development consisting of 120 multi -family units, 28,660 square feet commercial/office space and 3.43 acres of open space on 10.05 acres in a C -G zone for proposed Sadie Creek Subdivision by FOLIO, Inc. — 2935 North Eagle Road: De Weerd: Item 11 is AP 04-002, appealing the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission on Sadie Creek Subdivision. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm not quite sure how to proceed with this. Do you want me to give you an overview of the entire development and, then, explain the reasons why Planning and Zoning Commission denied it? Rountree: I would. Bird: I would like that. De Weerd: Yes. Canning: Okay. I apologize for that. I'm a little disorganized today. This is Sadie Creek Subdivision and Sadie Creek takes access off of Eagle Road, which would be just here off the edge of the screen. This property was zoned C -G as part of the Eagy, Ruwe, Kissler, Cobb annexation that was before the Council for a number of months. This is the Ruwe parcel. As you will recall, the Eagy parcel is to the north and has access along Ustick Road. The Cobb parcel is just up in the corner at the -- at the very corner of Eagle and Ustick Road. So, this property -- the only access is on Eagle Road. They have proposed a drive that's along their southern boundary and, actually, it would be built partially on the neighboring property on an easement. They have proposed seven commercial or office lots in the front and, then, they have proposed a number of multi -family four-plexes in this area. This one was actually removed in the center of the open space there and, then, all these are four-plexes. This was the concept plan that was approved by Council for the Eagy, Ruwe, Kissler, Cobbs annexation, minus the Eagy, eventually, as I mentioned before. This is the Eagy property. So, on the concept Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 12 of 73 plan it was shown as transitional use or utility use here to buffer the existing residential uses, the Carol Subdivision. This was shown as multi -family residential and, then, commercial office. They showed a cross -access agreement going south, a cross - access agreement going south, at about mid property line there was a cross -access agreement going north and, then, on the western end of the property there was a cross - access agreement going north. If we go back to Sadie Creek Subdivision, you will see that there is a -- these drive aisles do stub to the north in these two locations, so they would have cross -access opportunities there. This drive aisle -- this landscape plan is out of date, but there would be a five foot -- or ten -foot landscape buffer between the Eagy property and this drive. And, then, of course, there is a public street toward the west end of the property and, then, the property just south of them has quite a bit of cross -access via the public street. They could just tie into the public street and would have access that way. This is shown as mixed use on the Comprehensive Plan and that is why we did ask for the concept plan as it went through to get the commercial zoning, because we did want to insure that there was a mix of uses, rather just all retail. I want to point out the Carol Subdivision, the next road immediately south -- next public road immediately south of this is the Carol Subdivision and it would -- it does connect up to Ustick. That will become important in the summary of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I will just quickly go through these. This is the floor plan for the multi- family units. They are quite nice units. Lots of roof planes, lots of modulation in the facade, they are not just a box. At the Planning and Zoning Commission -- I'm not going to go through the full hearing I think as we are trying to focus on the appeal at this point. I did want to go up -- there was quite a bit of neighborhood testimony. Part of it was the -- the issue of this road. There was a lot of concerns that because it is so difficult to make a left-hand turn on Eagle Road, that people would make a right-hand turn, make a right-hand turn and go through the subdivision. Then, there was just the general concerns about bordering multi -family on the large one acre lots that are part of Carol Subdivision. The Planning and Zoning Commission in their denial of the preliminary plat based it on that it was premature to develop this property without particularly this Eagy piece being developed, because it was just too limited access, having only access to Eagle Road at this time. Staff did anticipate that that would just be a temporary access until such time as the property north of there developed and there was access to Eagle Road and the applicant was in agreement with that. One of the -- one of the strongly stated statements by the Planning and Zoning Commission in the discussion was that when they saw the concept plan Eagy was still in there and, therefore, they were comfortable with this concept plan. They felt that when the Eagy parcel dropped out, it really made this not developable on its own at this time. So, that was the basis for denial. And, also, we had not heard what ITD was going to allow as far as an access. Tonight you do have a letter from ITD from Lance Johnson and going into the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing it just said that access would be considered on a case- by-case basis. Well, this was the results of the case-by-case basis. So, the access control on this section of highway is type four urban. Spacing requirements are not met. Property has no access, other than the highway. The property has two access points on the plans. City of Meridian will -- and that's because it was a split driveway. City of Meridian will eventually call for a road connecting Ustick west of Eagle Road. So, the district recommendation was that ITD purchase the access points on State Highway 55 Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 13 of 73 and supply this property with an easement across the property to the north, that's Eagy again, for the Ustick Road connection. And, then, comments to the district recommendations are, one, the applicant does not agree with the district recommendation and the City of Meridian agrees with the district recommendations. So, that is the appeal that's before you tonight. I guess I will end there and answer any specific questions you might have. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions for Anna? Bird: Not at this time. De Weerd: Mr. Attorney, I guess I have a question for you regarding the process. We have heard the summary from staff. Is it typical that the applicant present his appeal verbally or only if Council would like additional information? Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the applicant is entitled to explain their reasons for the appeal and what they contend was the error in the decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here this evening? If you will, please, state your name and address. Perison: I will. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mark Perison with the law firm of William R. Snyder and Associates. My address is 2413 Ellis Avenue in Boise, and I have been hired by the applicant to present the arguments on appeal. De Weerd: Okay. Perison: Members of the Council, this is -- there is another item on the agenda that is related to this and it's pretty important, because the Conditional Use Permit is also up for hearing, although that, obviously, wasn't decided by the Commission, and one of the things that's going to be discussed at that -- or during that presentation is this new Department of Transportation recommendation and how that's going to impact this particular project. If you have had a chance to look at any of the minutes or look over on this file, I think you can see that a lot of the community opposition relates to the traffic issue. My client, obviously, followed the recommendations of the staff, was trying to abide by the development agreement that was entered into with this Council and was, obviously, very concerned about the traffic issue, because that's a big issue here, and I think that was one of the major stumbling blocks to approval of the -- of the preliminary plat below. Let me start off by saying that in reviewing this it became clear to me that there were really two issues that were central in Planning and Zoning's decision to go against their staff recommendation and deny it -- deny the preliminary plat. Those two areas were primarily the traffic issue, which I think is, you know, something that's going to come up frequently in a situation like this, but, then, there was also something that kept being tossed around and that was the idea of this project being premature. I haven't found anywhere -- and I have looked through just about every material that I Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 14 of 73 could find, that there is really no basis for the Planning and Zoning Commission to decide when it's right or not right for somebody to develop a property. What is appropriate for them to do is to look at the proposed development, compare it to the Comprehensive Plan, to the governing ordinances, make determinations as to whether these things are compatible, and decide on that basis. I want to sort of address these two issues separately. And the first one is this traffic issue and what I'm going to do is -- in the second -- in the next item on the agenda Mr. Unger, who is the surveyor for this property, has a lot more information on that and he's going to present that to you, so you can understand exactly what's going on. But I think that issue is going to -- if not completely resolve, mostly resolve the traffic concerns that have been raised by various members of the community. Their obvious concern is traffic running through their neighborhood as a result of this right -in -- you can only turn -- the recommendation from ACHD was that the entrance to Sadie Creek be a right turn only in and right turn only out and the concern of the subdivision directly behind it was that people would elect to drive through their subdivision in order to get to the property. De Weerd: Excuse me for just a moment. Perison: Sure. De Weerd: You do have 15 minutes to present your appeal, so I just wanted to let you know since this is a new item what that meant. Perison: Got you. And when it turns yellow that means I have one minute left or De Weerd: Thirty seconds. One minute. Perison: Okay. Well, I don't plan to take up the entire time. De Weerd: Okay. Well, I just wanted to let you know what that meant. Perison: Thank you. I appreciate that, Madam Mayor. So, after that traffic issue is raised, I think a lot of the concerns will be alleviated. My problem with the decision below was that there was no specificity as to what the traffic problems were. You can read the minutes and you can sort of garner from them what people were objecting to, but in this case there were no findings from the Commission, no conclusions -- no written conclusions and nothing to go on, other than the statements at the meeting. And I would submit that if the Commission is going to deny the preliminary plat based on a traffic concern, that it ought to at least tell us what it is, rather than leaving it up to us to try to figure out what it is, so that we can make changes and propose changes and come back and find out that that's not what exactly is the issue. I suspect I know what the issue is and I think you will be able to determine, too, from reading the minutes. The issue of the prematurity is a lot more troubling, because I think what has happened is the Planning and Zoning Commission was unhappy with how the development agreement was finalized and what it said. When you read the minutes you can see there is quite a bit of disappointment -- I think that was one of the words that was used Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 15 of 73 -- that this development agreement was passed in form slightly different than they had recommended. The prematurity argument seems to be that, well, we kind of want to see what everybody else is going to do first and I certainly recognize that from a human standpoint that it would make more sense if all of this is going to be developed over time, that it would be nice to have it done all at the exact same time. Unfortunately, I don't think that's workable in a case like this where you're looking at rather large parcels and rather significant development. I think, ultimately, the concern that the Planning and Zoning Commission had about prematurity was not necessarily that this project was really premature, but that they didn't really like where it was going and so they elected to go ahead and deny the preliminary plat. I have read over the staffs recommendation, which initially recommended approval of the plat, along with certain conditions, and know that my client has been diligently working to meet -- was diligently working to meet those conditions and I believe they met most of them and so they were rather surprised when the Commission decided to go ahead and vote against the preliminary plat. What we would like the Commission -- what we would like the Council to do on this appeal is to -- either, one, simply overrule the Commission and approve the preliminary plat, so that we can keeping going with the process, obviously, subject to the conditions set forth in the staff report, or, two, after you have heard this new information about the -- from the Department of Transportation, consider approving this preliminary plat with additional considerations. I'm sorry. With additional contingencies or conditions. That would allow this project to go forward. I think most of the community concerns are going to be resolved and this development can go forward. Some of the community concerns simply will never be resolved. If someone doesn't want multi -family residences near their home, that's a valid concern. That concern should have been addressed and I believe was addressed at the rezoning hearing and it's not the appropriate -- this is not the appropriate place for those kinds of arguments to be made. But I certainly think everyone has the right to voice their opinions about this project. So, in summary, we'd like to -- we ask the Council to reverse the decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission, approve this preliminary plat or, alternatively, approve this preliminary plat with additional conditions, so that my client can move forward. Are there any questions? De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Does the applicant intend to contest the decision from the Transportation Department? Perison: No. In fact, my understanding is that that statement was -- at the time that letter was written that was their understanding and my applicant -- or the applicant's position. But I believe it is no longer their position. I think they actually are going along with this new recommendation. That's why I made all these elusions to the next item on the agenda, because that -- the surveyor is going to be telling you about that and I Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 16 of 73 believe he will tell you that they do consent to that. And I don't know if it's even possible to withhold a vote until after you have heard the next item on the agenda, so that you can -- because I believe that information will be relevant. I would have presented it myself, but we got it this afternoon and it was, frankly, too technical for me to do an adequate job presenting to you. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Just a quick comment. I heard that -- you said that the time to -- for the neighbors to comment on a specific use was at the annexation and zoning hearing and what this Council said at that hearing was that the proper time for the neighbors to approve specific uses was at a conditional use hearing. And so if you have read the minutes from that, I think your comment there is potentially incorrect. Perison: Okay. Well, I appreciate that. That is -- I guess that is a final -- and you're right, for the Conditional Use Permit it would be the opportunity for the public to be heard and make their comments about it. With respect to this appeal in the preliminary plat that was the basis of my comments. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess my concern is you have asked us for a result that I guess I don't read in our code that that's really what we are supposed to do. I mean you don't believe that the Commission has made a proper finding, which is part of what I heard you say, and we should remand it to the Commission to have them make a finding. I read the minutes and it seems that there -- that talk about premature was because there is no concept plan for the remainder of this property and, therefore, it doesn't address the health and safety concerns that the public raised, which is appropriate for the plat. So, if I take what you have said on one hand, we should just remand it and they can make a finding and, then, you can appeal it and we can decide whether or not they erred, but they have four -- five findings in which to make, which they didn't specifically address, but they certainly addressed the last one about health and safety in regards to the access points and the access into the other neighborhoods and all that, which does address the plat. So, if you could answer that one. Secondarily, if the other question is you want us to simply approve this plat based on the only information we have is what you just said and what's in this record -- and I don't have anything in this record that tells me we shouldn't make the same finding, because the prematurity is really the relationship of this to the other properties for access and those types of things. It wasn't that they just didn't feel they should develop it yet, it's because they felt that it should be developed in conjunction to fix all these other issues and concerns for the neighbors and so if you want to answer that for me as well, because I guess I'm not following you to give us anything to base an overrule on. Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 17 of 73 Perison: I understand. And I struggled with the issue of what the proper procedure was in this case. You know, as a litigation attorney I do a lot of litigation in the courts. The court system is very well and clearly defined as to what remedies are available on appeal and what remedies are not. I searched through the code today; saw basically the section that says -- well, over the last few weeks -- that says that you can appeal a decision. It doesn't necessarily say if the -- if the Council acts in a purely review capacity and either remands or overrules or whether they have the power to make the determination themselves and I came to the conclusion that because the Commission is acting under the authority of the Council, that the Council could ultimately elect to approve it over the decision of Planning and Zoning if they chose. Remanding it for Findings of Fact is also a possibility. That was another issue that I struggled with. I did read the minutes and I know you folks have, too, and it doesn't really make it clear what particular traffic issue was being addressed. The final vote simply says unresolved issues regarding the transportation department. And so that sort of left us going, well, there were a couple different things. Was it the traffic that was going to go through the other neighborhood, was there not enough access here, was there -- the driveway's not appropriate -- it really wasn't clear to us what should have happened. As the final issue on the prematurity question, it's a difficult question. I understand that initially that that parcel was to be included and was to be part of the development agreement. However, it wasn't. It -- the owner of that property backed off, backed out at the last second and did not go through to the Council. So, I would suggest that what we should look at is the development agreement and the requirements placed on what we do have in front of us and use that as the basis. But I do understand what they were saying is they expected this whole thing to be done together and it doesn't look like that's going to happen at this point, but we still think that the project is viable and it should go forward. Now, what does the green flashing light mean? Nary: It means you had a couple minutes, but for now with questions we have turned that off. That's just for your initial presentation. Perison: Any further questions? De Weerd: Any further questions, Council? Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: No. Thank you. Perison: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you need any further information from staff? Rountree: No. Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 18 of 73 De Weerd: Or our attorney on process? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I have a procedural question for Mr. Nichols. The applicant had several proposals for us as to what we can do with this action. If we -- I guess my question is if we decide to deny this appeal, does that, essentially, uphold the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision? Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, and if you -- well, you call it whatever you want to call it, but I would say that you vote up or down on whether to basically uphold the Commission's action or to overturn the Commission's action. So, it's clear what you're doing there. Now, it could be that by overturning the Commission's action you could still proceed to hear testimony and so forth and make your own decision on the preliminary plat after additional information. I don't think the code precludes you from being able to do that, as I read it. I would caution you, though, if you were to vote to deny -- or essentially uphold the Commission's action, I would prefer that, instead, that you remand it for findings. So, if you're inclined to uphold the Commission's action, there needs to be specific findings and that opens up another appeal route, because it, essentially, would bring it in front of you again, most likely. Thank you. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess, Mr. Nichols, I'm -- I think as everybody knows, I'm a big stickler for process, too, but there isn't a -- I mean the problem in this case is that because there weren't findings made, but our code is somewhat silent to me as to what action we can take, I don't want to make it more belaborous than this has already been and I guess would you be comfortable, do you think, if we were to be able to hear all of it, rather than -- rather than pieces and parts? We have a lot of people here, I think most of them -- or a lot of them are here to tell us about whether or not the plat works and whether or not the Conditional Use Permit should be granted. We can certainly take that route, I think, as you just said, and remand it for findings and they can, then, come back and appeal that and we can just have all these folks come back again in a month and we can do this over. But it appears that we could also -- and that's what I wanted to ask your opinion, is we could also grant the appeal, because there aren't any findings, and they could, then, put on their case as to whether this preliminary plat -- because they haven't done that. I don't think I have enough to approve their plat, but at least to say they didn't really take care of this down below, we can hear all of it, we can hear all of these folks, and if we are going to get an appeal, then, we get one appeal and it just goes forward. Rather than an appeal of a part, an appeal of the plat, that's separate Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 19 of 73 from the CUP -- it just seems very cumbersome to me. But is that -- is that viable or does it just seem like that would be so easy, but that doesn't make sense, so -- Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the requirement that you have for both the neighbors and for the applicant is one, essentially, procedural due process. That's a fair opportunity to be heard on the issues and to render a decision based upon the evidence, testimony that you have before you. So, if you grant the appeal solely for the purpose of allowing the preliminary plat and the Conditional Use Permit to be considered together, I think that would be a supportable decision and, then, you could -- it does not mean that you, by granting the appeal, are approving the preliminary plat, you could just simply say you're approving the appeal only for the purpose of making an independent decision whether it should be granted or denied because of the lack of findings as you said. Nary: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Just so I'm tracking this, the preliminary plat is not on our agenda, but we can consider it, even though it's not? Nichols: Madam Mayor, you have an appeal of the denial of the preliminary plat. Therefore, I believe the preliminary plat is at issue. You also have the site plan, landscape plan, and so forth associated with the preliminary plat that's part of the Conditional Use Permit application. And I don't know that this issue has been decided by the Supreme Court. I don't believe it has in this state. And so I think that you could look at it as everybody's here, it's certainly a lot earlier in the evening than the last time this issue came up and so it would -- and the applicant, I believe, is prepared to address the issues related to the preliminary plat -- is that not correct, Mr. Perison? Rountree: He's shaking his head yes. Nichols: Okay. So, Mr. Unger has nodded, yes, he's ready to proceed to make his pitch with regard to the design of the preliminary plat and those applicable conditions. De Weerd: Okay. So, Council, what would you like to do? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess with one other caveat that if somebody has a compelling reason that they can't -- don't feel that they had adequate opportunity to be prepared, I guess they could raise that issue to us as well at the point their testimony was -- they needed more time to discuss that and we could consider that. But I guess I just want to pass the buck. We are going to end up with having to make a decision on this, we might as well just do it. Everybody's here, let's just go forward. So, I don't know that we need to close the Public Hearing -- we don't have a Public Hearing on the appeal, so I think unless Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 20 of 73 Council has more discussion, I would make a motion, but I'll wait to see if everybody is of the same mind. De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Having counsel on either side, its kind of hard to filter what's being said, but let me see if I understand. It seems we have three choices and maybe it's only two. One is to approve the denial on the part of Planning and Zoning of this preliminary plat. One is to remand it back to Planning and Zoning and that just continues the cycle. And three is to deny or overturn the denial of Planning and Zoning, offer the public an opportunity to comment, and the applicant an opportunity to comment and, then, act on the preliminary plat. So, is that the correct read or if remanding and upholding the Planning and Zoning is one and the same? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, is that a correct summary? Rountree: Sorry I asked. Nichols: Madam Mayor, give me a minute to look at the code, please. De Weerd: Okay. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Just a question to help clarify what Councilman Rountree is talking about. Not being of legal counsel myself. As I understand it, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the ability to hold a plat -- or to deny a plat and not bring that forward to the Council, which is why we don't have a plat, but we do have a Conditional Use Permit, which we are going to hear anyway. Mr. Nichols, would that be a correct assumption? Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the specific language in the code says this: If the plan -- the preliminary development plan or plat is denied, it is not forwarded to the Council. But, then, it says down below: A person who appeared in person before -- before the Commission or sub -divider -- in this case the applicant -- may appeal in writing the decision of the Commission relative to the final action taken by the Commission. So, I believe that puts this preliminary plat at issue before you. So, even though it's held, it's really only held at the Commission level if no appeal is taken. Once the appeal is taken, it places the decision in front of the elected officials of the city. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mrs. Canning -- Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 21 of 73 Canning: Oh, heavens, don't ask me. I'm sorry. Nary: The question I would have is that if we were to go forward on this tonight with the plat, which wasn't forwarded, would you be able to be -- present anything on that tonight? Canning: Well, I gave the -- Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I gave a brief summary. We have the staff report, which included the recommei for approval for the preliminary plat that staff originally did, so we approval and I apologize not having prepared the findings for through the process and so that was an error on our part. So, we recommendation for you either way that you would want to go or - information. The applicant has a Powerpoint presentation, they can idation and findings do have findings for denial, that slipped have the basis for a - we have the basic describe the project to great detail, so I wasn't concerned about that portion, but we do have the findings -- the staff report that has the recommended findings for approval. Does that answer your question? I feel comfortable going forward with it. I don't -- Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Just another question for Mr. Nichols. If we were to approve the appeal for the purpose of hearing the preliminary plat with the CUP, it would not approve the preliminary plat; correct? Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if that's your decision, that's the basis on which you're hearing additional evidence, you just simply table your decision on the appeal and say you want to take additional evidence outside of what's already in the record. I mean it -- in other words, I guess what I'm telling you, Mayor, Members of the Council, is we can make it fit. The whole thing is that folks are here that have the ability to raise their issues to you, both from the applicant's side and from those who may be opposed or may support the project, but there is -- obviously, based on the number of people in the room, there are a fair number of folks that have taken time out to have an opportunity to address you. De Weerd: So, Mr. Attorney, I will ask you one more question. Sorry, nothing's easy up here. If they uphold the denial and provide their own findings, can that be done? Nichols: Madam Mayor, yes. De Weerd: So, they can provide their own findings and, then, the CUP would be mute without a preliminary plat. Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council that would be a factor in denial of the Conditional Use Permit. The one thing in addition, though, is that because it's a permit, Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 22 of 73 the state statute asks that you outline what, if anything, the applicant can do to achieve approval and so I don't think you want to say just based on the preliminary plat, you would have to address specific issues in the Conditional Use Permit application and how it could be modified or changed to achieve approval. De Weerd: And since the Planning and Zoning minutes are part of the public document, you can go based on what is already in front of us. Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, all of the proceedings, all of the letters, all of the minutes, everything is the record upon which you base your decision. De Weerd: Okay. So, Council, you have a number of options of what you can -- the direction you can go. What is your desire? Nary: Well, Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I mean I don't -- I don't know if we ever answered Councilman Rountree's questions as to what's before us. To me, what I understand is before us is we can either grant the appeal for the purposes of hearing this preliminary plat and the applicant has already indicated his willingness to go forward. If anyone else raises an objection, say they haven't had adequate opportunity, we can consider that on whether or not we, you know, continue this matter over after everybody's still had an opportunity to testify tonight who thinks they can or we can grant the appeal -- or deny the appeal, but Mr. Nichols' recommendation is to simply send that back for findings, since no findings were done, that means they would likely re -appeal that, we just hear this again and drag all these people out here again. So, I guess for me, I'd rather not do that. If we are going to hear it, let's just hear it and I'm only cautious from Mr. Nichols' recommendation about tabling the appeal and taking more evidence, just because I don't know what a court is going to do with us not hearing that appeal, hearing evidence, not making a decision, and, then, if we go back and deny it based on the evidence that's subsequent to the appeal, I don't know if a court's going to have an issue with that. So, I guess I'd rather just -- I mean its a guess, but I guess to me if we are going to get appealed, let's just get appealed on the whole thing and not a piece of it. So, based on that I would move to grant the appeal by the applicant for the purpose of hearing the preliminary plat and the Conditional Use Permit together. I think that's it. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Nichols: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nichols. Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 23 of 73 Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Nary, do you want your motion to include that by granting the appeal you're not approving the preliminary plat as it was presented at the Commission level? Nary: Yes. And I guess I can make that clear. That is my intent is that it is not to approve the plat as presented, but simply to hear the presentation by the applicant to both approve the plat and its Conditional Use Permit as he initially requested. So, it is not to approve it, simply to grant the appeal, because there were no findings from below, and allow us to hear all of that at once. Rountree: As well as the public? Nary: As well as the public. Wardle: Second agrees. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to do what he said, to hear both the preliminary plat and the CUP and in public forum. 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. De Weerd: Okay. So, procedurally, I would open up the Public Hearing on Item 12 to hear the CUP and the preliminary plat? Nichols: Madam Mayor, I would -- yeah, I would still, even though the appeal has been granted for the purpose of taking additional testimony, I'd open them both up, call it a Public Hearing on both matters and proceed accordingly. De Weerd: Okay. Do we need five minutes to collect your thoughts or do we want to just delve right into this? We will take a five-minute break and reconvene. (Recess.) De Weerd: I will go ahead and call this meeting to order. Now, someone needs to give me a gavel, but they won't let me have it, so -- I will go ahead and call this meeting back to order. It has been requested by the neighbors to continue this application to next week and the applicant has agreed to doing that. He would like to take a couple of minutes just to present the ITD report, so the neighbors have that additional information for consideration for their testimony next week. So, if Council has no objection to that? Any comments? We will safe the staff and applicant presentation until next week when we hear public testimony. Would the applicant like to come forward? It is a Public Hearing and I will need to swear you in. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 24 of 73 Unger: It is. De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address. Unger: My name is Bob Unger, I represent the developer on the project. Our address is 988 Longmont. That's a new address, so that's a tough one. Longmont Avenue. Boise. 83706. De Weerd: Thank you. Unger: And we can check that later to be sure. Madam Mayor and Council, I'm going to just very briefly review the ITD memo dated September 2nd 19 -- or 2004. Anna, could I get you to put just the master plan back up, please? Canning: Mr. Unger, do you have one on your -- on your presentation, because I, actually, switched over to you awhile ago. Unger: Yes, I do. Yes. The next one, I believe. That will do fine. Thank you very much. Canning: Okay. Unger: What ITD has -- their staff has recommended -- and this is from Chris Canfield, who is the district assistant traffic engineer, and who I met with today, also city staff has discussed this with him today also. Once again, we have the five items that the -- the access control to this section of highway is a type four, which urban spacing requirements are not met. When they talk about spacing requirement, they are talking about they would only allow accesses every half mile within this stretch of Eagle Road, which, of course, we all know that they have gone way beyond that. The property has no access other than this highway and that is true, we are land locked without that. The property has two access points on the plans, which, of course, we were proposing that this street go north ultimately to Ustick and, then, still the access there on Eagle Road. And, then, the City of Meridian will eventually call for a road connecting Ustick west of Eagle Road. And, once again, that's the street that we are talking about there. The staff -- the district staff recommended to ITD that they purchase the access points along State Highway 55. Now, there is one access point on this corner parcel. The Eagy property, I believe, has two accesses, we have two accesses, and this property down here has one or two accesses. So, I believe there is five to six accesses there. And what their staff is recommending is all those accesses be bought and that ITD purchase an easement to extend our proposed road to Ustick and that as development occurs over here, of course, we would tie in these driveways over to Ustick also, which ITD staff understands that. And the big issue, of course, would be ITD actually purchasing the easement to Ustick. We discussed that today, I discussed that with Mr. Canfield, and he said that he would also entertain an interim right -in, right -out access to Eagle Road until ITD is able to acquire the easement to Ustick. And in their concurrences and Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 25 of 73 comments, it says the applicant does not agree with the district recommendation. Actually, he didn't contact us before he made his recommendation; it was based upon our initial letter requesting the access and the right of way permit. Once he and I met today, in our discussions we really don't have a problem at all with their proposal. All right? As long as -- as long as they can give us an interim access here until they are able to acquire the easement to extend our proposed road to Ustick and Mr. Canfield said he would support the interim access. So, in a nutshell, that's where we are with ITD, ITD staff, and we really feel that is a good proposal and a good recommendation from their staff. So, I just wanted to clarify that point is that we do agree with their comments and recommendations. I am prepared -- I do have a letter prepared, which would be delivered to Mr. Canfield at ITD tomorrow, supporting their recommendations to the board. And that pretty well covers what we wanted to cover on this. We wanted to make sure that all the folks that are here this evening had all the full information as far as ITD's staff recommendations and our concurrences with those. And, then, we will be more than glad to see you next week. De. Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Unger. And the letter from ITD is on file in the clerk's office, should anyone need a copy of it. So, we appreciate that and per request -- Nary: Madam Mayor? Could I ask a question of Mr. Unger before we continue -- De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: -- it, based on just this -- what he just put on the record? Mr. Unger, I have read the letter, but it doesn't give me any time frame. Did he give you any time frame -- part of why we are here is because the person above there doesn't want to be a part of this project, so there is no real expectation -- or at least I don't have anything to show me any expectation that they are going to acquire that easement, other than through condemnation, which could take a long time. Unger: Madam Mayor, Mr. Nary, first of all, I asked him time frame on getting the board decision on their recommendation. He said it could be one to two months. If we concur with their comments, probably a month. So, we are hoping to have, you know, their final decision at that time and, you're right, he really -- he couldn't give me any kind of a ballpark time frame as to acquiring the easements or condemning whatever it takes to do that. He is -- and it's not just him, they have a committee that actually reviews these requests and the committee recognizes the fact that we are land locked and that they can't take away our access without providing us alternate access. So, you know, they are well aware of that, but as far as time frame, he couldn't give me one and you're an attorney, you probably have a better idea than I do as to how long it might take. Nary: Thank you. Unger: I wish I could give you better than that. Anything else? De Weerd: No. Oh, I'm sorry. Anything else, Council? Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 26 of 73 Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: If -- it is a Public Hearing, but if we open it up for testimony -- I guess if you have a question you can ask staff tomorrow or you can ask the applicant or you can provide testimony tonight and you will not provide testimony next week. You can make a request of staff. Do you need to make a request of Council? Council? Rountree: Sure. Bird: Let's go for it. De Weerd: It is a Public Hearing and I do need to swear you in. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Thurston: Yes, it is. De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address. Thurston: My name is David Thurston, I live at 1470 Leslie Way, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. De Weerd: Thank you. Thurston: The request I have is to continue this not in one week, but in two weeks. We have over 50 homeowners that we have to try to get organized and try get to information to. If you would give us an additional week, it would help us in the preparation for coming back here before the Council being prepared. We appreciate your indulgence here and we are not trying to stonewall this, we are trying to be cooperative, but we want to be informed. That's all. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Thurston. Okay. Council? Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, thank you. I move that we continue the Public Hearing for Item No. 12, CUP 04-023 and the preliminary plat, which we added to 7/21 of 2004 -- or, I'm sorry, nine -- September 21 st, 2004, two weeks from today. Rountree: Second. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue CUP 04-023 and PP 03- 023 to September 21st, 2004. All those in favor stay aye. All ayes. Motion carried. Thank you all. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 27 of 73 Item 13: Public Hearing: MI 04-007 Miscellaneous request for an administrative lot split of un -platted ground for Ronald Van Auker by Ronald Van Auker — northeast comer of Franklin Road and Gaudians Avenue: De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead -- if we can have some semblance of quiet here, I will go ahead and open the Public Hearing on Item 13, MI 03-007. Open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Oh, excuse me, Madam Mayor, I need to switch between presentations. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we have something new for you tonight. We have a miscellaneous application for a request to, essentially, do a one-time split on this property. There is a part of code that was added to give staff some flexibility in waiving some subdivision requirements, some platting requirements, and that's found in Meridian Code Section 12-3-1 B. And if you will forgive me, I'm going to read the text to you, because the wording -- each word becomes important in this, so I wanted to read it to you and it is in your staff report. But it says: Re -subdivision. Notwithstanding the definition of subdivision contained in the Section 11-2-2 of this code, where an applicant desires to subdivide an existing lot, which is located in an existing subdivision, which has been previously recorded and the required improvements made thereon, he may do so without going through the entire platting procedure required by this title. He shall, however, submit an application for re -subdivision showing the existing lot and how the lot is proposed to be re -subdivided. The city shall, then, determine what requirements of this title shall be complied with by the applicant. The city may require full compliance if deemed necessary. The provisions of this subsection pertaining to the reduction in platting requirements of certain parcels may apply to previously un -platted and un - subdivided ground upon application to the City Council. So, in looking at this code, it gives the planning director or the zoning administrator and the city engineer some discretion. Brad and I -- Mr. Watson and I consulted and there were some parameters that we were willing to consider for the reduction of platting requirements. And those follow and I will briefly summarize those. Basically, we wanted a lot line adjustment application, some of the fees associated with that, so that we would have an actual application to review. If the property is un -platted, such as it is tonight, they have to bring a miscellaneous application up to the City Council and that's why we are going through this miscellaneous application tonight. If that were approved by City Council, then, they have to do a lot line adjustment application. For either platted or un -platted land, we set forth some of the drawings that we would need. And, then, as far as standards went, both parcels would have to meet the dimensional standards for the zone in which they were located. And we determined that it would -- we would only consider those for commercial or industrial property, that we would not consider reducing the platting requirements for residentially zoned land. And anybody that made use of this reduction in platting requirements to subdivide, we would only allow them a one lot split, so they could go from one lot to two lots, and that's it. And, then, after that they would be back to the regular platting procedures. We also talked about using this for condominium plats where the plat would not result in any new development where it Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 28 of 73 was just defining ownership of that building that had been previously approved. So, that is the background about why we are here tonight. I will go into the applicant's request. This is a 40 -acre parcel, it's right across from R.C. Willey. The zoning map is actually incorrect as shown here. It's got a split zone. The frontage at about this location is C -G and the rest of it is I -L. It's showing up as all I -L here. You can see the little strip of C -G there, it kind of goes across here as well. The applicant is proposing a 3.74 acre split and he would like to have it zoned C -G. We did indicate that he would need to go through a separate rezone application and he has been made aware of that. They have already submitted a lot line adjustment application that we are holding. If the Council were to approve this reduction in platting requirements, both properties do meet the minimum dimensional standards for the zone. There are some conditions of approval and the one I wanted to point out to you was number five and this was a commitment by the developer, they did commit to making the subject split parcel a lot in a future subdivision for the property and staff has requested that such subdivision application shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department and accepted for processing prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the building. This is kind of an unusual timing of -- the reason they are asking for a reduction of platting requirement is to facilitate a commercial developer that needs to move more quickly than would be allowed by going through the platting process, so -- but they have agreed to include it in a future plat. I guess I will end staffs presentation with that and answer any questions. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions? Rountree: I have none at this time. Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? Canning: Madam Mayor, before Mr. Miller speaks, I forgot, this is the site plan that they are proposing for the three acre split. There is a building in the northeast corner and, then, parking along in front and on Goddans, similar to R.C. Willey. De Weerd: Okay. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Miller: Yes. De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address. Miller: My name is Brad Miller with Ronald W. Van Auker, Incorporated, 3084 East Lanark, in Meridian, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 29 of 73 Miller: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'd first like to thank you for tabling that previous item. I was ready for some severe pain and anguish and I feel much better now. We are requesting an administrative lot split for this property, because we have a national retailer who would like to build a 50,000 square foot retail store there and we don't -- their timing is not such that we can wait for the subdivision process. All the utilities are available to the site. ACHD has approved the access to the site. We have reviewed the staff report and we are in agreement with all of the conditions. I had previously met with Mayor de Weerd and promised her that we would not delay our preliminary platting of this property and we have hired an engineer and they are working on some preliminary layouts right now and we hope to have those next week or the week after. We would ask that you approve this, so that we can get this retailer here to Meridian and develop this parcel out. If there is any questions, I would be more than happy to answer them. De Weerd: Council, any question? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: No, I have none. De Weerd: Oh. Rountree: Just to welcome Brad back in a couple weeks. Miller: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Did you hear that comment? They would be more than happy to delay for two weeks. Staff, is there any further comment you'd like to make? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, no, other than I'm not sure what kind of motion you make tonight and maybe Mr. Nichols can clarify that. It just says upon application to the City Council. Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the motion would be to approve the application and authorize the Mayor to sign and Clerk to attest an order authorizing the split with the conditions outlined in the staff report. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nichols. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to offer testimony on this application? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, hearing no further comments, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item No. 13. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 30 of 73 De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 13. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we approve the application for Item No. 13, MI 04-007 and authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers. Bird: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve item lucky 13. Is there any further discussion? Okay. Mr. Clerk. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Public Hearing: AZ 04-017 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT to R-4, C -N and L -O zones for proposed Leeshire Subdivision by SWI Associates, LLC— 5603 N. Locust Grove Road: Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 04-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 89 building lots and 20 common lots on 29.69 acres in proposed R-4, C -N and L -O zones for proposed Leeshire Subdivision by SWI Associates, LLC — 5603 N. Locust Grove Road: Item 16: Public Hearing: CUP 04-026 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use Planned Development consisting of single family residential and commercial/office uses with reductions to the minimum requirements for lots size, side yard setbacks and minimum street frontage for proposed Leeshire Subdivision by SWI Associates, LLC — 5603 N. Locust Grove Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Items 14, 15, and 16 all pertain to the same development application, so if there are no objections, I will open AZ 04-017, PP 04- 024, and CUP 04-026. We will begin with staff comments. Canning: I'm organizationally challenged tonight. I'm sorry, Mayor and Council. This is an application for the annexation of 29.69 acres. It is on the west side of Locust Grove Road, as you see here, right next to previously approved Saguaro Canyon. The request is for 89 building lots and 20 common lots. The gross density is about 3.26 Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 31 of 73 dwelling units per acre. You will notice that there is quite a variety of lot sizes. We have, in particular, one very large lot here, several larger than average size lots, I suppose, on this area and, then, they gradually get smaller as they work out to this street and, then, you have even some alley -loaded properties here, here, and these are narrow frontages along here, 50 foot frontages. So, there is quite a range. There is also a -- this was submitted with a request for C -N and L -O zoning. I believe the applicants have withdrawn the C -N zoning and are just proposing L -O on both of them. As I mentioned, there is three distinct sections. There is the nonresidential portion up front, the kind of smaller lots in the middle section and, then, the larger lots toward the west. Within the smaller lot section they are asking for a mix of attached and detached homes. The lot sizes run about from 5,900 square feet to 8,000 square feet. Twenty- three of the lots are served by alleys and 35 are front loaded properties. On the west section there are 28 standard single-family residential lots and those lots run from 9,500 square feet to 14,000 square feet and, then, there is the large existing home at the center of the property -- I can't get my arrow. There it is. And that property is 58,474 square feet. The nonresidential properties in front are being requested as a use exception as part of the planned development and, then, the lot size -- or the reductions that they are also asking for from standard code as part of the planned development include the following: Lot size of 5,991 square feet minimum, rather than 8,000 square foot minimum. Lot frontage, a 50 -foot minimum, instead of 80 -foot minimum. And setbacks -- the side setbacks, instead of five feet, they are asking for a zero on the detached lots. They are the zero lot line residences. Attached. There we go. The proposed amenities originally included a ten -foot multi -use pathway. I'll let the applicant give an update on that issue. And that also includes a tot lot or a basketball court and passive recreational amenities, such as picnic benches and a gazebo. I should point out there is a park, open space, that extends from this road, goes down and around up to here, and there is also a large open space at the front of the property. As you can imagine by the folks still here, there was a lot of people at the Public Hearing to testify regarding this proposed subdivision and I'm going to try and quickly summarize some of that testimony. There were several letters and e-mails, approximately 20, that were opposed to the application and they were received and entered into the public record. Testimony was received from several members of the public, especially from Dunwoody, Vienna Woods -- let's see. Dunwoody -- Vienna Woods, I believe, is over here and, then, Edinburgh Subdivision. And also Larkwood, which is this subdivision to the south. The majority of the objections were related to three issues. The density of the proposed development, the proposed commercial use along Locust Grove Road, and the potential for the southern stub street to connect with Larkwood in the future. The stub street, just so you know -- going the wrong way. Sorry. Is located here. It does stub into the five -acre lots. It would stub into this property right here. The LDS church has developed this property and so the stub street comes down into this area here and we have been going through preliminary discussions for a development that would include these properties and, then, the back half of these properties, so that stub would coincide with the preliminary plans we have seen for development on the surrounding properties or the southern properties. The key issues of discussion and questioning by the Commission included setbacks, existing trees, amenities, fencing, stub streets, street buffers, and some concerns about -- with SSC regarding the alley- Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 32 of 73 loaded properties. The key Commission changes to the staff recommendations, they did not approve the C -N zone and recommend that the use exception be annexed as L- O. That was on the annexation and zoning. On the preliminary plat and the CUP, the Commission made a few connections and clarifications to the conditions of approval, defined the required amenities, and added seven new conditions proposed by the applicant at the hearing. And I did want to go over those proposals and they are listed on your preliminary plat recommendations on page four, item number 13. The first is the trees and the five foot planting strip between the back of curb and the sidewalk would be planted by the developer. The grass would be installed by the builder upon completion of the home construction. The builder shall be required to install all front yard landscaping. The builder will provide the developer either, one, a full front and rear landscape plan with a grading plan or, two, a grading plan for all areas which are not landscaped. The builder and homeowner will be required to maintain the grading plan to assure appropriate drainage controls. Third one, the front yard landscaping will be required to be installed by the builder of each home. Then, fourth, the minimum roof material shall be 30 -year architectural shingles. Number five. All exterior siding shall be hard board, cottage lathe, or similar materials, stucco or stone. The architectural guidelines will not allow vinyl siding. Six. The front of the homes will be required to have stucco, stone, or other exterior architectural features. And number seven -- this does become an issue. The common area fence design, four feet of window pane, with two feet of open design, will be required as the fence design on any portion which is parallel to the streets and shall be setback at least two feet behind the front of the home. As you will see on the next page of the summary recommendation, the second to the last item, Steve basically says he has no idea what that means and maybe we could clarify that tonight. The police chief did have concerns about the open space fencing in this area. During the hearing we didn't have the revised site plan that showed the stub going to the south and we had anticipated that the applicant would relocate a lot in basically this area here and, then, it would have had a very narrow entrance to this large park, but they did drop that lot. They dropped that lot in the hope that they could maintain a four -foot solid with two -foot lattice along the edge of this open space. The police chief is still advocating for a four -foot or a six-foot open fence in those areas. And, then, the final thing I wanted to discuss was the multi -use pathway. The Comprehensive Plan shows the property as medium density residential, but, more importantly, it has this multi -use pathway shown on it. It would go through the property to the south, it would go along the backside of the LDS church, through this property, and up to the neighborhood center. The idea in locating that pathway was to get it up to the neighborhood center. It does not follow any natural drainage feature or irrigation canal. So, there is always a difficulty in providing a meaningful way for us to get through a development when it's not following a natural feature and staff and the applicant struggled with this and, then, we had this property come through, which left us a short connection from Saguaro, which had -- had proposed a multi -use pathway that basically came across their property, I guess it's just here, and, then, one that went north that would get closer to the neighborhood center or into -- they have sidewalks that go all the way into the neighborhood center. This would -- the multi -use pathway tied into this property at this location, so staff has really struggled, I think, with that as to where the appropriate place would be and I think the final decision was that it may be Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 33 of 73 more appropriate to come through and connect in this location. Now, the Larkwood folks will have some opinions on that as well tonight, I'm sure. But the point was that the requirement for the ten foot pathway was -- was, we thought, taken out and we thought that that is what the Planning and Zoning Commission wanted, but, yet, the motion states that the required amenities include pathways, fixed benches, a basketball court, et cetera. So, we do just need to clarify that that pathway is -- or is not being required as part of this condition. The motion goes on to clarify -- or does not clarify whether the multi -use pathway can be deleted or if it's a required amenity. So, again, we just need to -- that's an outstanding issue. So, the outstanding issues, just to summarize, are the pathway, the condition number seven, which relates to fencing, the issued raised by the police chief regarding fencing -- oh, and, finally, I'm sorry, there is a letter from Idaho Power that was not addressed during the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff was not aware of it prior to going into the hearing and we didn't notice that it was part of the record until after the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. Basically, that letter states that the west side of Locust Grove Road is intended for a future transmission line corridor and suggests that it may be appropriate to request inclusion of the proposed corridor on the final plat maps to insure disclosure of the company's intentions. Mr. Siddoway has tried three different Idaho Power employees to try and get an answer. Mr. Dodson, who is usually who we deal with, has been out of the office. He tried -- he was forwarded to several other people and has not heard back. So, despite staffs best efforts, we still don't know much about this proposed transmission line corridor and how we would appropriately indicate that on a future plat. And with that I will end staffs presentation. De Weerd: Council, do you have questions for staff at this time? Okay. We are in the Public Hearing process and since we do need to ask everyone that does provide testimony to be sworn in, I will do it all in one big motion. So, if you are going to provide testimony on any of the items 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, if you will, please, raise your right hand. Will you testify to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? If so, answer I will. (Affirmative answers.) De Weerd: Thank you very much. Okay. And also just to explain the process, the applicant is given 15 minutes to -- up to 15 minutes. You don't have to take 15 minutes -- to provide detail on the application. The public testimony part is three minutes. And, then, the applicant can respond to the application testifying -- or testifying up to that point to respond at the end of that, which is five minutes. So, does the applicant want to come forward? Shawn, did you get that to Anna as well so she -- okay. Thank you. Nickel: I did. De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address. Nickel: Thank you, Madam Mayor. For the record, Shawn Nickel, 52 North 2nd Street in Eagle, here tonight representing SWI Associates and the Leeshire development. Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 34 of 73 Thank you, Mayor and Council, for the opportunity this evening. Before I begin, I gave the city clerk a lot of information last week and I just want to make sure that you all received my updated preliminary plat and the 12 conditions of approval that are suggested by the developer. And if you don't -- do not have those, I have extra copies that I can hand out. I had read, I believe, seven of those into the record and we have added -- or the developer has added additional, so -- it looks like you have them. Thank you, Mr. Nary. Again, as -- I will try not to use the whole 15 minutes, Madam Chair. As staff stated, this is an application for a preliminary plat, annexation and zoning, to R-4, which is a low-density residential zoning, 29.69 acres I think encompasses this property. There are 86 single-family dwelling lots, two limited office lots, and, originally, we had proposed one of those to be commercial. We did change that at the Planning and Zoning Commission at the request of the neighbors, the Planning and Zoning Commission, to change that to just an office type of use up front along Locust Grove Road. Excuse me. We also have a Conditional Use Permit for the planned development, which allows us to do that office use and also to provide a variety of lot sizes within the development and also to provide open space within the development. The overall density of the project is 2.89 dwelling units per acre. Also comes out to 3.26 if you take away those office lots within that calculation. The design that you have in front of you and on the screen, what we did is we took into consideration the existing dwelling that was in the development, along with the stub streets in Saguaro Canyon, and the topography and just the overall size of the parcel in making our design work. The three lot types we have are the -- as staff stated, are the attached or zero lot line lots, which range in size, again, from 5,900 to 8,000 square feet, with the alleyways. The intent is to attach the garages and if you look at that colored packet that I passed out, there is some examples of those type of dwellings. Again, the beginning of the project has the office and, then, finally, in that western side is detached lots -- or detached house lots ranging in size from 9,500 to 14,000 square feet, including the existing dwelling, which is on about a 58,000 square foot lot. The average lot size in this development is 8,825 square feet and if you exclude the existing house and that 58,000 square foot lot, it's an 8,241 square feet average for the whole development. And, then, again, the Conditional Use Permit is to allow those mixed uses. The plat was redesigned and submitted to you and staff to show that stub street to the south. That was the recommendation from your staff and also from ACHD to provide that for future connectivity. In doing so we did lose one lot and staff did explain -- we did have the option of providing -- of retaining that lot. We chose to leave it out, to keep that park more open on the frontage. As far as open space, there are 20 common area lots within the development; a total of 3.54 acres or 11.9 percent of the project does have open space. Of that 10.3 percent is calculated within the PD application. Anna, could you put up the park. That park display, please? The amenities included in the open space are -- in addition to the ten percent open space that we are providing, a tot lot -- could you do the black and white one that shows the whole park? I'm sorry. That shows the tot lot apparatus that we are going to provide within the open space. There you go. Thanks, Anna. So, the tot lot area is located here, along with some benches and landscaping. A full half court basketball court, again, with the benches, and two -- I guess talk about what staff brought up with the pathway. When we discussed this with Planning and Zoning, it was indicated that the regional pathway was going to be omitted Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 35 of 73 per staffs suggestion. We weren't really fighting that, but it was something that I guess staff explained an alternative location. This pathway within our open space was the pathway that Planning and Zoning -- the Planning and Zoning Commission talked about within their motion. So, to clarify that, that was the pathway within our open space. And so that's what we are providing there. The reason we located this open space in the area we did -- there was several reasons. One was the location of the existing trees that were currently on the property as a result of Mr. Lee's existing house. We wanted to incorporate as many of those mature trees as possible. This lot also provides a better buffer to the Larkwood Subdivision to the south, which are, I believe, on five -acre lots. We believe this is a safer location, because it's not located adjacent to a major street, it's kind of at the edge of two -- kind of a knuckle and a cul-de-sac. It is a somewhat central location to everyone within the subdivision. We -- initially when we designed this, we did meet with your staff and took their suggestions into account when designing the development -- or designing this park location. And -- Anna, can you put up the colored map, please. And, finally, we designed this to provide a focal point for the subdivision, so to speak. If you look at all the landscaping and the detached sidewalks that we are providing along the main roadway, you will see that there is a kind of looped pathway system throughout the development. Back out. We are trying to provide a pedestrian friendly environment, a lot of open space, the detached sidewalks, to provide a more safe circulation pattern. Again, the density we are proposing overall is 2.89 dwelling units is per acre. The Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 2000 calls this area out as medium density residential, three to eight dwelling units per acre, which is equal to an R-8 type of zone. Again, we are below that minimum for that -- for that zoning. We are asking for the R-4. Also within your Comprehensive Plan residential is defined -- the definition of residential states: The purpose is to provide a variety of housing types. We are also adjacent, as staff stated, to that future designated neighborhood center and the concept blends higher densities, small scale commercial, entertainment, and open space geared to serve all residents within a one to two mile radius. So, again, I believe that this development and its location to that future neighborhood center, is a perfect -- they are a perfect fit for one another. And, then, finally, one of the policies in the Comprehensive Plan is encourage appropriate development of open space to serve as buffers and transitional areas for existing developments. I believe we have done that with not only the location of a park in this location, but also the proposed buffer along Locust Grove for the proposed office use. We believe this development is compatible with the surrounding land uses, zonings, and densities with the area. Again, to the west you have the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision, which is a 3.29 dwelling unit per acre density. Again, the south, providing that transitional, and also the LDS church is located right about here and, then, the larger lots within Larkwood are down in this area right here. So, again, the park buffer and, then, these three lots. There is two lots that we abut in Larkwood, so we are providing a -- basically a three for two ratio, which we believe is a good transition for that. And, then, to the east, again, we believe -- we believe the offices actually provide a nice buffer. Again, we took out the possibility of the commercial and we believe that provides a nice buffer to the developments to the east. Also to the east is the Vienna Woods Subdivision, which is located approximately in this area right here and their density is approximately 2.7 dwelling units per acre and it's zoned currently R-4 within Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 36 of 73 Ada County And, then, the Edinburgh Subdivision, which is immediately to the south of Vienna Woods, is a 3.48 dwelling unit per acre density. Those are both within the Meridian impact areas. Further to the east of that is the Boise city and those subdivisions, Austin Creek and Bristol Heights, are 3.3 to four dwelling units per acre. So, just to give you kind of an idea of what is surrounding this subdivision. The Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval of this plan. They did in their motion recommend very strongly that we have another neighborhood meeting. We did hold -- we held one neighborhood meeting prior to submittal of this application, it was only attended by I believe four or five individuals. After the P&Z meeting we notified the homeowner association representatives, the applicant met with them and, then, had another neighborhood meeting, so we basically have three meetings with the neighbors to try to get their input, find out what they would like to see, try to help out as much as we can with their concerns. I believe we did meet a lot of their concerns. There is going to be some people tonight that are going to speak in opposition, but we did the best we could with the neighbors that we did meet with. Some of the -- I guess the suggestions from the neighbors that we have worked into those 12 conditions of approval that you have in front of you, were the buffering along Locust Grove and the entrance within the subdivision I guess prior to the future development of those office uses. And, again, those uses are not proposed at this time, we are just proposing the zoning. Those will come back for review to the city once the uses are bought out and designed. Access of those future uses onto Locust Grove were also an issue. ACHD, as one of their requirements, is limiting our access to the internal street for those uses and we are in agreement with that. They also agreed to 1,600 square foot minimum house sizes throughout the whole subdivision. That was a concern of the neighbors. I provided you with a petition in the packet to the city clerk and we had 69 total signatures on that petition from surrounding neighbors who were in favor of the application. We did work with your staff, provided the revisions and the information that they wanted. Regarding the fencing, the applicant did meet with the police chief I believe yesterday and worked out the fencing along the park to the south. There was a concern regarding visibility when patrolling the streets in that parkway, so what the developer agreed to with the police chief was to provide a six foot high wrought iron fence along the back of the existing house lot through here and right here. Again, to provide that visibility that the police chief was looking for. So, I believe that's been resolved. I addressed the pathway, the regional pathway, and if you want to talk about that anymore, you can ask and we can talk about that. And, finally, the developer is going to get up in a moment and he's going to talk to you a little bit more about the housing types. He's also the builder, so if you have any specific building -- or construction questions, feel to ask him that as well. I think I'm done. De Weerd: And, Shawn, I guess the builder only has like a minute that left of your time, your presentation time, so I don't know how much he would have -- Nickel: He wouldn't be part of the three-minute normal testimony? Okay. You have got a minute. Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 37 of 73 De Weerd: I do have a question. You show the access to the office area and I don't see it on this plat, but how much room before you have to turn into those areas between the entrance to Locust Grove? Nickel: I don't -- Madam Mayor, I don't know if these are to scale. The ACHD report -- and I could sit down and bring that back up at rebuttal. ACHD has a recommendation on the distance between Locust Grove and the entrances. De Weerd: Okay. Nickel: So, I will have that for you during rebuttal. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions for the applicant? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yeah. Shawn, on that area there on Locust Grove, I mean you have got some trees, it's nice and green like it's going to be grass, but it's really a parking lot and buildings; right? Isn't that what's going to be there? It's not going to be this grassy slope with buildings on it, it's going to be -- Nickel: No. No. There would be -- Nary: Is there trees along Locust Grove? Nickel: There will be trees and a berm along Locust Grove with that. But, no, this is not going to be landscaped prior to those uses coming in. Nary: How big is this buffer here? Is it 35 feet? Nickel: Yes, sir. Nary: Thank you. De Weerd: But that will be developed as the subdivision is -- Nickel: That and the entrance into the subdivision will be part of the initial development and, then, the office uses will come later on and, then, we will incorporate that landscaping into their designs. De Weerd: And is the sidewalk attached or detached? Nickel: The sidewalks are detached. Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 38 of 73 De Weerd: Along Locust Grove. Nickel: Along Locust Grove detached. De Weerd: Detached. Okay. Nary: Madam Mayor, just to follow up, this green space here, you have got trees running through it in this line. Is this a drainage in there? Is that what that is? Nickel: No. There is going to be no drainage within the open space areas. Nary: Is this a path? Nickel: That's a pathway with trees. There will be some benches in there. It's more of a passive open space and the active amenities are within the central park. Nary: And there is a box here. Is that supposed to be like a sign or something? What is that? Nickel: Yes. Nary: And, then, this is a pathway as well along here? Nickel: Yes, sir. Uh-huh. Nary: Okay. All right. Thank you. De Weerd: Any other questions? No? Nickel: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. And we still have a minute remaining. Does the -- Tepalo: I'll try to push it into one minute here. De Weerd: If you will just state your name and address. Tepalo: My name is Barry Tepalo and I'm at 4700 North Cloverdale, Boise, Idaho De Weerd: Thank you. Tepalo: We had eleven conditions that were proposed at subsequent meetings with the neighbors and we met seven of those conditions. In addition, we added an eighth one, which was clarifying that zero lot line. The purpose of the zero lot lines in here is to attach the garages to alleviate those in the area where we have alleyways or garages placed behind the home, so that we don't have a loss of space in there. If you could Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 39 of 73 bring up those other pictures, you can see what we are talking about on the areas. You can see right here how we have attached the garages and an example of it is right on that piece right there. So, what we are doing is alleviating that, we are not looking to attach the unit. So, we don't want to have the homes themselves done. But, then, also we talked about concerns that the neighbors had about product. We had tried to alleviate those. We took them on a site that we are building other homes on, so that they could see what we were doing as well and we also believe that taking the transition from the 5,990 square foot lots, allowing some of the uses in the front end to be homes, would allow a good transition to the larger lots. And I'll finish in a later time, then, for you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions, Council? Bird: I have none. Rountree: None at this time. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. We do have a number of people who have signed up and I will apologize now if I mutilate your name. We have Dan Battazzo. Dan, if you will just state your name and address. Battazzo: Dan Battazzo, 5306 North Larkwood. If you could put the picture of the subdivision, including Larkwood Place on the screen. The main concern that I want to address, because I think a lot of other people will address the issues of the subdivision itself, is that stub street -- Canning: Sir, there is a laser pointer at the podium, sir, and you can just use that. That way they can hear you. Battazzo: All right. The stub street that will cross these two six acre lots, okay, my lot is this one right here. It's actually a pair of lots. I want to point out to you that Larkwood is a subdivision that has a set of CC&Rs, nobody seems to be responsible for enforcing CC&Rs, but what I'm asking you to do is to honor them. They are covered by instrument number 8953386 with the county and, in addition to CC&Rs and a homeowners association, the Larkwood Homeowners Association has in fact, incorporated, it is a legal entity. My reason for bringing that up is as follows: Those two six acre lots that we talked about crossing at some point with either an additional subdivision or being aimed at by that stub street come under those CC&Rs and come under the bylaws of that association, they should not be able to developed without the okay of the architectural control committee of that subdivision and it appears, by the City of Meridian, putting a stub street aimed at those two particular lots, that it seems to be a foregone conclusion that development is going to take place there. The people that built that subdivision intended for it to be a large acreage subdivision and don't intend for it to be a thoroughfare to large numbers of lots, either to our east or to our north, and so what we are asking you to do is not put in place a piece of infrastructure which Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 40 of 73 clearly says that Meridian intends to develop an area that the people of that subdivision have no intention of allowing to be developed. That's all I have to say. De. Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Canning: The -- for the Council's information, those two lots are not part of the Larkwood Subdivision, so you may want to question the applicant as to whether he is aware that they are specifically included under the CC&Rs. Battazzo: May I answer? De Weerd: Yes. Battazzo: The CC&Rs, if you check that particular number that I gave you, describe under Section 5.06 those two lots as existing lots and specifically state that those CC&Rs are directed at those two lots, in addition to the ones that are specifically part of the Larkwood platting. In addition, the incorporation of Larkwood Subdivision had as signatory the owners of those two lots at the time agreeing to those bylaws. De Weerd: Thank you. Brad Alvaro. If you will please state your name and address. Alvaro: My name is Brad Alvaro, 5571 North Bach, Vienna Woods, Meridian, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Alvaro: I just want to make a comment. I'm against the proposed plan and the reason for that is two issues. First of all, the long-term Comprehensive Plan for Meridian stated in there there was no commercial, retail, or office space in that area. The second reason is if you look at the proposed plan up front, the lot sizes are extremely small. If you look at the layout, it does not fit in with the rest of the residential community. One of the reasons -- four years ago I lived in Boise and I lived near office space and retail and commercial. The reason why I built out here is because of this, that I knew that there wasn't going to be any office space or commercial space out there and I'm really concerned about that and I just wanted to voice my concern. Thank you. De. Weerd: Thank you. Rick Hansen. If you will, please, state your name and address. Hansen: Sure. My name is Rick Hansen and my address is 4864 North Larkwood Place. And I thank you for taking my testimony. I'm the president of the Larkwood Homeowners Association and my first comment is we were not contacted about any homeowners meeting or any neighborhood meeting regarding the proposed subdivision. My main objection to the subdivision -- I am opposed to the subdivision as planned. My Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 41 of 73 main opposition is the high density of the smaller lots. 5,900 square feet is, in my opinion, too small and it's inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhoods. Larkwood Place is immediately to the south of the subdivision, primarily composed of two and three -acre lots and I think this is an inadequate transition to that existing neighborhood. Further, I'd like to say that it's inconsistent even within it's own subdivision, 58,000 square feet on one end and 5,900 square feet on the other end within 27 acres I think is an inadequate transition. I just want to -- I know there are others that want to speak and I just wanted to say that I opposed this subdivision as planned. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Mark Miller. M.Miller: Madam Mayor, Council Members, with respect -- my name is Mark Miller. My address is 1906 East Dunwoody Court, Meridian, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. M.Miller: I would respectfully request -- I have a list of a number of people who have signed asking for me to speak for them. There is 14 additional people that -- De Weerd: We have your letter. M.Miller: Oh. Thanks. Is there a possibility to get some extra time to speak for them? Is that a -- De Weerd: Yes. You have ten minutes. M.Miller: Thank you. I think I'd like to present my comments -- or basically the way the whole Council meeting started, with a request to look at the larger picture and the long- term of what we are trying to do. I would insert an agreement with Larkwood that the developer, all contrary to their testimony, as far as I'm aware, never contacted the homeowners association to discuss with us ahead of time this subdivision and I am aware -- been made aware by staff that it was a recommendation that they do contact us and talk to us. However, because of 300 -foot rules, they decided to only restrict themselves to what was minimally necessary. We agree as you look at -- can you put up the plat for me of their subdivision, just the -- there you go. I think if you take the overall picture, you may also get the same impression we did or the Zoning Commission actually commented on, that does this subdivision really make a lot of sense and I believe that the developers have misused the Conditional Use Permit system to create a subdivision that meets only the specific needs of very very few people, not the local community that would be built there, not the surrounding neighborhood, and not Meridian at large. I'll ask you who is served by this subdivision. Zero lot lines, R-4 zoning, if you look at the front area, average lot size is probably more in between 6,000 and 7,000 square feet for nearly 70 homes and consider how many are being presented. We are firmly against this type of subdivision, which uses a law of averages, you could put up one huge lot in the back and make them even half the size in the front and still pass zoning laws, supposedly. We are just regular citizens trying to figure out Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 42 of 73 why people are doing what they are doing, but I think it's pretty obvious what's happening here. We also strongly opposed the light office space be placed in the front. If you -- we have read in the comprehensive city plan that the conditional uses under Section B will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. As Wendy Newton-Huckabay said, what's the need -- it doesn't appear that there is a need for commercial space. If you look at the overall city plan, which I can point to here, the subdivision that's being proposed -- can you see that or should we put up the city plan? Is that a possibility? There is a multi -use pathway or a greenbelt that we hope stays where it is, because the intention, as staff mentioned, is to bring the neighbors into the neighborhood center. This is the commercial light office space that is planned in the plan and there is none here. We trust that the city will follow the plan as it's presented, because the conditional use, to put in light office space, has no benefit to the surrounding neighbors or to the people who live here, since they can walk less than a quarter mile up to the neighborhood center along the already planned pathway that exists. Obviously, we in Dunwoody over here don't want to move the pathway over here, because now we won't have any access to the greenbelt, which makes no sense, and so I reiterate Wendy Newton -H u cka bay's comment that is it really needed there and will it serve the purpose that conditional use was meant to be or is this misuse? There also are no restrictions, apparently, on what the architectural plans will be, there are no plans that have been provided. We ask the developers to put restrictions on what could be built there. They were, obviously, unwilling to do so, as it's not in the proposal and as noted in the letter from Vienna Woods Homeowners Association as well. I think that the commercial, as mentioned by the person who was here prior explaining it, said that it would be a nice buffer to the subdivision to the east, but if you look in the city plan, L- O zoning is designed, quote, to act as a buffer between more intense nonresidential uses and high density residential uses, mentioning townhomes and apartments. It's not a buffer between low-density agricultural uses and proposed R-4 low-density units. It's interesting -- and if you can go back to the plat of the home -- of the subdivision for me one more time. We, therefore, would request -- at least our request is that we remove the light office space that's not needed here, since also there is no light office space less than a mile away at Heritage Commons. There is light office space in Austin Creek and around the corner all over the place on Eagle Road. The street here, according to Ada County Highway, is only slated to be a three -lane highway. There is no plan for it and the long-term plan by a paid commission was to keep it that way, since lowering their standard here, there is only the maximum of three lanes along Locust Grove. Putting the commercial will bring in the traffic and who knows what that will mean for having not followed that plan. If you go back to over here, it's also interesting that the backyard of the current homeowner is where the park is supposed to be. Now, it's interesting also that the police chief has asked us for four foot fences, because the obvious problem is that who is going to -- of all these people who need the park, are they going to send their children back here into his backyard to play, when there is only this tiny opening for people to watch and the police chief recognized that no one is watching in this park. Would you send your children to a park where no one can see who is playing there or who may be behind trees or around there? It's interesting that they said it's a super location in his previous testimony here and a central location. I propose that a central location would be here, maybe adjacent where all of the high- Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 43 of 73 density homeowners could actually access and use the park. Wendy Newton- Huckabay also said it seemed like -- at least in her comments, that this is an ill -placed park for the community at large. So, I think overall we just have some real concerns about the intentional use of this planned development -- David Zaremba also talked about the fact that he did not believe -- or he questioned whether this type of density was appropriate for this part of Meridian. There is no bus turnouts to bring all of this density downtown. Why would we want to put this high density -- it is an inappropriate transition -- can you put up the bigger picture one more time and I'll finish my comments. Of all the subdivisions around. That's fine. Of the large acreage lots that are around here, which I know they are not building much anymore -- and we are not against development, but this is the buffer between all this and you can see that although they claim that the subdivision is less dense than Saguaro, how much opposition was there for that, as opposed to the obvious misrepresentation in some ways of what is trying to be done here. Our recommendation is that the commercial light office space be removed, the front area be expanded to large units of 8,000 square feet, which is consistent with Vienna Woods and the regional -- and the area close to us and they possibly can use the commercial space to make that expansion possible and to move the park to a place where it will be beneficial, so the people don't have to go somewhere else to take their kids, like to Vienna Woods park, in order to have enough viewing. And I thank you for your time. De Weerd: Thank you. Steve Wright? Sally Adkin. Adkin: Hello. My name is Sally Adkin, I live at 1970 Dunwoody, and I happen to be a teacher at Discovery Elementary School. That's the school that these children living in this new subdivision would be going to. And I just have a few little pieces of information for you about that. We ended last year at my elementary school with about 570 students. We opened this year with 750. And our school does not have a cap on it, that means that students still coming through the door this year will come into our school and we will enroll them and teach them. I have 31 students in my 3rd grade class and I know that this is kind of an ongoing problem in the Meridian School District that we don't seem to ever have enough space for children in high density areas and that's a huge concern of mine, because it's also affecting my children, because they are going to those same schools. So, anyway, I just thought I would put in my little two cents in there, because that is a concern of mine that I have at this time. So, thank you very much. De Weerd: Thank you. Michael Gardner. Richard Galloway. Okay. I made it up. I'm sorry. Does Trudy -- okay. Grant Lee. Lee: Grant Lee, 5603 North Locust Grove Road. I think I'm the cause of all this here tonight. In addition to the signatures that you have, I have a couple more pages. I have also got another petition that says we are neither for nor against, but we are neutral. Craig Bruneel asked me to read his name in. His main comment against was he said he's undecided at this time. He's not opposed, but he is opposed to any stub road that goes from our property into Larkwood. Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 44 of 73 De Weerd: Your petitions in favor or against? Lee: In favor. De Weerd: Okay. Lee: I did visit with most of the people in the Larkwood Subdivision. As you know, notices go out to those within 300 feet. I did visit with -- including Mr. Hansen. The majority of the homeowners have signed the petition. I've got a map that's outlined in yellow and that includes the people that have signed in favor. The pink areas are the two people that were neutral. The green areas are the school and the churches, who normally don't get involved in these kinds of things, but in talking to Wendell Bigham, he said if you have any questions, feel free to call him. And the Mormon Church, Ron Clark, dittoed that comment. You can pick any street in any subdivision and you can go up and down the street and find people for and against just about anything. Going through Vienna Woods on Brigadoon Street there were two letters in opposition. If you look on the petitions, there is also someone from Brigadoon who signed in favor of. On Chopin, Mark Robb wrote a letter in opposition. I visited the homeowners on either side, Phil Jacobs and also Ron Ferguson, both of whom signed the petition in favor of the subdivision. Most of the people that were opposed were opposed because of density or because of the commercial space for the two offices -- two acres of offices on the front. One comment that disturbed me in visiting with a family last night was the comment: I don't want my children to go to school or to church with those people. I wish they would say that comment here tonight. Going through Vienna Woods, the homes that are for sale, I pulled the fliers and you're welcome to add those to your file. They range in price from 204,000 for a home on Comisky Street, up to 600,000 for a home on Schubert. That's a wide wide wide range of homes, 509, 384, 375, 289, 227 -- these are the homes that are available as a mix. I think our subdivision also has an excellent mix for what's needed. An area photo shows that in their square mile there is office space in Austin Creek, there is office space along Eagle Road, and there is office space on McMillan Road. Each of those has particular uses. Dr. Galloway happens to be our dentist. He's a very good dentist; we have gone to him for 25 years. My wife has an appointment this week. De Weerd: Sorry. If you will wrap up, I'll give you a few more seconds. Lee: Okay. His office is within a square mile, 15 feet from his fence to the next house, 11 feet from his business to the fence line. We provide a lot more buffer for our proposed commercial office space and it is needed, it's on three sides of their square mile, they want it in their back yard for them, but they don't want it in their front yard, which is for us. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Lee. Do you have any questions, Council? Nary: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 45 of 73 De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Mr. Lee? Nary: Mr. Lee. Lee: Yes, ma'am. Nary: What's your position -- and I have heard a couple of folks here, I've seen it in the comments, and it came up at the Planning and Zoning meeting, that the open space is really just your back yard. Lee: I've heard them say that. Originally, this land surrounding -- if you could show that -- we built our house right in the middle of what used to be a horse race track -- okay. I've seen kids use these things. There was a 5/8ths mile bank racetrack right around here. We built our house right in the middle of it purposely, so that we would block Jericho Road from being extended into Larkwood. We got a letter from the highway department -- that's the first person that's ever said thank you, Grant. The highway department gave me a letter saying it was not their intent to connect this road. Somehow I don't always believe government officials. So I plot my house right there in the middle. The park is a buffer between us; it takes up some of the 35 foot space, which is still a horse race track. It takes up some of that space. It takes up some of our acre and a half backyard that takes me four hours to mow. Those that came to my home for the neighborhood meeting know what a big backyard that is. The six kids that we had when we started this home 12 years ago are all gone. It's me and momma, I'm tired of mowing, I want a smaller backyard, I don't want to move. That is a buffer from our friends in Larkwood who we spent many many hours in trying to organize the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision next to us, to match up and fit with our subdivision, just as we spent time with the Arcadia Subdivision people in matching up lot for lot our lots along that subdivision. But to answer your question, is this part of my backyard or is somebody in Vienna Woods saying are you paying somebody to mow your backyard. This is not going to be my backyard, this is going to be a park space and we intended it to buffer between us and Larkwood -- our Larkwood neighbors. De Weerd: Thank you. Lee: One of which said thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Lee. Darwin Porter. Porter: Darwin Porter, 5780 North Locust Grove. If I could see the -- let's go down one on this if we could. Okay. One -- let's go one where we show the -- it's yellow in color I think. It's the Comprehensive Plan. There we go. This is my home right here. We have a home on one acre with four acres of open space. My concern here in looking at a little bit of the Planning and Zoning regulations and so on, it states that the qualifications of a new development suggest that it should fit in with the existing environment and not be out of character with the surrounding environment. Our Meridian City Council September 7. 2004 Page 46 of 73 suggestion is that half of this development is in character with the surrounding environment, the other half and the commercial are not. There is a total of 23 lots that are 6,000 square feet, 24 lots that are 7,200 square feet, 24 lots that are 7,800 square feet, so there is 71 lots that have an average of about 7,000 square feet on them. About what, 18 lots that are over 8,000 square feet? So, I guess my main concern is the size of the lots. I would like to see larger lots. I would like to see a minimum of 8,000 square feet. I think that Vienna Woods has set a tremendous pattern for buffering against the rural ranchettes that are here. I think that we could do something similar to that here, if the commercial was eliminated up front. Then, I guess one of the other concerns that I have is that Meridian follow the Comprehensive Plan that was originally set forth and that that path should not be moved. This is really our only access to be able to continue around and move into some of these other subdivisions. We go on walks now over to Vienna Woods. This is a wonderful park, it can be seen on almost all sides, so there is a lot of viewers. The park that's located here is a real concern to me in that it's not going to be visible, especially once the trees get built up. Thank you. De Weerd: Susan Porter. S.Porter: Susan Porter, 5780 North Locust Grove, Meridian, Idaho, in the Dunwoody Subdivision. I'm with my husband there, living with our six children, and so I really also enjoy this park over here, but it would be nice to have a park over here, but it is way in the back. I'd just like to -- as a mother, having a whole lot of kids, being in that high- density area, I just disagree with the high-density area. If I lived in a high density area I would want to be able to see my children if I sent them to the park, but you can't see them from the home if you were living in that high density area. So, beyond the small lot sizes, which I oppose, I feel the park is out of place and it's really just the existing homeowner's backyard. The park should be located for central access and better visibility. In addition, Meridian city really needs to know what it is like to drive these roads. I have three kids in activities and traffic is backed up a half mile now at McMillan Road. What would further density do for us? As a mother I'm asking you to please decrease the density and move the park to a better location. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Michelle Boardman. Bill Wiser. Wiser: Got it right. De Weerd: I knew I would hit one right tonight. Wiser: My name is Bill Wiser, I'm at 1842 East Dunwoody. I guess I'd like to talk about the whole development as a whole. We have heard a lot of details about the park and I agree with what I have heard. And also I'd like to thank you for your time tonight, as well as the volunteers that came tonight to help point out issues that can affect the long- term development of the area around us. They are giving up time from their families, helping with homework, school is back in, to be here to talk about these things, they are not paid like the developer and the short-term gain of the people that -- this Leeshire plan does -- to me, in my opinion, does not follow the intended Comprehensive Plan Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 47 of 73 and if he did, he wouldn't be using the planned development subset of rules that I went on the internet and researched, it seems to me that whole set of planned development rules was put in place to -- among other things, around the mixed use areas, to help fill in areas near Meridian where you have a lot sitting -- that's been surrounded by some commercial and some residential and this gives an opportunity for somebody to bring before you a plan to finish that lot and blend it into the surrounding area. Here we have a case where I believe that that whole rule was misapplied to an area that isn't built up. It's almost a blank sheet out there and what you do have is some very large lots, as well as some very well planned subdivisions that followed the regular zoning rules and we are trying to misapply that rule here and take advantage to the tee and if you go in and read some of the restrictions for things that this planned development should have, I'm not sure he meets it, but if you go through it with a fine tooth comb, well, maybe he does by the letter of the law. But'the fact is he's pushing it to the limit and it's misplaced and I think it's a temporal thing where it doesn't -- this type of zoning and this plan should not be put in place out in an area that isn't meant to be a fill in. One of the flaws in that plan is it doesn't talk about how this has developed over time. One of the -- the only thing it says is the developer has five years to implement this plan and after five years if he doesn't do some of this, it reverts back to the zoning -- previous zoning. Well, what's to keep him from building the very dense houses, the price of lots so high back here they don't sell after five years, the zoning says, well, you can't put those big lots in there, you got to make them smaller. So, now he's got a win-win and we are left with something that we intend to have out here in this nice area we have where this does not blend in. So, I think that somebody's pushing the zoning and the rulings to the limit that was written for a different application and I think a lot of loopholes and if you let them do this, then, the next guy next to them will say, well, you let him do that, I should do that and you're going to have a zoning meltdown out here in the middle of a very nice residential area today. So, that's my concern and I hope you, you know, say this doesn't belong out here, go use the regular zoning rules and come up with a plan that looks more like Vienna Woods. So, that's my opinion and I thank you for your time. De Weerd: Thank you. Dale O'Brien. O'Brien: My name is Dale O' Brien, I live at 5690 North Locust Grove Road, Meridian. Our five -acre parcel is directly across the street into the entrance to this subdivision, so we have probably more to suffer more than anyone, if there is to be a suffering, because that traffic will come right out into our driveway. When I first saw the proposed plat, I was somewhat taken back by it because of the density in the homes in the front, but after I got talking to the developer and seeing the quality of the homes that were going to be built overtime changed my mind, so I am in favor of that proposed development. The concerns we had, the buffering, the lighting, any of the concerns that my wife and I had in the beginning have all been addressed by the developer, so I think that they are going out of their way to try and get as much community favoritism for this development as possible. I know there is -- as westerners we are always in -- you know, we have always had the ability to buy big, to be big. Over time, since I have had the five acres, I wish I had a 600 square lot because of the weeds and the things that I have to maintain. So, as you grow older sometimes your feeling about the size of Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 48 of 73 everything changes and I guess that's my opinion on this specific development is there are large areas, there are small areas, but we are not always in the same mind set. So, I think it offers some variance for all. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Susan Rammel. Rammel: Susan Rammel, 5690 North Locust Road. My husband is Dale O'Brien. And I live right across on five acres next to the Porters. I felt like the developers have been very good to speak with us and very -- if I ever had a question, I could call and they could talk about it. Some changes they made that were really important to me were the berm with the fence was really important. I was concerned about light pollution and they said that the lights would shine down. I was also concerned about the quality of homes and from looking at the things that they have produced, they look like they are very nice homes. So, I speak in favor of this also. But I do have two concerns that I would like to have you make a note of and that is -- I hadn't thought of that until tonight listening to people talk about -- I would like in the future that there would be one entrance into -- if the office building is to remain, I would like that indicated that that could not be changed in the future and the other thing I was concerned about was I realized with the office buildings if that can be changed, that I would like it stated that those could only be one story and that that could not be changed in the future through some funning zoning situation. So, sometimes I think the mind can only comprehend what the seat can endure and you have been sitting here for a long time, so I do speak in favor of this, but I am concerned about how the front of that will be with the office building, one story and one entrance. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. And, finally, Kent Boardman Boardman: Hi, Madam Mayor. My name is Kent Boardman, I live at 1874 East Dunwoody. Just I'm actually a new resident there, just moved there, purchased the place in July. And it's kind of ironic, because the place I came from was Cameron Park, which we happen to have had battle with another subdivision, the Hubble Subdivision that went in next to that development, and Shawn was, ironically, the same person and it's ironic that we hear -- I'm hearing the exact thing here that we got there and there was supposedly meetings that didn't happen, that neighbors were supposed to be informed, have input, but didn't get it. And it seems to be a recurring thing. Obviously, you have heard a lot of people opposed. Obviously, there is not a consensus and the issues that we brought up are not being heard. One thing I want to point out, I have a child in high school and one in middle school. I had no idea when I moved in that area that it was going to take me 50 minutes to drop off those two children, because of the roads the way they currently are. I can't even imagine adding anymore traffic, especially with that -- the density that exists in that thing. I mean it is a flagrant abuse of the planned community. I mean that just -- it's obvious you have got an area of nice homes in the back and, then, just a crammed bunch of small, inexpensive homes up front. I mean let's just call it what it is. And it, obviously, is not taking into consideration the neighborhood around it. I mean I have lived there since July, I don't know when the notices went out, I have yet to receive one, so -- and I live just right across the street in Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 49 of 73 the Dunwoody Subdivision. So, please, hear us, make the developer meet with us, make the developer listen to us, make him take into consideration our concerns and do something about them and not just give us lip service. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Those are the names that have signed up. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Papke: Thank you, Madam Mayor; my name is Jeff Papke -- De Weerd: State your name and address. Papke: I live at 4989 North Larkwood Place. Right down here. I did sign my name on one of the petitions for Grant Lee in favor of this subdivision. And the only reason I'm testifying tonight is some new information that I heard from the staff report where they are talking -- if you could go to the Comprehensive Plan. In regards to the walkway, the pathway here, and all of a sudden learning tonight that, oh, the idea is now to jet right through Larkwood and I consider how can you do that when this is county land and, then, if it's not -- you'd have to annex us and that makes all these feelings come up in my opinion. And, you know, having seen this, I am thoroughly in favor of the Comprehensive Plan, I like the path where it's at, I also will second Mr. Hansen's comments on the stub street to the south. I think the developers are in agreement here, too, that we -- it does give no use for anybody, particularly from the Larkwood's point of view, subdividing those back lots, will be along way away if we have anything to say in it, whether it's just through our neighborhood or through legal action. We are all adamantly opposed to having lots back here -- I have seen the conceptual plan, right now there is 20 lots there, but who's to say the -- the density up here if it goes through, that all of a sudden those lots become 40 lots and there is a great discrepancy there, in my opinion. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. And I'm assuming all of you raised your right hand, so -- Lewis: Yes, I did. De Weerd: If you didn't, just let me know and I'll swear you in. Lewis: Okay. Thank you. My name is Lori Lewis and I live at 2000 East Dunwoody Court, Meridian, Idaho. And I heard you say earlier today in earlier hearings and so forth that just, you know, comments like, you know, we are not quite sure what it's going to look like five years from now and the exciting part for you is that you are all in positions where you have -- you can make decisions that determine exactly what the City of Meridian is going to look like five years from now, ten years from now, 20 years from now, and we have a plan, a Comprehensive Plan, that maps it all out and lots of very smart people put a lot of work into that and my plea is today that -- is that as you're making these decisions that you really look to seek the truth, that you not -- you're not cloaked by a shell game where folks are trying to manipulate the system and say, yes, we are in -- in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, because we happen to have -- Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 50 of 73 because the law of averages make it so. So, my point is that -- is that for you is as you're making these decisions, consider the long-term, consider what sort of Meridian you want to try to build. Do you want to try to build a community where you have an alignment between what is built there and the services that are there to service the community, whether it's the police force, fire protection, schooling, safety -- I mean all of these things have to be considered and what we are seeing today in this subdivision is that that puts -- the designer doing this subdivision puts all of that at risk. We have talked, we have heard testimony about the concerns over traffic, we have heard concerns over the school district and crowding and all those sorts of things and my -- my -- what I'm urging you to do is to take a look at it from a long-term standpoint and look at really what you're seeing. In this subdivision that's proposed -- and if you can put that -- that drawing up. What you will see is that -- and I think you have heard testimony to this, too, is that part of the subdivision absolutely is wonderful and it is -- it is compatible with what surrounds it and it's that back section. It's the section where the homeowner can currently exist and if you really look to what that design says, is that the homeowner has really put a buffer between himself and this Dr. Seuss sort of design. I mean these -- even within this subdivision there is no -- there is consistency in the design. And so what our position is is that we would love -- I mean we are not against any development, that's for sure, but let's have the development look more like that -- the back end, than the front end. Okay. That's all I have to say. De Weerd: I know Mr. Miller spoke for someone. E.Miller: Oh, other neighbors. I promise not me. Even though I'm his wife. He doesn't speak for me. My name is Elizabeth Miller, I live at 1906 E. Dunwoody Court. I just have two quick points. Number one, I want to point out that the couple here that spoke in favor of it that live across the street from the new development that abuts up to Dunwoody, they have -- we understood that they are in -- have discussed things with the developers to develope their land similarly. So, I think financially they have a reason to support this development, because they'd like to make some money off of their land, their five acres, which they don't want to mow anymore. And, you know, that's fine, but I think that's a consideration of why they are in favor. Number two, I feel very strongly about the Comprehensive Plan and I — as a walker and a runner and I have four little boys, three of which are four year old triplets, I feel very strongly about having a walking path. I feel like that's one thing that we don't have here in Boise -- in the Boise area that I have enjoyed in other places I have lived. We want to encourage people to drive less and walk more and use their cars a lot less and if you don't have that path like you -- like the plan has said, you're going to create a ton more traffic. We would walk across -- tons of us neighbors would walk across and go into the neighborhood center. If you cut up like that, just to save yourselves a little bit of money and time, you're cheating a lot of Meridian of -- all this area is going to develop some day and all of us, a lot of recreational opportunities and what makes our community nice is those kind of nice things you do, which really make it a place people want to live, not cutting corners to make some money for a developer or the person that owns the land. I feel very strongly about that. Thank you. Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 51 of 73 De Weerd: Thank you Centers: Jake Centers, 2011 Locust Grove. I'm speaking in favor of the subdivision. I'd like to applaud the developers for offering a variety of different home sites. It's nice to see something different than the same subdivision full of the exact same lot sizes and home sizes. And I know that is a great need for smaller home sites with less maintenance. I'm part of the home building team in Heritage Commons and I'm one of the builders that built the alley -loaded homes in that subdivision. They all sold very well, a strong demand for them, and those lots were only 32 feet wide. So, I would hope that you guys have taken a tour through there and seen how that turned out. Most of the people I have talked to speak very highly of it, so -- and those home -- their values were actually more per square foot than your traditional home sites. So, it's very possible to have smaller home sites with smaller homes that hold their values very well. And in speaking to the L -O sites, personally, my office is on an L -O site that buffers residential and it works out very well. The -- from the home building side, home sites that back up to roadways never sell very well, they are always the last lots to sell, they are always the least expensive homes in the community, so I think it's a great buffer and I think it should be a requirement for all arterial subdivisions. So, that's it. De Weerd: Thank you. M.Lewis: Yes. I raised my hand earlier De Weerd: If you're testifying again, you can't. M.Lewis: No. No, I -- De Weerd: So, you were sworn in, right? Okay. M.Lewis: I'm Mauri Lewis and -- De Weerd: No. I'm sorry. It's getting late. M.Lewis: Okay. I'll make it short. I'm Maud Lewis, I live at 2000 East Dunwoody Court and a couple of main concerns are I think it's great, development is a good thing, it's good for the economy, it's good for everybody, but, you know, you hear the same argument over and over, gosh, we have a traffic problem, we have a traffic problem here and a traffic problem there, well, it's because we don't think through -- and I'm not blaming anybody for this, but I think it's an overall consensus here that nobody stops and thinks about the high density development versus a more rural development. The more you get away from town, you think that things would spread out a little, but we seem to get out of town and, then, we go and jam a bunch of stuff into a small area and, then, we jam it into another area and, then, it's like, oh, well, I can't even get down the road. I think we need to stop and take that into consideration, because I'm not opposed to -- like I said, the development, but I think the degree of density is way too high, way way way too high. The homeowner that owns the land in the back has got it made. I Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 52 of 73 mean it's almost like why isn't there a moat around his property and a gate. To me it just seems ridiculous. High density in the front, so he doesn't have to see it, and he's got his place in the back with all these nicer bigger lots by him and the park. How convenient. I would love to have that same situation, but I wouldn't do it with all the high density in the front like that, I just think it's ridiculous. And the commercial buildings, there is enough commercial space around and it's -- and there is more proposed, you guys know that. There is more proposed in the short -- in the area surrounding us now, so I am against it. You know, it just seems to keep getting worse and worse and you hear the same complaint, but nothing's ever done. Here is your chance to do the right thing. Thanks for your time. De Weerd: Thank you. Peterson: Jerry Peterson, 2876 Hampton Street. I'm here tonight in favor of the development. In fact, I'm an interested buyer. The house I lived in, Five Mile and Ustick, I moved there 30 years ago when the speed limit was 45 and the only stop sign was at Cole Road. Things change and I'm here to say that I'm glad that we don't have cookie cutter subdivisions where everything is exactly the same and every space is exactly the same. I get a little tired of the yard. I like the community feel to this development. I like the fact that the garages are in back. I drive through some of the other subdivisions and all you see is three car garages. I call them welcome to my garage homes. This is where all the houses are facing -- you will see patios on the front, there is a nice community feel to it and as far as Mr. Lee protecting himself, he still has to drive through this everyday, just like everybody else. I think, you know, that the idea of light office space in the front makes sense to me. We shouldn't have to drive all over the place to go to a doctor or to a chiropractor or a dentist and it makes sense to locate these offices in the neighborhood and avoid the driving and, in fact, that decreases traffic, not increases it. So, I'd like to go on record as being in favor of this project. De Weerd: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony? Lee: Mr. Buckley needs a little prodding. De Weerd: If you have testimony you'll need to come up to the -- I'm sorry, we could have even brought the microphone -- Buckley: Yeah. I'm Ed Buckley and I live at 1780 East McMillan Road and I have watched this development going on for the last -- I have done some development myself and somebody's going to develop that if it's now or later, but I'm in favor to going on and let -- having it approved, because I think it will be a good subdivision and I'm in favor of it. We got a lot of traffic, but we're still going to have a lot of traffic if they build it this year or next year, so I'm in favor of it. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there any further testimony? Would the applicant like to respond? Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 53 of 73 Tepalo: Barry Tepalo, 4700 North Cloverdale. I'm the applicant. And this time I'm going to get up, so I don't have my planner taking all of my discussion points and I'm wondering if as a result we had a number of people from Dunwoody come up, in addition we had extra time -- extra time for the president of the association, so I'm requesting a little extra time to handle some of the rebuttals here. First of all, I'd like to bring up the point that was brought up about access, access from the commercial L -O parcels. The commercial L -O parcels on the front, according to the approval from ACHD, will have a plat restriction on it. Condition number 15 of that says a note regarding the access restriction will be required on the final plat. Therefore, there is going to be no additional access for those L -O parcels out onto Locust Grove, they will be on the main roadway -- main entrance road. The exact distance of that will be subject to the standards. I'm sorry, I don't have the ACHD standard books here. So, there will be a minimum standard from Locust Grove setback on it and that will be approved at the time that those two site plans are approved for the commercial L -O uses -- or the L -O uses, I should say. Those L -O uses are intended to be professional office space. They are not intended to be something that's going to have retail type facilities on them, they are going to be professional offices. So, the purpose of those is going to be very limited in their design. The next item I'd like to talk about is the community concept. You know, what we did here is try to put together a community with mixed uses. If we wanted to step back and bring in 8,000 square foot lots that the number of the people wanted to bring up, I can increase the number of homes on this site by approximately 15 percent. You bring in larger lots, you reduce the amount of roads, you end up with the same cookie cutter subdivision that's going to be everywhere else that is not going to have any differentiation. Now, who is the market that this subdivision is going to look for? Well, you're going to have some upper end families, yes, they are going to be on that nine, ten, twelve, fourteen thousand square foot lots, you're going to have some families in these 78 hundreds and possibly the 72 hundreds, you're going to have a mix of downsizing, you're going to have empty nesters, you're going to have people who are widowed and widowers who are looking for something that they don't have to maintain their yards that are looking for high quality homes. We have a number of requests coming in of looking for something in the Meridian area that they can be near their children and their grandchildren, but they want the freedom to be able to travel. They want the freedom of being able to have smaller yard maintenance, but still have a high end, high quality house. The other target market on those smaller lots are going to end up being young professionals, those that don't have any kids, as a result of their work, their traveling, their moving about, and commuting, a number of areas throughout the country and throughout the world, they don't have to have to be strapped to a high maintenance larger home site. So, that's what we are trying to achieve with this. You know, when they say they -- and we made an attempt -- the first pass that we got was a list of homeowners within the 300 -foot radius. We tried to send them out; we tried to get the people notified on that basis. We went to the P&Z Meeting, we had a number of comments against. We were requested by Planning and Zoning to go out and talk to the neighbors. We held two meetings. We took them out to our project in Eagle that we had and showed them what we were doing from a product standpoint, 50 by 110 lots and showing them what the project was going on it, it Meridian City Council September 7, 2904 Page 54 of 73 alleviated a lot of the fears. Then, we ended up with another meeting on site here and we were asked also to deal with a lot of the HOA directors and the people associated with them. We attempted to do that. So, we were trying to get a consensus among everybody in that area. The stub street to the south, that's up to you. ACHD has a request in from the City of Meridian, that call is yours. We are either way. If you want us to remove it and replace it with that lot that we have there, we will do that. As to the pathway system that goes to the north, if you want us to build that pathway coming through the project, that's what we designed in that original landscape plan, but the parks department came back and said, no, they have got an alternative plan for it. So, they said no at that time. I'm at your discretion. We will do it either way. I'm open for that. The landscaping along the front, we provided enough right of way for a 96 foot right of way on Locust Grove. The overall north plan shows that Locust Grove from the church north to Chinden is potentially a five -land road. We have provided enough right of way to have that. We have also provided a detached sidewalk, we are going to landscape Locust Grove, we have also agreed with the neighbors to provide an average of a five foot berm in the front that's going to be landscaped. It is going to be one that will go up and down, but it's going to be an average of five feet. It will provide open viewing, rather than a monotonous straight across the line type of view. Detached sidewalks. We are looking to safety. We have four foot detached sidewalks with five foot planting strips throughout the entire project and we are an advocate of that. We believe that separating that sidewalk gives the feeling of connectivity. It's also going to allow the connectivity and safety coming into the project and going around the project. So, from that standpoint we felt that it was warranted. De Weerd: Can you please summarize. Tepalo: Okay. In summary, I think there is a number of items. We are looking to develop a community, a neighborhood here, we are looking to that long range future that the City of Meridian has and we believe that this project with the different housing styles within this neighborhood provides that opportunity for the city. De Weerd: Thank you very much. Tepalo: Thank you. De Weerd: Council, do you have questions for the applicant? Okay. Council, any furthered information from staff? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mrs. Canning, I just wanted to clarify, on the staff report it indicates that the only basis to grant the L -O for those front pieces is a use exception under our ordinance; right? Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 55 of 73 Canning: Yes, sir. De Weerd: But they haven't identified anything other than office space of some sort? Canning: The original proposal had C -N on one property and L -O on the other, but now it was just L -O. They haven't further refined it to my knowledge. Nary: Thank you. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Question for Anna. With respect to the pathway and your discussion about, well, now you're contemplating changing the location of the section pathway. And I either have forgotten or missed the reason for that. Is part of it that it wouldn't be in this subdivision or part of it due to what the development is being discussed in those lower parcels to the south? Canning: It was primarily -- Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it was primarily related to development on the south and it's a tricky issue on this one, so I -- they were proposing a path to connect from here that would go along the drain to there in an open space. I think they are proposing -- the latest proposal we saw was a tiled -- they would tile the ditch and, then, there would be an easement area there that a pathway could go over. Likewise, Saguaro Canyon, they have relocated this portion, but they, basically, have a 50 -foot easement -- it's a very large easement that runs this way. So, then, you just have, essentially, two properties to get through to get to Saguaro Canyon. Some of the issues we were looking at here related to the current alignment. If it goes -- it's not likely that it will go through the exiting LDS church, because it's already built, they are established, and they don't have an easy mechanism for the LDS church to give up easements or property, so it wasn't likely to happen there. So, if it came up through, it would have to come up through these two and, then, we have this series of small lots, this one being Arcadia Subdivision that's there before you get to this neighborhood center. Meanwhile, the Saguaro Development pattern is very linear, it funnels people up and through and back. And there are a series of large open spaces, if you will recall, that go back toward that way and it just seemed like a more appropriate pathway designation and that was part of the reason. So, there was a lot of testimony about, yes, we want a path, but, no, we don't want these two properties to develop. Well, if those two properties don't develop -- this large lot is also part of Larkwood Subdivision, so if they are going to protest development of these two lots, then, presumably they are protesting the development of this lot as well. It's not going to come up this way if -- I mean there is just a dichotomy of views there that you couldn't serve -- you couldn't meet both those requests, so -- those were some of the things that went through our head. It is -- the plan does show it coming through this property, though. It would be different from what is shown on the plan. However, those are kind of approximate locations to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 56 of 73 Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: Any further questions? Mr. Nary, did you have a question for the applicant on the -- on any proposed uses for the L -O? Nary: No. They had lots of time to present it, so that's all right. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Council, what would you like to do? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I just had a comment before we close the Public Hearing. You know, in listening to all of the testimony, I guess I am troubled by a couple of things. I mean one of the gentlemen that testified talked about planned development standards and what the intent is and our ordinance says the purpose is to -- of the planned development process is to provide opportunity for land development that preserves and utilizes natural topographic, geologic features, allows a more efficient pattern of residential, commercial and industrial uses, fosters innovative design concepts, promotes flexibility in site design and provides for a common open space or other amenities not found in the traditional lot by lot development. And there is some of that here, but I think there is also -- I think what he talked about with the intent was to try to deal with areas that have been developed and trying to fit varieties of different uses in there. We don't really have that in this particular area, so a planned development for this it seems to only fit -- only be done to, basically, make this into this split type of setup for half of that development on the western portion of it doesn't really match the portion on the eastern side of it. As I stated, the use exception provision says the uses permitted by exception are strongly related to the principal use of the development and have the purpose of providing services or facilities useful and complimentary to the primary use. I think it's incumbent on the developer, then, to bring us a plan and not just say I'm just going to leave it open, we will just figure it out some day in the future as to what that's going to be, it's just an office of some sort. It has to be related to what they are doing. So, that's the whole purpose of having an exception. Folks talked about the Comprehensive Plan and that there is no relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, other than the density of zoning, it's a low density development area, there is no office, there is no commercial, there is none of that, it's all residential in that area. That's what our -- that's what our Comprehensive Plan indicates. This isn't that. It is a hugely different development in my mind when you're talking a 58,000 square foot parcel and 5,900 square foot parcels. I know it pencils out to a density of less that four units per acre, but, again, that split concept between them where one side is completely adversely different to the other, doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The amenities that are being provided -- I think it was a little over ten percent open space, which is required by the planned development, so it's not like they went above and beyond to any stretch. The open space that's here is the predominate amenity, but I agree with the neighbors that, really, to be an amenity it Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 57 of 73 probably should have been here, because the access points to this green space -- there is no parking, there is no way for people, other than through the sidewalk system to walk all the way around to get to this space, if they even know it's there, but there is no access points that are visible other than on this knuckle and this cul-de-sac, so it doesn't seem to be designed with the intent to provide a centralized recreational spot, it is designed to simply just be another buffer zone to this Larkwood Subdivision below and, I guess, so Mr. Lee doesn't have to mow his yard anymore. But it doesn't really provide an amenity to the whole subdivision and I think that's the intent when I look at planned developments is it's supposed to benefit all of it and this really doesn't. It benefits Mr. Lee, it benefits a few of these homes that are right adjacent to it and it doesn't really benefit anybody else. The one thing I would agree with the applicant is this stub to the south probably doesn't make a lot of sense. There really isn't any future development there that's very practical or reasonable in the near future. The only development that's really going to happen is to the north and I guess I didn't notice in the other aerial if this stub street lines up with Jericho. I think Jericho is over here. Well, Mr. Lee said his house is in the middle of it, so, then, the stub street's over here, so it doesn't even line up with the one that's up there, so I'm not sure that that makes much sense either. But I think this -- I don't think this is all bad, but I certainly think it's not all done in my mind. I think there is a lot more that could be done to make it much more compatible and provide better transition. You know, I do think the neighbors have to understand in this area that this is zoned R-4 and this is predominately an R-4. I think just the way it's split up in design -- you know, only because the street connection connects in about that location is there any connection between this half and that half, is that straight street that goes through right here, splits this into two completely different type of stubs. This one connection is about the only thing that's saving to it and that just doesn't do it enough for me. I think -- I think there needs to be some thought put in to dispersing this around in a better fashion. Again, I don't have any evidence to -- at least for me to grant the use exception and, again, I think it does push the envelope of planned development. So, I just don't think it really is very compatible with the neighbors. I don't think it's compatible with the area, it doesn't comply with the Comprehensive Plan. De Weerd: Thank you. Any other comments? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I'd just take one exception to one of Mr. Nary's comments and I -- whether it's this subdivision or some other format of this subdivision, I think that access street to the south, the stub street, at some point in time might very well be good to have, so -- Nary: I can live with that. Rountree: Yeah. De Weerd: Okay. Wardle: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 58 of 73 De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Just a comment on some of the housing types and we heard from Mr. Centers about a comparison to Heritage Commons and I agree the product in Heritage Commons was very well received, very well done, and that the value of those homes is significant in relationship to their square footage. The difference, I think, between that development and this development is that Heritage Commons was developed as an entire community and all those carriage lane homes were placed on the outside of the two acre park. So, it's -- I don't want my opinion of the density to have any affect over what I think housing types and some of the products that were discussed, because I think those ideas are things that we need to encourage within development within the City of Meridian and they are positive. How you lay them out is a different question. Nichols: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Madam Mayor, if I could ask a question of Anna. Anna, the comp plan designation is medium density residential for this area; is that correct? Canning; Yes sir. Nichols: And that would allow what maximum density? Canning: Three to eight units per acre is the target density range. Nichols: Okay. And what's the minimum square footage of an R-8, then, in the lot size? Canning: Eight thousand square feet. Oh, R-8? Sixty-five hundred square feet. Nichols: Okay. Thank you. Madam Mayor, if I may follow up? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Nichols: Anna, if the developer had just done a straight R-8 subdivision plat, what would the open space requirement be? Canning: Five percent. Nichols: Thank you. De Weerd: Is there anything further from Council? Okay. What is your preference on this application? Bird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 59 of 73 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'd move we close the public hearings for 14, 15, and 16 on the Leeshire Subdivision. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on 14, 15 and 16. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: So, does Mr. Nary want to make a motion? Bird: Mr. Nary? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I'm going to move to deny Item 14, AZ 04-017, request for annexation and zoning of 29.69 acres for the proposed Leeshire Subdivision, based upon the testimony this evening in regards to the -- to this -- the uses that are proposed, the property, the design, and conformity of this in relation to the neighbors. The zone that's being sought and I guess the design that's being asked for are not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, including the request for office space, are not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan or ordinances in regards to use exceptions. Rountree: Is that it? Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny Item 14, AZ 04-017. 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. De Weerd: Okay. Item 15. Nary: Madam Mayor, I'd move to deny Item 15 PP 04-024, the request for preliminary plat for Leeshire Subdivision because the property was not annexed. Bird: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to deny Item 15. Is this any further discussion? Mr. Clerk. Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 60 of 73 Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Item 16. Nary: Madam Mayor, I'd move to deny Item 16, CUP 04-026, request for Conditional Use Permit for Leeshire Subdivision for the same reasons, as the preliminary plat was denied. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to deny Item 16. Is there any further discussion? If there is none, Mr. Clerk? Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. I would propose we take a ten-minute break. (Recess.) Item 18: Public Hearing: RZ 04-009 Request for a Rezone of 16.49 acres from R- 4 to R-4, R-8 and L -O zones for Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur, LLC — 2090, 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road: Item 19: Public Hearing: PP 04-023 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval for 56 building lots and 6 common lots on 18.94 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur, LLC - 2090, 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road: Item 20: Public Hearing: CUP 04-025 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use Planned Development consisting of single family residential, assisted living and office uses with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size and street frontage for Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur, LLC - 2090, 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road: De Weerd: I'll go ahead and call this meeting back to order. We did move Item 17 below Item 20, so I will open up public hearings on 18, 19, and 20, RZ 04-009, PP 04- 023, and CUP 04-025. We will start with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is Larkspur Subdivision and this was previously submitted as both Larkspur and Southwood Subdivisions, so they have come back -- Larkspur, as you will recall, was denied, Southwood withdrew, and it has Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 61 of 73 now combined projects with Larkspur. We are located off of Meridian Road south of Calderwood. The applicants have proposed a rezone from R-4, which the entire property is currently zoned R-4, to R-8 on 13.24 acres, so that would include this area here, all but the northwest corner. In the northwest corner, which is 3.25 acres, would be rezoned L -O. They are asking for that use exception as part of a planned development. The subject property is designated as medium density residential in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant as part of the planned development is requesting reduced lot sizes and frontages for subdivision lots. The applicant is requesting -- asking to be allowed to have 5,453 square foot lots, reduction in the R-8 -- that was in the L -O. In the R-8 they are asking for a reduction down to 4,011 square foot lots and a reduction from the 65 -foot frontage requirement in the R-8 district. I should go over this more. I'm sorry. The L -O -- these are all individual office lots here. You will see one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven -- 12 lots there as they ring around and, then, over here you have the Alzheimer's unit, which before was located on the other side of the canal, now it's on the west side of the canal, right by their entrance road and the assisted living facility, the main unit for that is located here towards the -- just south of the Alzheimer's unit and, then, you'll see a number of attached units. These are single-family units of sorts that -- we haven't classified them as single-family homes. We have grouped all of this assisted living facility together as part of the discussion. These are -- I liken these more to little bungalows next to the hotel than actual single-family units. They have minimal kitchens. They really are intended to make use of the assisted living facility to meet a lot of their everyday needs. South of the assisted living facility in the office lots are the single-family residential lots, the kind of patio home lots. It's an S drive or S street, so you do get some narrow frontages as you ago around. You do see a variety of open spaces that -- particularly in this area and this area where it makes the bend on the curves and it does leave a nice open space. We also have two existing family homes that will remain. Staff has taken great length to insure that we address the redevelopment of these properties for the future and there is, actually, two ways they could redevelop. Right now there is a drive aisle stub that comes down to this location, so that if -- in an easement. If this goes as office development, then, they could take access through that easement and, then, make their way out to Calderwood safety, trying to avoid having a lot of driveway cuts on Meridian Road. This application has not proposed any cuts on Meridian Road. The other option is if this were to go residential, which would be under the Comprehensive Plan would be the assumed use, right now they have an emergency access, secondary access, because this is a dead end road. They have saved one residential lot as -- as this fire access road. So, if this were to go residential, there is sufficient width here to put a reduced street section and pop the street back there to develop that as residential. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of this application. At the Public Hearing the applicant did testify in favor of the application. There was no one member of the public that testified in opposition. You may remember that the initial hearings before you when Larkspur was denied had a lot more than one member of the public in opposition to the project. So, the developer was able to alleviate the concerns of many of the Meridian Greens residents that adjoin this property. Testimony in opposition to the project, the primary concern was that they were in opposition to the proposed density and the impact of the density on the adjoining neighborhoods. The Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 62 of 73 recommendation before you right now says that there is no outstanding issues before City Council. The applicant did bring up an issue with me prior to the hearing and I will try and address that. On page six of the preliminary plat findings, item number 11 and 12, the correct wording did not make it into the recommendation. The staff report -- for example, on number eleven the staff report has a condition that says fire sprinklers -- I'm a little tongue-tied. Fire sprinklers will be required for all buildings associated with this project, as required by the International Building and Fire Codes. And, then, in parenthesis, not applicable to patio homes and existing residential lots. So, they did want to make it clear that that sprinkling requirement was only for the northern portion of the property. However, the findings -- or the condition that ended up in the recommendation is that fire sprinklers will be required for all buildings associated with this project. And that's repeated on page -- repeated on page five of the Conditional Use Permit recommendation. Similarly, item number 12 from the -- from the fire department, essentially, said provide exterior egress lighting as required by the international building and fire codes. And, again, not applicable to patio homes and existing residential lots. The parenthetical phrase is missing from the recommendation that came forward to you. So, if you could make those changes. I believe the applicant has a number of copies of this. The correct wording is listed on page 16 of the staff report. With that, I will end my presentation and answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions for staff at this time? Okay. Is the applicant here? Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Sargent: Yes. De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address. Sargent: Madam Mayor, City Council Members, I'm Ron Sargent and I reside at 4915 West Camas Street in Boise. And the first thing I'd like to hand out is just the corrections to the staff report that Anna was talking about. Just to begin with, I guess the first thing I'd like to say is that we have had a number of formal neighborhood meetings, we've had four actually formal ones where we sent out notifications to people who live within 300 feet of the property and we have also had a number of informal meetings with the neighbors and I think through those meetings we have come up with a design that's been acceptable to the neighbors. As Anna mentioned at the Planning and Zoning hearing we ended up with one person that testified against us and it's interesting that he lived outside of the 300 foot radius, so he didn't get any of the notices, he didn't participate in any of the neighborhood meetings, but we had a long meeting with him afterwards to discuss what -- his main concern was the density and the main thing that I will be talking about is this portion down here is the patio homes and the limited office, which are the two sites on this project that I will be developing and Doug Clegg is going to be talking about the senior campus portion of this. But to begin with the density is in this portion here and the patio homes, we have built approximately 200 of these type of units throughout Treasure Valley and we get primarily seniors that are the owners and buyers of these residents and I guess we find that they tend to be Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 63 of 73 very good neighbors, they tend to travel at off peak hours, so they don't seem to be as much of a traffic concern as with a normal subdivision where people are traveling to work at 8:00 and returning at 5:00 o'clock in the evening. Just as also as one clarification is that these two lots here in the front will remain as R-4 that they are zoned with today. The R-8 would be the patio home area, as well as the senior campus area. And one other mention with these properties here in the front, we really think that there is a possibility of three different accesses. We are actually building a road -- it doesn't show it on this site plan, but we are actually going to stub a road in that location and we also have this lot that we are not going to build on until we see what develops out here in the front and, then, the third access is there is another public street, essentially one lot to the south here, so there is the possibility that if this lot develops there could be an access from the south as well at sometime in the future. The other thing I guess I just wanted to point out is that we have also designed a pathway system in here -- it's hard to see, but there is a pathway that comes into here, a gazebo and a common area, it's a pathway -- I see the red light's dying here. It goes through this area. There is also a pathway here and there is also -- this leads up to a pathway that will go out here to the Ten Mile Drain that will, then, lead to the multi -use pathway of the city, will be extending all the way up the Ten Mile Drain and we see this as one of the accesses that people can walk to Southern Springs, which is a retail development immediately to the north of us. So, we think that this provides good circulation and opportunity for people to get access to that retail area to the north. I guess those are the items that I had. I guess any questions? De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you. Clegg: I wasn't sworn in, Madam Mayor, so you better do me the -- 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: I'm sorry. My head is just pounding and so -- Clegg: You're doing great. It's been a long day. I will be very brief. My name is Doug Clegg, I'm at 1091 North Pinnacle Way, Eagle, Idaho. And I want to express my appreciation for all of you for not only taking this late hour, but I think all of you -- I had a chance to visit with most all of you when our previous application was denied and we were in the midst of getting this one ready to come back in and I want to thank you. We didn't feel like we really had a chance to get your input on the previous application and we have tried to do our best to make some changes here and I -- there were four main things that I heard as I spoke with all of you and I wanted to address those now. The first one was the location of the Alzheimer's unit and, Anna, I don't want to correct you, but I need to. This here is, actually, the Alzheimer's unit and this is the assisted living, which was formerly over here where these three duplexes are and we changed that at the request of many of you at City Council and also with the neighbors. In addition to Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 64 of 73 that, we gave -- we provided an additional buffer here of 25 feet on the side and 35 feet in the back and beefed up our landscaping around this perimeter here for the neighbors and I think they're kind of excited about it, actually, and, hopefully, you will get a chance to hear some of their comments a little bit later, but we made some changes there for them. I had a comment about fencing on the canal and we did, actually, quite a bit of research on that and I guess at this point we are -- there is no question we can do one on one side of the canal. The position of the Nampa -Irrigation District is you can do whatever you want, but we are not going to guarantee it's going to be there when we come through and clean it out, so we are kind of at your and their mercy right now and there seems to be a little bit of an attitude with the irrigation district that they kind of do what they want to do and so we recognize the potential risk that's there with the slopes. I have actually been out there with the engineer and reviewed that. We are probably recommending that we definitely put a fence on this side where the multi -use pathway is, which is where most of our traffic will be. We don't anticipate a lot of traffic on this side. There is, actually, quite a bit of landscaping over here and they'd have to cross the bridge to get there. We are happy to do both sides, but I don't know if it's going to be there forever, because of their disposition right now. The third thing that was brought up was, actually, letters of referral and on this is from Madam Mayor De Weerd and thank you and we -- I took some of those over to the clerk today. Do you guys have those? There are 15 letters there and we had a variety of letters that were written from neighbors and folks that stay with us and, then, also some individuals that we do business with and I hope if you haven't had a chance to read those you will and, hopefully, that sheds a favorable light on us as a provider. And, then, lastly, was just a concern of the neighbors and I don't know -- do we have a Public Hearing here? Do they get a chance to speak tonight:? Okay. Well, you will hear from them, so those are the extent of my comments, unless you had any questions for me. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Clegg: Okay. De Weerd: No. Thank you. Clegg: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Olsen: I, too, have not been sworn in. De Weerd: Okay. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Olsen: So help me God. Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 65 of 73 De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address. Olsen: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Doug Olsen, I live at 309 East Calderwood and I'm more or less representing several of the neighbors. We are in agreement that we are for this project. There has been enough meetings held for the neighbors by the developers and investors to where we understand it and the concerns we had have been met, documented, everybody signed it, all the neighbors in attendance. I don't know of anybody that is disapproving this project. So, I say it's a green light and it's up to you folks. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Further testimony? Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Anna. Canning: As a rule, you know, I don't bring up new items, but I had asked the staff planner to address one particular issue and I had assumed that that had been done and it has not. So, if I could raise one issue. I alluded to it earlier. This access road here, this is an emergency access. This is a proposed build -able lot within the subdivision. Right now we have an access coming from the commercial or office area to these two sites for redevelopment, but once this goes through to a public roadway, the applicant could remove this emergency access per the fire department's conditions. I was concerned that I didn't want that potential to have a road coming to service this residential development, which, again, is what the Comprehensive Plan calls for, that it not go away before we knew what was being developed here, because once a house gets built there, obviously, that potential goes away. I see now that that issue was not addressed with the applicant. I don't know if you want to bring it up or if you just want to discard it, because it hasn't been brought up previously, I would understand, but I did want to raise that as a concern that I have had with the redevelopment of this. If it's intended to be residential, then, that won't be an appropriate access and neither would direct access to Meridian Road. De Weerd: I'm sure the applicant can respond. Canning: And I apologize, Mr. Sargent. Sargent: Madam Mayor, Council Members, we had sort of a number of discussions about this whole issue with staff in the last few months and so some of the feelings and sort of mix is that these two lots -- or this area in here is likely to be developed as commercial, because fronting along Meridian Road, there is a lot of traffic there, the possibility that it will be popular as a residential lot I think is fairly low. So, that was the reason that we were going to build this access road. Now, what happens here is hard to say, but if it does go commercial, then, I think it makes maybe more sense for it to come through this direction, if it remains as residential then this access through here Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 66 of 73 may make more sense. I guess we are willing to go ahead and not build on that lot until the use of these lots up here are determined at sometime in the future. I mean so we are willing to work with you on that. De Weerd: Thank you. We appreciate it. Sargent: Okay. Thanks. We appreciate the neighbors being here and we also thank you for being here this late hour, so thank you. De Weerd: Is there any further testimony? You have really done your homework and so have the neighbors and we appreciate all of the collaboration that brings in it to this point and as you can see, often times we get a much better application. So, appreciate that. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I agree with what you said. I'd like to add something else. It just goes to prove that if you get with the neighbors and get showing what you are doing, most of the time they will be in favor of it. You guys have done a very very good job of relaying that to the neighbors and you've got a nice project and we appreciate it. De Weerd: Is there any further -- Rountree: I agree. De Weerd: -- comments or any further information needed? Rountree: I have none. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Hearing no further information needed, I move that we close the Public Hearing. Nary: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved seconded to close the Public Hearing on Items 18, 19, and 20; is that correct? Wardle: Yes. De Weerd: Thank you. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 67 of 73 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we approve Item No. 18, RZ 04-009, rezone for Larkspur Subdivision, including all staff, applicant, and public comments. Nary: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 18? Is there any further discussion? Mr. Clerk. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve Item No. 19, PP 04-023, preliminary plat for Larkspur Subdivision, to include all staff, applicant, and public comments, applicant comments specific to the access road remaining until such time as the two properties zoned R-4 have been zoned for their uses -- rezoned for their uses. Excuse me. Nary: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 19. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we approve Item No. 20, CUP 04-025, Conditional Use Permit for Larkspur Subdivision, to include all staff, applicant, and public comments, including staff comments on Item No. 11, to read: Fire sprinklers will be required for all buildings associated with this project, as required by International Building and Fire Codes, not applicable to patio homes and existing residential lots and Item number 12, provide Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 68 of 73 exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building and Fire Codes, not applicable to patio homes and existing residential lots. Nary: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 20. Hearing no further discussion, Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Canning: Madam Mayor -- I'm sorry. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, did the maker of the motion intend to make those corrections on the preliminary plat as well? I'm sorry. We are going back one item, but -- Wardle: Yes, I did. Canning: Okay. Item 17: Public Hearing: CPA 04-002 Request for Text Amendment to allow applicants to request an L -O zoning in areas designated as residential which are located along arterial streets and section line roads and also allow applicants to request that property with a Public/Quasi Public designation to be rezoned to a zoning district that is compatible with adjoining zoning districts and land uses upon redevelopment of the property by the City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Department: De Weerd: Thank you all very much for hanging in there with us. Okay. We have a Public Hearing on Item 17, CPA 04-002. When staff has an opportunity, she will certainly talk about that. Brevity is good. Canning: Okay. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, as you will recall, we brought forth some -- I don't know, some goofy thing called a matrix that -- that there were concerns that the matrix tried to match up uses -- specific zones with land use designations within the Comprehensive Plan and there was a fair amount of discomfort at that idea, because there was confusion particularly where the names of the use in the zone may be similar. So, staff went back to the drawing board and did not -- what we were attempting to do in that one was a couple things, was -- one was to provide some sort of mechanism for redevelopment of remainder properties where the existing older home had been kind of removed from part of the subdivision, but the time came to redevelop and there was a question of what the appropriate type of development would be. Usually it's on an arterial street and residential just doesn't seem appropriate, because they are smaller properties. The other issue we were trying to address with the matrix was the question of what do we do with churches when they want to redevelop or any other public, quasi -public use, because there is really no guidance Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 69 of 73 given by the Comprehensive Plan on the redevelopment of those properties. So, what staff has done is requested, basically, just text changes to the Comprehensive Plan, no longer a matrix of uses, but three text changes -- and I'm just reading from the staff report. The one would be in the residential section to say at the discretion of City Council, areas with the residential Comprehensive Plan designation may request office uses if the property has frontage on an arterial street or a section line road and is three acres in size or less. In this instance no ancillary commercial uses shall be permitted. So, it really just talks about office uses, so it wouldn't be complete L -O zoning, it would just be office uses within that L -O zoning. And going on under the office designation, the description of that, we would add the sentence: Additionally, as noted in the residential districts, light office uses may be appropriate in limited circumstances and at the discretion of the City Council. Finally, in the public, quasi -public, and open space section, we recommended the following sentences. Upon redevelopment of such properties a change in designation in use may be appropriate. The redevelopment of these areas should be guided by the intensity of the existing use, the underlying zoning of the property, the surrounding land uses, the location of the property, and transportation issues associated with the proposed development of the property. The appropriate land use designation and accompanying zoning for these areas will be determined by City Council on a case-by-case basis. So, those are the text amendments we are proposing. We did get letters of support from the BCA. There is a mild letter of support from the Meridian Chamber and I did want to read that one, because I thought they raised some important issues. They were concerned about having these outlying office uses as that deterring, possibly, from the downtown areas or other areas designated specifically for that use. So, they have made the statement that the chamber board is confident that should these amendments be adopted, the Meridian City Council will endeavor to be conservative in granting rezoning requests under these changes. The Chamber is especially concerned with allowing additional commercial development along arterials and section line roads adds to traffic congestion and transportation management issues. In particular, the Chamber is concerned that we do not create another traffic problem similar to Eagle Road. So, I thought that they did raise an issue that we hadn't thought of as far as other areas designated for office use. We also had some concern from the parks department -- I think I was able to address his concerns and that was with regard to the public, quasi - public. I guess his -- his opinion was that sometimes when these sites redevelop, it may be appropriate for them to redevelop as parks. And that's certainly a potential that the city would have to be ready to buy that property for that purpose. So, I think that it's still there, I think we didn't want to have you say, no, you can't do a public, quasi -public -- or you can't change from a public, quasi -public use just so we can get you as park land. It didn't seem quite appropriate, so we weren't ever sure how to word it, so I think we agreed that the wording as it was was okay. And with that I will end my presentation. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions, Council? This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to offer testimony? Just thought I'd ask. Okay. Council, what would you like to do? Bird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 70 of 73 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing for Item 17, CPA 04-002. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: I would love to hear a motion. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve CPA 04-002, and to incorporate staff, public comments. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded and I'm sure you will have a hard time including those Public Hearings -- or public comments. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 21: Water, Sewer, & Trash Delinquencies: De Weerd: Okay. Item 21. 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, September 7th, 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 September 8th, 2004, unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her water, sewer, and trash delinquency? Or staff? 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 $15,457.70. Do I have motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 71 of 73 Rountree: I move that we approve the turn-off schedule for September 8th, 2004, in the amount of $15,457.70. Bird: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve the delinquency turn-off list. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 22: Ordinance No. 04-1098 : AZ 03-029 Request for annexation and zoning of 26.48 acres from RUT to R-8(PD) zones for proposed Sheridan Place Subdivision by CMD, Inc. — north of East McMillan Road and east of North Locust Grove Road: Item 23: Ordinance No. 04-1099 : Amendment to 2003 / 2004 Fiscal Year Budget: Item 24: Ordinance No. 04-1100 : 2004 / 2005 Fiscal Year Budget: De Weerd: Items 22, 23, and 24 are ordinances. Ordinance No. 04-1098, 04-1099, and 04-1100. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, read these three ordinances by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 04-1098, an Ordinance finding that James Fuhriman and Diane Fuhriman, the owners of certain real property generally located on the north side of McMillan Road, approximately one- eighth mile east of Locust Grove Road, Meridian, Idaho, to be known as Sheridan Place Subdivision and which lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, have made a request for annexation in writing to the Council that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated Medium Density Residential District (R-8) and declaring that said land, by proper legal description as described below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith, and directing the city engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada County recorder, auditor, treasurer, and assessor and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215. Berg: Ordinance No. 04-1099, an Ordinance of the City of Meridian, Idaho, amending Ordinance No. 03-1043, the appropriation Ordinance for the fiscal year beginning October 1st, 2003, and ending September 30th, 2004, appropriate additional monies Meridian City Council September 7, 2004 Page 72 of 73 that are to be received by the City of Meridian, Idaho, in the sum of $3,714,740 and allocating additional expenditures and providing an effective date. Berg: And Ordinance No. 04-2000, an Ordinance providing for a title providing for findings providing for adoption of a budget and appropriation of expenditures of the sum of money to defray the necessary expenses and liabilities to City of Meridian in accordance with the object and purposes and for certain amounts herein specified for the fiscal year beginning October 1st, 2004, and ending on September 30, 2005, to provide for the waiving of the second and third readings pursuant to Idaho Code 50-902, and providing for an effective date and filing of the certified copy of the ordinance with the Secretary of State. De Weerd: Mr. Clerk, was that last 04-1100? Berg: Excuse me. 1100. De Weerd: Yes. Okay. I just wanted to -- okay. You have heard these three ordinances read by title only and seeing that there is no one here to ask that it be read by -- in its entirety, I would entertain a motion to accept these ordinances. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve Ordinances 04-1098, 04-1099, and 04-1100, with suspension of rules. Nary: Second. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Items 22, 23, and 24. If there is no further discussion, 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. Canning: Madam Mayor, at the meeting with Ada County today, they asked that I prepare a letter for the Council formally requesting the -- that the Ada County change the area of city impact agreement to include the parks plan. Apparently you all showing up in person was not enough, so they have asked me to write a letter -- or to have a letter from you. I will draft up that letter and get it to you for your signature. Just wanted to let you know. Meridian City Council Septemtfer 7, 2004 Page 73 of 73 De Weerd: We do appreciate that you went today and appreciate your tolerance. Council, I guess before I would entertain a motion to adjourn, I would tell you that we are -- I have Councilman Bird joining us tomorrow at a committee meeting -- or not a committee meeting -- at a meeting to entertain preparing an application for a community center in the City of Meridian and I will keep you apprised. Bird: Now my wife will be the happiest citizen in the whole town if we get it. De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Rountree: So moved. Nary: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:24 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) i MAYO Y DE WEERD DATE APPROVED '"1„i 111111111„1/,, ATTEST: OF WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, COY C RK T SEAL bu l 11,1+�`````\