Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 09-21CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, September 21, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll -call Attendance: X Shaun Wardle X Bill Nary O Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird X Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance: Boy Scout 162 3. Community Invocation by Pastor Bob Cutler with Christ Lutheran Church: Presented 4. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve as Amended 6. Consent Agenda: Approve A. Approve Minutes of August 24, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting: Approve B. Approve Minutes of August 31, 2004 City Council Regular Meeting: Approve C. Approve Professional Service Agreement with Marsh for Broker of Employee Benefits: Approve D. Approve Change Order No. 2 for Well No. 20 Pressure Zone Separation at Ustick Road: Approve 7-E. Approve Development Agreement: AZ 03-036 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.7 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 by Earl, Mason & Stanfield, Inc. — south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Approve As Amended F. Approve Bid for Pour in Place Surfacing for Adventure Island Playground: Approve G. Approve Bid for Self Contained Breathing Apparatus Bid: Approve Meridian City Council Agenda— September 21, 2004 Page 1 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation £or disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. H. Approve Well 26 Pump House Design with Civil Survey — Change Order No. 1: Approve I. Approve Well 20 PRV Telemetry Contract with Custom Electric: Approve J. Approve Partnership Agreement with PAL Soccer for Development of Lochsa Park Properly: Approve 6. Department Reports A. Mayors Office — Mayor de Weerd Appointment of Parks and Recreation Commissioners: Approve Bud Porter—expires 10-07 Jim De Boer — expires 10-07 Jim Keller—expires 10-07 B. Bill Nary 1. Resignation Letter Effective September 30, 2004: 7. (items Moved from Consent Agenda) 8. Request to Reconsider the Decision to Deny Applications for Alexandria Subdivision AZ 04-011 1 PP 04-017 1 CUP 04-016 by Lonnie Johnson: Move to Reconsider 9. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: AZ 04-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 and C -N zones for proposed Alexandria Subdivision by Lonnie Johnson — 4205 North Locust Grove Road: Remand back to Planning and Zoning Commission 10. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: PP 04-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 28 single-family residential and office building lots and two (2) common lots on 9.8 acres in proposed R-8 and C -N zones for proposed Alexandria Subdivision by Lonnie Johnson — 4205 North Locust Grove Road: Remand back to Planning and Zoning Commission 11. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: CUP 04-015 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for reductions to the minimum requirements for lot area, rear building setbacks, street side setbacks and minimum street frontage for proposed Alexandria Subdivision by Lonnie Johnson — 4205 North Locust Grove Road: Remand back to Planning and Zoning Commission Meridian City Council Agenda — September 21, 2004 Page 2 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prigs to the public meeting. 12. Tabled from September 14, 2004: FP 04-055 Request for Final Plat approval for 34 building lots and 9 common lots on 11.31 acres in R-8 and L- 0 zones for Razzberry Crossing Subdivision by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman — south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road: Approve 13. FP 04-057 Request for Final Plat approval for 8 commercial building lots on 6.9 acres in an I -L zone for Reagan Subdivision by Quadrant Consulting, Inc. — NEC of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue: Approve 14. Continued Public Hearing from September 7, 2004: 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: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial 15. PP 04-021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 residential four plex lots, 7 commercial lots and 8 common lots on 10.05 acres in a C -G zone for Sadie Creek Subdivision by FOLIO, Inc. — 2935 North Eagle Road: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial 16. Public Hearing: AZ 04-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.4 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Chatsworth Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC — west of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 17. Public Hearing: PP 04-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 77 single-family residential building lots and 4 common lots on 19.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Chatsworth Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC — west of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 18. Public Hearing: AZ 03-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 46.40 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 19. Public Hearing: PP 03-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 214 residential lots and 39 common lots on 46.40 acres in a proposed R-8 (PD) zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — east of South Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval Meridian City Council Agenda — September 21, 2004 Page 3 of All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the city of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Oflice at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 20. Public Hearing: CUP 03-070 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for residential subdivision in a proposed R-8 (PD) zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — east of South Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 21. Ordinance No. : AZ 03-036 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.7 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 by Earl, Mason & Stanfield, Inc. — south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Table to September 28, 2004 Meeting 22. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies: Approve Meridian City Council Agenda— September 2l, 2004 Page 4 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 8884433 at least 49 hours prior to the public meeting. Meridian City Council Meetina September 21, 2004. The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:10 P.M., Tuesday, September 21, 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, Ann Canning, Brad Watson, Bill Musser, Kenny Bowers, Gary Smith, Brad Hawkins -Clark, Doug Strong, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -call Attendance: Roll call. X Shaun Wardle X Charlie Rountree X X Bill Nary X Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: Good evening. Thank you for bearing with us. We had some technical difficulties to delay our start, but it is Tuesday, September 21 st. It is ten after 7:00 and welcome to our City Council meeting. Mr. Clerk, will you start us off with roll call. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: De Weerd: Item No. 2. 1 would like to welcome and thank Troop 152 for joining us tonight and we do have Devon Aukerman who will lead us in the pledge. If you will all rise. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Bob Cutler with Christ Lutheran Church: De Weerd: Thank you, Devon. Item 3 is our community invocation. Please join us in the community invocation or take this as a moment of silence. Cutler: Let us pray. Heavenly Father, unless you, Oh, Lord Omnipotent, keep the city, the wickedness and the cunning of simply people will destroy us. Therefore, Lord, we come to you, placing in your hands the needs of our city, asking you to give wisdom and ability, sane judgment and moral purpose to those who govern us. Lord, especially we lift up to you Madam Mayor and City Council Members, Lord, we pray that you would be with them. We pray, oh, Lord, that -- we know that the task is difficult, that the duties may be many and the responsibilities are heavy, but we pray that you would be with them. Lord, I pray that you would support them with your might, so that crime and lawlessness would be controlled in righteousness and integrity would prevail. Lord, for each of us here we pray that we would all be law abiding citizens, ones who seek the Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 2 of 59 welfare of the community above our own personal interest. Now, Lord, above all grant that more people in our city would come to know you as Lord and Savior, Lord, that we would, then, serve you with faithfulness and untiring zeal. Make ours, Lord, truly a Christian community and give us officials who dedicate themselves wholeheartedly to you and to their tasks and to their assignments. Then, oh, Lord, yours will be the glory and the praise through endless days, in Jesus name we pray, Amen. De Weerd: Pastor Cutler, I'd like to thank you for joining us and give you our City of Meridian pin. Cutler: Thank you very much. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: Thank you. We do appreciate our relationship with our faith community and we do have all faiths that come here and join us once a week and so we do appreciate that and thank you for joining us. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: We have one addition under the Consent Agenda, Item No. J is a Meridian Police Athletic League Agreement with the City of Meridian for Lochsa Falls Park. We need to add that to the Consent Agenda. And everything else is the same as printed and I would move that we adopt the revised agenda. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess before I second, I want to ask also if we could add to the department reports a report from myself to be Item 6-B. Bird: Sure. Nary: And, then, I would second Mr. Bird's motion. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as amended. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of August 24, 2004 Pre -Council Meeting: Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 3 of 59 B. Approve Minutes of August 31, 2004 City Council Regular Meeting: C. Approve Professional Service Agreement with Marsh for Broker of Employee Benefits: D. Approve Change Order No. 2 for Well No. 20 Pressure Zone Separation at Ustick Road: F. Approve Bid for Pour in Place Surfacing for Adventure Island Playground: G. Approve Bid for Self Contained Breathing Apparatus Bid: H. Approve Well 25 Pump House Design with Civil Survey — Change Order No. 1: Approve Well 20 PRV Telemetry Contract with Custom Electric: J. Meridian Police Department Athletic Agreement for Lochsa Falls Park. De Weerd: Item 5 is the Consent Agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: As I stated before, we got added an item, Item J, which is the Meridian Police Athletic Agreement with the City of Meridian for Lochsa Falls Park and with that I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda -- revised Consent Agenda and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda with the changes. Anna, did you have something? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mr. Hawkins -Clark was just looking at the development agreement for Salisbury Subdivision No. 2. The template is using a C -G. It should be R-8, but, otherwise, the development agreement is okay. I'm sorry, he just informed me of this now. Bird: It says R-8 here. Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 4 of 59 De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, can it be approved with just that notation? Nichols: Madam Mayor, I would recommend you pull it off the Consent Agenda and put it on the regular agenda, make the change, and, then, approve it with the change. De Weerd: Thank you. Bird: I would withdraw my motion, then, Mayor, and make a new one. De Weerd: Second agree? Nary: I agree. Bird: On the Consent Agenda, we would like to pull Item No. E to 7-E and the rest of the items I would move that we approve for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. De Weerd: With the addition. Bird: With the addition of Item J. Yeah. De Weerd: Okay. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda as discussed. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Department Reports A. Mayors Office - Mayor de Weerd 1. Appointment of Parks and Recreation Commissioners: Bud Porter — expires 10-07 Jim De Boer — expires 10-07 Jim Keller — expires 10-07 De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 6. 1 have in front of you -- these are reappointments of current serving commissioners, their expiration dates do expire next month, and so I am asking for your approval to reappoint Bud Porter, Jim De Boer, and Jim Keller. I will still have one seat remaining open and we are receiving letters of Meddian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 5 of 59 interest from our citizens. Is there any discussion? If there isn't any, could I have a motion? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we reappoint Bud Porter, Jim De Boer, and Jim Keller to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Bird: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve the reappointments of the three currently serving commissioners. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT B. Bill Nary. De Weerd: Thank you. Item B. Nary: Madam Mayor, I simply asked this item to be added as a report from me. It's no secret for anybody that's read the paper today, I'm going to be resigning my seat on this Council effective at the end of this month to take an opportunity with the City of Meridian. My letter indicates -- and I will have some comments next week at my last meeting as a council member, but I wouldn't do this but for this opportunity with the city and I look forward to a great future with the City of Meridian. But I just wanted to take the time to pass that on to Mr. Berg and that way you can begin the process of looking for a replacement. De Weerd: Okay. Procedurally, Council, I will bring this to you to affirm the appointment of Mr. Nary as our city attorney when we have all three members of the Council sitting up here. We did want to at least let the public know that there will be an opening on City Council, so that anyone who might be interested can submit a letter of interest. We do want to emphasize to the media that are here that the time commitment sometimes can be -- I guess as I read the information about the ACHD commissioners and how some of them thought, oh, my goodness, I never knew that there was so much time commitment involved, did want at least the media to at least help us get the message out of what the time commitment would be and I think it's fair to say there is about ten hours a week that is dedicated by Council and there is sometimes full day workshops as well. So, please, keep that in mind, but we certainly want to encourage all citizens who have an interest to submit at letter of interest to the Mayor's office and we look forward to see what comes about. We will bring this back to Council in a couple Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 6 of 59 of weeks when we have a chance to look at what the interest is in the community and probably will discuss when I get confirmation of Mr. Nary as city attorney next week on an exact process of how I will bring a name to you. Are there any questions? Wardle: Only ten hours? De Weerd: Oh, well, okay. Nary: Minimum of ten hours. De Weerd: A minimum of ten hours. And certainly you can call Councilman Bird or Councilman Wardle or Councilman Nary and ask questions about really what is done behind the scenes as well. So, with that said, I appreciate that, Council Nary. We certainly look forward to your new role. You have been a real asset on this Council and I have enjoyed working with you in that regard and look forward to the relationship as city attorney. Nary: Thank you. Item 7: (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) E. Approve Development Agreement: AZ 03-036 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.7 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 by Earl, Mason & Stanfield, Inc. — south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: De Weerd: And we will save our current city attorney Mr. Nichols for next week. Okay. Moving on, we did move an agenda item from the Consent Agenda, Item E. Staff has noted that there is a small change needed in the findings -- or in the development agreement. Is there any further discussion or information that needs to be discussed? Anna? Canning: No, Madam Mayor, ifs just in Items 1. 1, 1.4 and 3.3 where that reference is. De Weerd: Okay. Council, I will need a motion. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve the development agreement with Salisbury Sub No. 2 with the noted changes in 1.1, 1.4, and 3.3. Wardle: Second. Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 7 of 59 De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve 7-E. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Request to Reconsider the Decision to Deny Applications for Alexandria Subdivision AZ 04-011 / PP 04-0171 CUP 04-015 by Lonnie Johnson: Item 9: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: AZ 04-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 and C -N zones for proposed Alexandria Subdivision by Lonnie Johnson — 4205 North Locust Grove Road: Item 10: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: PP 04-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 28 single-family residential and office building lots and two (2) common lots on 9.8 acres in proposed R-8 and C -N zones for proposed Alexandria Subdivision by Lonnie Johnson — 4205 North Locust Grove Road: Item 11: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: CUP 04-015 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for reductions to the minimum requirements for lot area, rear building setbacks, street side setbacks and minimum street frontage for proposed Alexandria Subdivision by Lonnie Johnson — 4205 North Locust Grove Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Items 8, 9, 10 and 11 are altogether. We will start with staff comments. Hawkins -Clark: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Item 8 is a request to reconsider your decision of three weeks ago to deny Alexandria Subdivision's annexation and zoning request, preliminary plat, and Conditional Use Permit. The city did receive a letter from the property owner Mr. Lonnie Johnson that was dated September 9th and in his letter he is asking the City Council to reconsider the decision. One of the main reasons that the City Council -- one of two reasons that the City Council chose to deny the application was based on a street configuration on the south side of the subdivision and attached to Mr. Johnson's letter is a cross-section of that street, which is a 29 -foot back-to-back. It's called East Green Haven Street. And at the City Council Public Hearing I think it was misrepresented on the plat that that was not going to be a full 29 -foot street section. There was concern about those houses that front on that street and emergency -- if guests would park on the street, it would restrict the open portion of that street section. Even though it would be signed no parking, the Council was concerned that those signs would be ignored, that the street would be Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 8 of 59 congested, and it would cause a problem and so we did -- staff did meet with the applicant. The 29 -foot street section is what they are proposing. That is the same street section that has been approved in about four other subdivisions over the last year, including Heritage Commons, which has that as its collector, Bridgetower Crossing, and others. So, I guess staff agrees with that particular point, that the -- that the street section should not be the reason for denial, given that it is an Ada County Highway District approved section, they do have that in their policy manual as an allowable street section without parking and because of the misrepresentation on the plat, as well as by staff at that meeting, I guess we are in agreement that that should not be part of the reason for denial. The second reason for denial had to do with the neighborhood center and the nonresidential uses being further away from the center of the half mile and staff is, you know, just going to defer to Council's decision on that as to whether or not you think there is enough value in Mr. Johnson's letter that justifies reconsideration on that point. But my understanding is that the findings have not actually been prepared for tonight's meeting, so should the Council choose to not reconsider, we actually do need to table this item again for another week to allow these findings to be prepared for next week's meeting. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: I don't know if the applicant is here or if Council would like to hear from them. Is the applicant here? Mr. Wardle, if you will just state your name and address. M.Wardle: Yes, Madam Mayor, Council Members. Mike Wardle, 4910 Knollwood Avenue in Boise, representing Mr. Johnson. We do appreciate the opportunity to request reconsideration. The street section does meet both ACHD and fire department requirements for parking on one side, as does, for instance, the subdivision just to the north that you will approve a final plat, I believe, tonight, Razzberry Subdivision, has exactly the same street section that runs parallel to this roadway that allows parking on one side, as does, as staff has noted, the main entrance into Heritage Commons, along the north boundary line of that project. So, it is conforming and that was perhaps the misunderstanding. The plat that was originally submitted showed that roadway being slightly deficient, but as the Council is aware, when you do your preliminary plat you submit a revised preliminary plat, so that that's of record when you come to the Council and that of record document actually showed the full -improved roadway. All that has to happen in the future is the additional right of way for a sidewalk on the south side, but we will have full curb, gutter, and sidewalk on the north side that's being improved. So, there is no problem in terms of public safety. And we would ask for reconsideration, so that at the hearing we can consider, with your input, whether or not the neighborhood commercial would be appropriate, whether a down zone to limited office, or whether another residential type of use would be appropriate in that neighborhood center area. So, we believe that there is a reason that the Council should reconsider this matter and would so request. Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 9 of 59 De Weerd: Council? Bird: I have no questions. De Weerd: Thank you. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yeah. I think there has at least been some of the questions that we had and the concerns that were raised at the time on this subdivision. I guess what I would be willing to do is reconsider our decision for denial and refer this back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for another review of some of the changes that have been done and the like, so unless there is other comments, I guess I could make a motion. Bird: I would agree with Mr. Nary. De Weerd: And in your motion you will have clear direction on what they need to bring back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and it would reposted. Okay. Nary: Madam Mayor, based on that, then, I would move to reconsider the denial for the Alexandria Subdivision applications, AZ 04-011, PP 04-17, and CUP 04-015. 1 think we'd vote on that and, then, we'd move to remand after that. Bird: I would second that. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the reconsideration. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Item 9. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I'd move to remand all three items, nine, ten, and eleven, AZ 04-011, PP 04-017, and CUP 04-015 for the Alexandria Subdivision to the Planning and Zoning Commission to review the items in regards to the street section and I -- I didn't write down the other one. I'm sorry. Bird: Commercial. Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 10 of 59 Nary: Oh. The appropriateness of the commercial versus office in relation to the other uses in the surrounding area. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to remand back to P&Z Items 9, 10, and 11. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Clerk? Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 12: Tabled from September 14, 2004: FP 04-055 Request for Final Plat approval for 34 building lots and 9 common lots on 11.31 acres in R-8 and L -O zones for Razzberry Crossing Subdivision by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman — south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 12 is tabled from September 14th on FP 04-055. Staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the final plat for Razzberry Crossing Subdivision. We had asked you to table it last week, because there was some concern on the entrance road. As you see, they don't own the full right of way, so we just wanted to make sure we had a letter in the file from the property owner to the south, Mr. Johnson, saying that they had agreed to that road and ACHD will require that road to be in place before they sign the plat. That was the only reason we had asked to table it and with that issue resolved staff feels that the final plat is in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat and is recommending approval. To my knowledge, the applicant is in agreement with the conditions of approval. I don't believe I have a letter stating that, though. De Weerd: If the applicant is here and not in agreement, please, join us. Please state your name and address. Waite: My name is Todd Waite, I'm with Clayborne Waite Consulting, and I'm representing the Reitermans on this project. We have one issue with the staff report we wanted to clear up. On the -- we let these lots that have back lot lines against common areas, in three areas we have that in the subdivision and one of the conditions was that we would have a ten foot easement across the back of all lots and in this case these lots are -- we had a waiver in the preliminary plat that said that we could put detached garages or rear garages within five feet of the back lot lines. So, in these cases we are saying that a five-foot easement would be adequate and we can slide that garage back there, instead of the ten -foot, and in all other cases we will be able to provide the ten feet back lot easement. Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 11 of 59 De Weerd: Okay. Waite: Does that make sense? De Weerd: Anna? Canning: Yes, ma'am. De Weerd: Does that make sense to you? Canning: Yes. I think he had discussed it with the city engineer and the city engineer is indicating that that's -- that's fine. De Weerd: Okay. So that works with the easement? Canning: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Now, is the current condition clear enough or does something need to be added? Watson: Madam Mayor, it's site specific comment 3-A that's asked to revise note number five to read ten feet adjacent to rear lot lines. It can be changed to -- well, a phrase can be added to the end of that condition that says: Or five feet where those lots abut common areas. I believe that will solve their concern. De Weerd: Thank you, Brad. Is there anything further from Council or staff? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain a motion. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we approve FP 04-055, final plat approval for Razzberry Crossing Subdivision and to include all staff and applicant comments, specific to site specific condition 3-A, note number five. Bird: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 12 with the noted change. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 12 of 59 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 13: FP 04-057 Request for Final Plat approval for 8 commercial building lots on 6.9 acres in an I -L zone for Reagan Subdivision by Quadrant Consulting, Inc. — NEC of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 13 is FP 04-057. We will start with the staff comments Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a final plat for Reagan Subdivision, which is just south of Crossroads shopping plaza. The final plat is in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat as you see them here. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions as stated in the staff report. I do not have a letter from the applicant indicating that they are in agreement with the conditions of approval. With that I will end staffs presentation. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here and are you in agreement with all staff comments? The applicant has indicated yes. Council, do you have any questions for the applicant or staff? Bird: I have none, Mayor De Weerd: Okay. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we approve FP 04-057, final plat for Reagan Subdivision. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 13. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from September 7, 2004: 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: Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 13 of 59 Item 15: PP 04-021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 residential four plex lots, 7 commercial lots and 8 common lots on 10.05 acres in a C -G zone for Sadie Creek Subdivision by FOLIO, Inc. — 2935 North Eagle Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Items 14 and 15 are continued public hearings from September 7th on CUP 04-023 and PP 04-021. 1 will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just a quick synopsis of what happened at the last hearing. This property is located on Eagle Road. It's only access is via Eagle Road. The proposal was for office units on the east side of the property and four-plex units on the west side. There was an issue regarding ITD. We had a letter stating that they would not provide access and, then, we had testimony that there would be temporary access. So, the access issue was unclear. In addition to that, we have received another letter that should have been made available in your packet, dated September 20th. It is a request from ITD that you table the request for Sadie Creek until they have a meeting about the requested access with their state engineer and that meeting will occur tomorrow, Wednesday, September 22nd, 2004. Also, since the last hearing I wanted to update you on a couple other items. The property owner to the south, John Ewing, came into our office to discuss his concerns with the proposed development and these become important in that -- let me find another drawing here. That a portion of the entry road coming into the property is built on Mr. Ewing's property as you see it right there and, then, it drops down here. I think you can follow that line. So, a portion of the road is on Mr. Ewing's property, so it is necessary to have his cooperation to build the road as depicted on this site plan. He's stating that he has not consented to this road being built on the property and does not wish to participate in this roadway with the developer. He wants the roadway to be on the Ruwe property. There was also a proposal to leave the irrigation lateral open along the south side of this road. He would -- Mr. Ewing would like to see the lateral tiled as required by Meridian City Code. He's willing to tile his portion of the lateral when he is ready to develop with his two sisters and it does cross over in this area. Finally, going north, Mr. Wynkoop came in representing Mr. Eagy and discussed the issues with procuring access up to Ustick through the Eagy property, which, as you remember, is just north of this. On September 20th Mr. Hood also received a phone call from Mr. Eagy -- not the only phone call, but the most recent phone call, and the concerns were as follows: The lack of the 20 foot buffer requirement. You will remember in particular there was an issue with the buffer in this area here and, then, along here as well. Mr. Eagy would like the full width of the buffer provided and, then, he was also concerned about the lack of clarity from ITD staff on the access to Eagle Road and how that access will be bought or sold or acquired across his property. He was also concerned about the lack of a revised site plan, but since it came forward with a recommendation for denial, there was not a request to do a revised site plan. Isn't that correct? Finally, there is a letter that I believe you received Mr. Eagy to Mr. Kunz, who is with ITD, just a clarification letter from their phone conversation and it says to recap our conversation to confirm what we discussed, the following is my understanding. State of Idaho traffic department has made no plans at Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 14 of 59 this time to do an off-site condemnation across our property to gain access to Ustick Road. So, that's an update on the progress or what's happened in the last couple of weeks and also kind of to refresh your memory on some of the issues. The only direction I didn't go was east. As you will remember, the issue to the -- I'm sorry. West. The issue to the west was the cut -through traffic through Carol Subdivision and the concerns of the neighboring property owners that have the acre properties along this boundary. And with that I will answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions? At least for staff right now? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing and we are required by ordinance to swear in those that wish to testify on any of these items that we have listed as Public Hearing, that would be Items 14 through 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 so much. Okay. Is the applicant here this evening? Please come forward. If you would, please, state your name and address. Unger: Madam Mayor, my name is Bob Unger and I'm with Ratcliff Development. Our address is 988 Longmont Avenue, Boise, Idaho. 83706. De Weerd: Thank you. Unger: Right off the bat, Madam Mayor, we would certainly appreciate getting copies of these letters that staff just brought up this evening. I mean if they are entered as evidence, we would certainly like to see those letters also. De Weerd: Okay. Unger: Thank you. And we thank you for allowing the opportunity to present our project this evening. Anna, could I get you to start up the -- Madam Chair, Council Members, once again, I think staff has done a fine job of initially reviewing the project and I'd like to point out to you that when we started out with this project and we -- the staff report that was prepared for this project recommended approval and, of course, the Planning and Zoning Commission denied us and here we are after our appeal and considering the conditional use and the preliminary plat. We originally -- our original proposal was for 30 four-plex buildings and seven commercial lots, based upon some recommendations from staff our inability to provide enough parking spaces, we removed a building that originally was right in this area, so our application has been reduced down to 29 four- plex buildings and seven commercial lots. This property was annexed earlier this year and it was annexed with a development agreement and as a part of that development Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 15 of 59 agreement it specifically recommended that a multi -family development would be in this area in here and commercial out here towards Eagle Road. We met with staff. Staff has reviewed our initial plans and gave us a few suggestions and we made modifications to that, but based upon the plan, a rather vague plan that was presented during the annexation and the development agreement, our project is in compliance with that development agreement and the requirements that went along with the annexation. The roads that we are proposing are all public roads. Since we have gotten comments from ITD, this entrance, based upon staff -- their staff, this entrance would not be allowed and they are recommending that some sort of an access go all the way up to Ustick. So, this would be modified to eliminate any permanent access out there. We would still ask for an interim access, which their staff has indicated that they would support us on an interim access to Eagle Road. ACHD has required that this road be a 54 -foot right of way and that we have 40 feet of pavement, instead of the standard 29 -foot back -of -curb to back -of -curb. This provides for substantial area for parking, emergency services in and out of the project. In addition to the proposed road that would run north -south and connecting to Ustick Road, we have two commercial driveways that could be extending on over and up to Ustick also. At this point, not knowing what's going to happen to the property to the north, we don't know how well that would work, but, certainly, this would be the first step in the overall development of this entire corner that we have here, the corner of Ustick and Eagle Road. All utilities are available to the site. The city just put in a new water line down through here, all the way in front of the property. We have two different points where we can gain access or where sewer is accessible. I think in staffs review they are recommending that we go to this corner to connect. We have provided in here -- we are required to have a 35 -foot landscape strip. We have no problems providing that. Also, we a providing a 30 -foot landscape strip with berms and trees, et cetera, on the western boundary. Anna, could you move to the next one, please? Thank you. This is an overhead view of our proposed landscaping. Once again, here is the 30 -foot buffer that staff has instructed us that we needed to put in and this is in -- going along with the development agreement. And right next to there we have we are proposing their garage slant storage units for use of the folks in the project. It's 24 -- there are 24 garages in there. We have a total of 52,000 -- or in excess of 52,000 square feet of open space, which include amenities. We have a large open space area here, which can be used for -- you know, for kids for soccer -- it's big enough to throw a football, there is many many things that can happen there. This building now is gone, so we have a huge open space here. We anticipate in this area here having a tot lot with, you know, swings, things like that. And, then, the rest of this was still going to be just an open area. There is also a strip down through here, it's a nice open area, too. And with each -- with -- we have picnic tables that we put in with all of the buildings for use by the owners and there is a -- and we may as well discuss this right now. The Ewing property to the south, certainly if they are not amiable to granting some sort of an easement for this section of our road, then, we will move the road over and get it off of their property. That's no problem. As far as the ditch, our original plan was to do something more decorative, leaving the ditch open. It's not a huge ditch, it doesn't have a great deal of water in it, and our original thoughts were to put some river rock in the bottom of it, put the slopes to five -to -one slopes on the side and really turn it into an amenity. In that the owner of the property to the south Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 16 of 59 isn't open to doing that, then, that's out the window and we won't be doing that, we will tile it. As far as -- Anna, we go onto the next -- this is a view -- these are views of what these three properties would see once the project is built. We are proposing a six foot vinyl fence around the project and, as you can see, we really are planning to put in some extensive trees and landscaping along the -- along this border here and also we anticipate doing the same thing along the northern boundaries. But we just wanted to give you an idea of what these folks over here, what their views would be. This is from a two-story house. This would be looking at their second story window. This is a single story home looking out of their window and, once again, I believe this is also a two story looking out from the back of their home. And, Anna, could we go to the next one, please? As far as -- these are some just general color schemes of the -- of the buildings. We have some -- a couple of other colors, but, as you can see, they are all very -- very neutral and it also gives you an idea of what the structures look like and they are very very unique in that they look more like a house than they do a four-plex. We are trying to get away from that boxy look with all of the -- so, you know, we have got the different roof lines breaking up, we have pop outs all over the whole -- on all sides. There are individual entrances. Each four-plex -- or each unit has its own entrance on each side of the building. They have an entrance here, there is one right here, and it's the same on the other two sides. These are two story structures each unit is a two story unit. They could be split into quarters and sold as condos even. That's not our proposal, but that just gives you a real good idea of what they look like. Anna, could we go to the next one, please? Once, again, these are buildings that currently exist. These particular ones are in Nampa. Nampa doesn't have the requirement for the extensive landscaping, but, certainly, we are finding that we really -- it really enhances the project when you do the landscaping. So, as we have moved over here into Ada County, we have done a couple of projects in Boise city where we have done extensive landscaping and, of course, we are proposing that on this project. Next one, please. Just a couple of shots of the interior of the structures. This -- we have a Unit A and a Unit B. Unit A -- this is the living -- main living area, the kitchen. The Unit B, actually, has an open area above the main living area and, of course, that's the kitchen also. Now, this is very -- this shows the interim access that I was discussing earlier. And, of course, we have reduced the width of the entrance, taken away the island. 1, actually, would consider putting an island in in this area as the road goes to the north. Another possibility, depending upon what ITD decides to do, I could move these commercial structures over to the east and we, actually, do have enough room for a public road stubbed right here. And those are just some thoughts and ideas on what we could do. And, Anna, if we can go back to -- that one's fine. Thank you. A couple of comments that I had from staff pertaining to the buildings. There is a requirement that we have at least 100 square feet of patio or deck for each unit and I just want to confirm each one of these units has a ten -by -ten patio, so that meets that requirement. We are -- along with the project, of course, we would have a property owners association, CC&Rs, which would address the maintenance -- ownership maintenance of the landscape areas, the open space, buildings, and the drainage. In addition to that, we would have a property management company, which would oversee the entire project. I know that a lot of what's going on right now we are waiting for ITD to respond with some sort of a final decision. At this point, from what we have seen from ITD, we really have Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 17 of 59 no problems with the staff recommendations that -- ITD's staff recommendations, depending what comes out of the meeting tomorrow with the ITD engineers. I guess we will see whether they are going to follow the staffs recommendations or not, but we certainly have no problems with their recommendations and, in fact, we are hoping it goes that way, because I think their recommendation not to grant us access to Eagle Road really responds to the concerns that we have heard from the neighbors about people turning -- coming right out of our project, going down to Leslie Drive, which loops around and comes back out to Ustick, because if we only have a right -in, right -out, I tend to agree with them that's probably what people are going to do, they are going to do that. So, if we are not -- you know, if we don't have a permanent access to Eagle Road, then, that eliminates that concern and all of our traffic will have to be directed to the north up to Ustick Road. I would like to -- and I don't know if I can ask this question of the Council or of the city attorney. It's something I have asked before and I haven't gotten an answer. Since we do have a development agreement that has been signed and recorded, our question is how binding is this development agreement. De Weerd: Okay. Well, your time is up and were you saved by the bell or -- Mr. Nichols, he did get his question out before that red light came on. Nichols: In another two weeks I would be saved by the bell and someone else would be on the hot seat. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, development agreements are enforceable and we believe the ones that we draft are enforceable agreements. The question is really to what extent developer can bind the city's hands with regard to a concept plan that's contained in the development agreement like the one that was entered into here. The concept plan -- Anna, do we have that in your Powerpoint at all? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I will look for it. It may take me a moment. Unger: Madam Mayor, I do have a copy here. De Weerd: Okay. If you will give it to Anna, she can put it up on the screen. Unger: Of the development agreement; right? De Weerd: Oh, no, I thought you meant the concept plan. Bird: The concept plan. Unger: Oh, the concept plan. I've got one in my file if you don't. De Weerd: We will have it as part of public record. Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the concept plan -- the area -- the primary area in controversy with the neighbors in the Carol Sub is the area located on the western portion of the Ruwe property in this application, but my recollection of that Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 18 of 59 concept plan is there was a narrow band of multi -family residential along that western boundary. It looked kind of like a hot dog shape type thing with dashed lines. Multi- family residential means many things. It does not necessarily mean a certain number of four-plexes, it does not necessarily mean how many stories or variety of -- if you want to call them fuzzy factors, but things that can be taken into account to address the neighbors concerns with regard to a development. It was emphasized that it was concepts and the Council was granting the annexation without the exact development proposal in front of them. But, again, those things are somewhat fluid and I think that since they are merely concepts, it does allow flexibility for the. Council with regard to what makes sense for this community. So, Mr. Unger, I don't know if that answers your question, but that's merely one lawyer's opinion and wait awhile and I might have a second opinion. De Weerd: Well, Mr. Nichols, I think, too, even if there is a conceptual in the development agreement, I know the city has to also determine if there is a safety factor and there is more details that come with the CUP and a preliminary plat that doesn't make sense if you're setting yourself up for some safety issues, that's a totally separate issue. Is that correct or do you, then, have to approve something that would not be safe and logical or an amenity to your community. Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I love rhetorical questions. De Weerd: And I love to ask them. Nichols: No, you're not required to approve anything that's illogical or unsafe. De Weerd: Thank you. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess, Mr. Unger, I'd ask you the same question. I mean are you asking that because you believe that your client's position is that when we approved the development agreement with some concept plan that we somehow committed ourselves to that design or that specific type of configuration? I mean my recollection of this -- and this is a pretty extended hearing that we had on this property and it took a number of different gyrations before you ultimately approved it, but I guess my recollection was is the one thing we seem to hold fast on in every discussion was these are all concepts, it was all going to be conditional use, we would see everything that came before it and your clients knew that when we agreed to annex this property with this development agreement, that we weren't committed to anything on this property, other than the idea of mixed use. Now, is the reason you ask that question is because you believe we committed to something more than my recollection? Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 19 of 59 Unger: Madam Mayor and Mr. Nary, no, I mean we certainly understand that, you know, we have a process that we have to go through. I think that we -- the development agreement, you know, although it was a concept plan, it kind of specified that a mixed use, multi -family would be encouraged on this piece of property and we feel that what we have designed here really does meet the intent of that development agreement and even so much as that when we met with staff, staff said, yeah, this works. This works. And staff even recommended approval of the project with, you know, certain conditions, you know, and so, you know, we have felt that we have moved forward with a project here that really is what the Council was expecting on this piece of property. So, you know, as far as the life safety issues, I agree a hundred percent, we -- you know, we all have to be concerned about those. But we feel that we have addressed those life safety issues. The accesses are the most important concern of this entire project and we know that and we have known that from the get go. De Weerd: Mr. Unger, I guess I don't want to interrupt you, but you're going beyond his question and your time is up and so -- Unger: I hope I answered the question. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'd like to ask -- he brought up the access and you really don't have a guarantee of an access. I mean even the Eagle Road access isn't guaranteed. That's a temporary. And off to Ustick is no way guaranteed. I think this project, until you -- in my mind, until you can have some guaranteed access, I mean you can go ahead and, I guess, but I don't know how are you going get everybody in there. In and out. I mean I don't see where you have got guaranteed in and out, unless you know something I don't. Unger: Madam Mayor, Mr. Bird, it would be -- I'm not an attorney, but it would be very very hard for ITD to not grant us some sort of access. Their staff has already commented about it would be a taking. They have to provide us with some sort of access. And we -- of course, we feel the same way, you know. And we are land locked. You know, there is property to the north, property to the south, who knows what's going to happen. We do know that the property to the north has been listed for sale, but we don't know what's going to happen there. But I guess the question -- it all boils down to when -- when is the right time to develop this? You annexed it and we feel we should be able to develop it and we should be able to get the accesses. I mean, granted, if we don't get the accesses, we don't go anywhere. We know that. But here we are, we are stuck in between two pieces of property that may not develop and we have frontage on Eagle Road that ITD doesn't want to give us access to. Although, they are going to have to give us some sort of access to somewhere. And I guess that decision is going to be made tomorrow. So, I guess that would be my answer to that question. Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 20 of 59 De Weerd: Mr. Unger, I guess I would ask have you talked with the surrounding landowners to do a joint plan for that whole area? Then, you could answer some of these access issues and from my understanding is your interim access from ITD would only be a right -in, right -out; is that correct? Unger: Yes, ma'am. De Weerd: So, you know, that's certainly not the idea and it certainly underscores the concerns of the written testimony that we have received and the testimony that was provided at the Planning and Zoning Commission. So, my question to you, since I shouldn't always ask rhetorical questions, is have you talked to the property owners to the north and south and -- to see if you could do a joint plan, so that you get a whole picture and that helps even draw out the access issues. Unger: Madam Mayor, we have talked to the property owner to the south and I have no idea what he wants to do. I made a comment during the Planning and Zoning Commission, which really upset him, so I'm really not going to go any further about any discussions we have had with him. The property to the north, there have been some attempts to speak with him and we have -- there has been phone tag back and forth, but, really, we haven't been able to connect to make any plans for the entire 40 acres there. The gentleman to the north that was a part of the original annexation withdrew, so we don't know what he wants to do. Like I said, he's listed his property, so we don't know what's going to happen there at all. I mean -- and it's very very hard to go in and sit down and talk to people who own, you know, the same kind of acreage that we have and try to put something together that would benefit all of us, especially when they know that they can hold us up if they want to. So, as much as -- you know, I mean we'd like to move forward with the project. Absolutely would love to move forward with the project. We think we have a great project that meets a lot of needs here, but without access we are kind of stuck. The interim access would be fine. I guess the question is how quick is ITD going to provide an alternate access? That's -- we are fine with an alternate access to Ustick Road. De Weerd: Council, any further questions? Thank you. We do have a number of people who have signed up on the sheet to indicate their support for or against. We have also received a number of letters of testimony that is on the public record as testimony and your items have been noted. If you would like to provide additional testimony, certainly, you're welcome, but I did want to underscore that your letters have been received, they are in our public record, and we have read every single one of them. So, if -- I will go through this list and, I'm sorry, we should have provided two sheets, but there is one and it's a little bit jumbled, so I will go ahead and read off the names and also how they have marked for or against. If you would like to step forward at that time to provide additional testimony, you're certainly invited to. We first have R.E. Martin. For? Are you for or against? Martin: I'm against it. Meridian City Council September 21, 2904 Page 21 of 59 De Weerd: Okay. There is two marks there and I wasn't quite sure. so always ask. Right? Never assume. Okay. Would you like to provide testimony? Okay. You are on record here for against. I have Doris Martin. Also against. Betty Rosso? Against. John Eagan also against. Pauline Casper against. Adeline Chandler against. Okay. Thank you. Dennis Atler -- or Denise. I'm sorry. Atler. Alter. Against. And, certainly, if you would like to provide testimony, please, stand when I call your name, too, so I don't pass over you. Lester Alter against. Jim -- I think it's Law or Lam. Against. Linda Loff or Larr -- is that Larr. Lau. Thank you. I'm sorry. Also against. Roberta Williams against. Thank you. Walter Williams against. Thank you. Linda White against. Thank you. Robert White also against. Thank you. Candy Seeley against. Sarah Dyer against. Okay. Jeanine Helms against. If you will please step forward. And were you sworn in? Helms: Yes, ma'am. De Weerd: Okay. If you will just state your name and address. Helms: My name is Jeanine Helms and I live at 1374 Leslie Way. De Weerd: Thank you. Helms: I'm speaking on behalf of homeowners who live in the Carol Subdivision and, as you can see, many of them are in the audience this evening. We are here to testify in opposition to this development. We are opposed to the Conditional Use Permit and the preliminary plat. We have some issues about our opposition to present and you have heard much on many of these, so I'll try and be as brief as possible. The transition from low-density residential dwelling to high-density residential dwellings happens very suddenly in this development. Each of the homes in the Carol Subdivision resides on an acre or more. The proposed development suggests high density residential with 15 dwelling units per acre. The homeowners feel that allowing such high density in close proximity to the homes will devalue the homes in the 40 plus acres of the Carol Subdivision. We recommend that the closest dwellings to the west property line be three dwelling per acre, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and would provide a transition from low density residential to higher residential. We have all heard a lot about traffic tonight. We are very concerned about the right in, right -out on Eagle Road. It will be fine for residents in this new subdivision wishing to travel south on Eagle, but anyone wanting to go in the other direction will logically loop through Leslie Drive to get back to Ustick. The Planning and Zoning report indicated that this development would generate up to 1,550 vehicle trips per day. It wouldn't be unexpected to assume that 800 of those would go through Leslie Way. We are concerned also about the permanent site access. This is our last issue. The P&Z staff report states that the permanent access should be via Ustick Road and that the Eagle Road access would be closed when that occurs. At that -- when that occurs with this, the traffic getting to the commercial sites on this plan will have to travel through the residential portions of this development and when it was before P&Z, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay questioned the prudence of this design and thought that perhaps the Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 22 of 59 layout of it was a little backwards. And it seems awkward to us as well. And the whole uncertainty of the access to this really makes us wonder how temporary this temporary access will be. Most of the planning and zoning issues were already covered this evening, but I didn't hear anything about the one issue about that the Meridian police were -- indicated opposition to any development west of the Ruwe Way access, the street in the middle, until there is a second access to this development. We were wondering how long the project might sit half finished waiting for the access issues to get resolved. With these issues still unresolved, we ask the City Council to deny the preliminary plat and the Conditional Use Permit. Thank you for your time and attention. Be happy to answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Thank you. Counsel, do you have any questions? Okay. Thank you. Bob Hert is against. Debbie Hert against. Okay. John Ewing neutral. Did you raise your hand? Ewing: I did. Yes. De Weerd: Okay. If you will just state your name and address. Ewing: I'm John Ewing. I live at 2934 East Lake Hazel, Meridian, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Ewing: As -- if you notice, I did put neutral in there. I represent the partnership of Sarray Company that owns the piece of property south of this project -- proposed project. I did have three concerns and I probably didn't do a good job of explaining it to staff. That first one being I have talked to the developer and they had said that they were going to move the road and everything on their property. What concerned me was is the plat never did change. So, that's something that was discussed probably three or four weeks ago. The second issue that I wanted to bring up is the ditch. I believe that part of the ditch is on our property. I think my statement was is that I wanted them to take care of the ditch on their property. I don't care whether or not they tiled it or not, that's not an issue with us. It's just -- basically what my partners and I have said was is what happens in that project needs to happen on their property. The third issue that concerns me a little bit -- and I think it was addressed earlier, but last week -- or two weeks ago in the testimony about that north -south road there that is going to go over to Ustick and that probably ITD was not going to allow any other access onto Eagle, that concerns us a lot. I don't know that that's true or not true, but if it is true, the only thing we would ask -- and I think that they said they were going to do that, but that -- if, in fact, this goes somewhat I think it sets a precedence of maybe what would happen south of there and maybe not. I'm not saying that. But we could create a lot more traffic -- or not us, but maybe the next landowner. So, that seems like that north -south road is going to become an awfully major road, so we would ask that that - and I think Mr. Unger said that it was going to be -- or maybe Anna did -- a full width road that is equal to a -- what do you call it into a subdivision? A collector -- a collector? And I think regardless of Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 23 of 59 how that corner gets developed, there are going to need to be some pretty good accesses north and south and that's all I had to say. De Weerd: Okay. Ewing: Any questions? De Weerd: Any questions from Council? Bird: I have none. Ewing: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Maureen Thurston against. David Thurston also against. Okay. If you will just -- name and address. Thurston: I was sworn. Okay. My name is David Thurston. I live at 1470 Leslie Way. My property is right adjacent there on the very south of the -- touches up against the property that's being proposed. I, too, represented the owners of the Carol Subdivision. To continue the testimony of Mrs. Helms, there has been a lot of testimony given at each of the public hearings stating the homeowners' opposition to the planned development of Sadie Creek into multi -family residential dwellings. The opposition centers on a couple of major issues and Mrs. Helms has talked about those issues in length, but the one I'd like to really focus on right now is the transition from low density residential dwellings to high density residential. Mrs. Helms stated in her public testimony one dwelling per acre is what we have currently in the Carol Subdivision. It is proposed that the new development will have 15 dwellings per acre. This is not in harmony with the current neighborhood and as stated in prior public testimony, is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states on page 100: Other residential densities will be considered without requiring a Comprehensive Plan amendment. However, the density can only be changed by one step. That is from low to medium or medium to high. And on page 98 the Comprehensive Plan also states that transitional usage is encouraged when a project is developed adjacent to low or medium density residential uses. During the initial planning and zoning meeting when annexation and rezoning was being considered, the homeowners were opposed to that, because there was a lack of a plan for this overall property. When we expressed our opposition, the Chairman of the Planning and Zoning, Mr. Borup, asked the homeowners if we could support transition from low density to L -O commercial, light office commercial. The homeowners in attendance at that meeting said, yes, we could support that type of transition. It has been over a year since that meeting and one of the major issues still being debated is transitional usage. Transitional usage is important to homeowners, because we do not want a development, which detracts from ours and is not in harmony with the existing neighborhood. The current development plan does not support a transition from low density residential to medium density residential or to light office commercial and, therefore, is not in harmony with the existing neighborhood or in accordance with the stated Comprehensive Plan. The other Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 24 of 59 issue I wanted to talk about was the temporary access that Mrs. Helms has -- I think has covered that quite adequately. And also it appears that there is going to be some resolution or at least some discussions on a permanent access before this project goes forward. Like I said, we have been -- the first annexation and rezoning meeting was, I think, in September 2003. Here it is almost a year later and there still are lots of issues that have been unresolved. In reviewing the current situation, the majority of the homeowners -- and there is about 46 homes in the Carol Subdivision, and I think we have a total majority that is absolutely opposed to this development in its current form. The Planning and Zoning Committee has denied the preliminary plat because of several outstanding unresolved issues and as of tonight those issues still have not been resolved. That Planning and Zoning Commission also recommended that the City Council deny the Conditional Use Permit, because the preliminary plat was denied. Therefore, a CUP at this time is inappropriate. The homeowners of the Carol Subdivision support the Planning and Zoning recommendations and asks the Council to deny the Conditional Use Permit and deny the preliminary plat as it currently stands. If the Council does not deny, we would suggest that maybe it needs to be remanded back to Planning and Zoning Commission for their consideration. This concludes my testimony. Thank you for this opportunity and I will entertain any questions. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Thurston. Any questions? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Thurston: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. I had Debbie Martin Would you like to provide testimony? Helen? Thank you. Mark Van Hugh Thank you. Eagy: My address is -- De Weerd: Were you sworn in? Eagy: I was. Thank you. against. For? Oh, so you were the mark for. Okay. Jerry Morrisette against. As well as against. Okay. Greg Eagy against as shown. De Weerd: Okay. If you will, please, state your name and address. Eagy: My name is Greg Eagy and my address is 3055 North Eagle Road. De Weerd: Thank you. Eagy: Thank you. A couple of things I'd like to talk about and the main one is the road to the north, which is across our property, which caught me totally by surprise two Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 25 of 59 weeks ago. I first contacted our attorney and had a long discussion with him about the road, had him do some research on the road and, then, I contacted or I tried to contact Mr. Chris Canfield, who wrote the letter that said that they recommended this road, but he's gone for two weeks and won't be back. So, I talked to his boss, a Mr. Dan Kunz. First I started higher and they sent me down to Dan Kunz. Dan Kunz, as of -- the reason he sent that letter over saying he'd like you to postpone this meeting is because I said that this road was very critical to this meeting. I didn't ask him to send a letter to postpone the meeting, but I think he got a little frightened about what they had actually said in their letter. I asked him if he could confirm their authority -- this is the exact words -- to move forward with an off-site condemnation for the benefit of a private development. He said they had not spoken with the board and this was an issue that would have to go before the entire board, not just the group meeting tomorrow. So, I think Mr. Unger may be mistaken. They are going to discuss this, but no decision is going to be made tomorrow. Secondly, they have to appropriate money, they have to take a vote, they have to go through a lot of process here to do a condemnation. But it's our understanding, in looking through the law, that there has not been at the state of Idaho a condemnation for private development at the request -- because the private developer has come before and said our time -able is here, we need to do a condemnation. Now, granted, I don't disagree that we do need more access and I'm probably going to be in the same boat. We have put our property up for sale. But, you know, access to Ustick Road has got to be thought out and planned in how that's going to come together, too. I spoke to one of Winston Moore's group, they called me, they have got some developmental ideas on what they are looking at for their access across the other side and they are very nice people. At this point I would say that the cart's way ahead of the horse, folks, and I don't know quite how you do this. The other thing I would like to address real quickly is the conditional use process -- permit requires that a project be compatible with the surrounding areas. In a dense, multi -family, the requirement for the code setback is 20 feet. I spoke to Craig Hood about this way before the Planning and Zoning, that first one that they had, and he said he had made a mistake when he had reviewed this project and that he had allowed them to show the project with only ten feet on the whole north side. I contend that 20 feet is important, because if commercial ever develops to the north side of that and you have homes with a ten foot setback, you're going to require those commercial people to move further to the north to give those people the setback that they should actually have and that should be given today. So, that's the end of my testimony. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Eagy, I guess I would have a question. Eagy: Yes. Go ahead. De Weerd: And that is would you be open to talking with this property owner and also the property owner south of that looking at that area as a whole? Eagy: John Ewing and I have become friends. He's a great guy to deal with. Mr. Swain did call me about a week ago and, basically, the way his comments were -- make sure I get this correct, because I don't want to say it wrong. Would I like to meet with Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 26 of 59 him to talk about how the state is going to set that road so that I can decide part of where that goes before the state does and that put me in kind of an uh position. I guess if someone approached me and said would you like to sell me a piece of property to go right across your property for a road, I would sit down and probably visit with them, but I guess at this point I don't want to just give land away to give land away. We bought that land to have access to Ustick Road ourselves. And I understand their dilemma, if the state's not going to allow them onto Eagle Road, but we are going to be in the same boat, too, if that's the case. So, in answer to your question, yes, maybe. De Weerd: Yes, maybe. Eagy: Well, no, I mean -- De Weerd: I understand that answer. Eagy: Thank you De Weerd: Okay. Steve and Debbie Meredith against. Okay. Thank you. Sam Martin for. Okay. And -- oh, I'm sorry, I didn't look on the backside. Sandra Knorpp. I'm sorry. You sure can. Adding Billy to that as well. Maureen Boyle against. Okay. And Steve Grant against. Canning: Madam Mayor, can you say that name into the record. The stenographer didn't get it. The last name. De Weerd: Lewis Sareno. Thank you. Okay. And you were sworn in Grant: I was. De Weerd: If you will just state your name and address. Grant: My name is Steve Grant. I live at 1534 Leslie Way and the property is adjacent - - on the western edge of that -- the proposed development. I will try and be brief to preserve the time we have this evening, but there is a couple of things that I'd just like to underscore, really, and -- because most of this has been gone over, but the development agreement that was -- that came before Planning and Zoning came at the last minute. It was very vague and it did not address any of these traffic issues that now are the core of this development. And I think that's significant, because we did agree that we would review this through the Conditional Use Permit process and the developer seems to think that everything is in compliance. It's so vague it could hardly not be in compliance, that it was that open-ended, in my opinion. Interim access has been -- interim is -- can be a long time, as I think everybody understands, and I'm concerned that the developer recognizes the problem, but has done nothing to try and abate it. It's just as if that's the way life is, I have got a million and a half dollars invested in this project for just the land and if you folks have a few more cars going down your road -- he's never addressed it. And that may not be his attitude, but that's Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 27 of 59 the -- his silence conveys that and just as Mr. Eagy has testified, he would be willing to talk -- apparently not enough effort, given the importance of this, was made to contact him and I think that, again, that's evidence of they only want to do what they want to do and that concerns me, because in the end that's going to have a negative impact on the homeowners. I think that the issue of this being laid out backward is a significant one in that if that access is eventually -- well, if it's not granted, you're going to have the commercial development on -- have to drive through the residential to get to the commercial and one of the things that we have said all along, as Mr. Thurston has testified, that we'd like to see the light office on that other end. So, now if they -- they have development you have all the traffic going through the residential neighborhood, nearly all of it, going to that -- go to the commercial part and that just doesn't make a lot of sense. In the end I think that any kind of a decision you make that it negatively impacts this. It's certainly not the end. There is lots of options for the developer to go back and take another look at this. Even waiting is not the end and to do it in connection with all of the other issues that have been raised and get them addressed properly. And, lastly, there is some indication that there is an access going to be granted, but the letter that was presented last -- two weeks ago, excuse me, from the ITD suggested everything but that and I haven't seen anything -- perhaps you have, but see anything that would suggest -- that could be submitted in written testimony that that access might be forthcoming. That's the end of my testimony. Any questions? De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions, Council? Grant: Thank you De Weerd: Thank you. That is what I had signed up on my list. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this application? If you would like to step up to mike, we will certainly take your testimony and your questions. Boyle: I'm Maureen Boyle -- De Weerd: Maureen, if you will speak into the microphone. Boyle: Oh. I'm Maureen Boyle. De Weerd: And your address. Boyle: 2109 Leslie Drive. De Weerd: Thank you. Boyle: I just have a question. We went to a meeting at the Christian Community Center maybe two months ago, a month and a half ago, with ACHD and other representatives talking about what they wanted to do to fix Eagle Road and at that time they presented plans for secondary roads in any new development along Eagle Road and I'm confused by what I see, because it doesn't show me a secondary road that would be proposed Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 28 of 59 across all of their property with one main entrance in, I would presume, to limit in and out on Eagle Road, which is a real problem, as you well know, and the focus right now of the beautification for Eagle Road. So, I'm just asking where -- where is the beef? Where is the secondary road? How come we don't see that design into the plan? De Weerd: Staff, so you want -- we will just let the developer answer that. Boyle: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay? In his rebuttal. Thank you. Okay. If there is no further testimony, we will ask the applicant's representative to come up and provide his five minute rebuttal. Unger: Madam Chair, once again, for the record, Bob Unger, representing the developer. De Weerd: Thank you, Bob. Unger: I'm going to very quickly just respond to a couple of notes here. Of course, you know, what you're hearing is traffic density, okay? That's what we are hearing is a traffic issue. We can't resolve that yet and I wish we could, it would make my life a lot simpler and also yours. As far as the density, actually, what we are proposing is -- although it's higher density and we understand that the folks to the west of our project have one acre lots and homes on them and that's why the 30 foot buffer and the storage building is to provide a buffer between our development and their development. Also, the extensive landscaping that we proposed is to help buffer that whole situation. And, once again, you know, our design, our work on our project is primarily based upon what we have read in the development agreement and we have read in the minutes -- City Council minutes on the annexation of this property. As far as -- and I wanted to respond to Mr. Eagy's comments and I'm not aware -- I was not aware of the ITD engineers meeting until staff sent me an e-mail late yesterday afternoon about 4:30. So, I don't know what this meeting is tomorrow, I don't know whether it's planned or not. Apparently Mr. Eagy knows more about it than I do. And if it has to go to the board, it has to go to the board. That's fine. As far as this -- the 20-oot landscape strip between our project and his, no problem, we will do it. Not a problem. We may lose a building or two, but we are going to do it. The same thing with moving the road off the southern property owner's property. But we really -- I want to point out something here. My client contacted Mr. Eagy and actually got a hold of him last week for the first time. He has tried several times this summer, he has never been able to get a hold of him, didn't get any phone calls back, so I want you to know that we have been trying to make efforts to work, you know, with the property owners to the north and the south and I know Mr. Ewing is going to jump up and down and scream and holler, but we have actually sat down and discussed some possible ideas for development of the entire corner. In fact, I did a complete layout for the entire corner, which included his property. So, we have gone that far. We have met with the property owner to the south. We have tried to meet with the property owner to the north to put something -- an overall plan for the Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 29 of 59 entire area, okay? Up to this point, you know, it hasn't worked, okay? And when Mr. Swain spoke with Mr. Eagy last week, Mr. Eagy was supposed to call him back the next day and he hasn't heard back from him yet. So, you know, we are not the guys that are not trying to work with everybody, we are trying to. We are not getting cooperation as well as we would like to see. And I just want to make sure that you're aware of that. The secondary road that Mrs. Boyle talked about, that can be provided. Once again, so much of this is contingent upon ITD's response. I just -- I'm going to close this thing out here. We think we have a really good project, a project that is good for the city, and it's in compliance with the development agreement and it's what Mrs. Ruwe understood that her property could be developed as. As far as the health safety issues, I think -- I think we have addressed all of those, except for the access, the traffic issue with the access and that is going to be decided by ITD and it may not be tomorrow, it may be a week, it may be a month, and we would, actually, like to request a tabling of your decisions on this until we do have a final response from ITD or some indication as to when we are going to have a final decision from ITD. If that's going to be a year down the road, then, I think you -- you know, you may want to look at it differently, but certainly we would ask for a tabling on your decisions until we get some indication as to where ITD is going to go with this, because I believe -- I think Mr. Bird -- he brought up the correct question. Access. Where are we going to have access? And without access we don't go anywhere. So, that's where we need -- and we would request that you table your decisions until we all have that information, because I think it's very very very important that we all have that information and I thank you very much for your time. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, do you have questions? Thank you. Unger: Thank you. De Weerd: Council, any further information needed from staff? Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I think Mr. Unger is right, I think we need to continue these. I just -- as it sits right now, there is no way -- I think we'd just be causing ourself a nightmare out there if we was to pass on this or -- I truthfully -- even going up to Ustick, I don't know how you're going to get traffic in and out of there. You're close to the stop light both ways. We know ITD does not like to give entrances and exits close to the roadway like that where you have got an intersection. The only thing I can say is we need to continue this until ITD has made some kind of a decision of what they are going to do, then, we could look at it. I could feel more comfortable making a decision on it if I knew where the entrance and exits were going to be. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Bird. Mr. Wardle? Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 30 of 59 Wardle: Madam Mayor, I'm going to disagree with Mr. Bird, I don't think that we need to continue this hearing and I have got a number of reasons of why I don't support the project and I'll wait to hear what Mr. Nary thinks before I give you those. De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I would concur with Councilman Wardle. I think -- I mean access certainly is significant here, but I think the question Mr. Unger asked is when do you develop and you develop when you solve a lot of these problems with your neighbors, you develop when you can solve these problems with your access. You haven't solved these problems. I recognize that your point was -- is that the development agreement says a certain thing and, it's true, we did -- we did want a mixed use type of project, but that's all we agreed to was a mixed use project. You can dress this dog up, but it's still a dog and I just don't think that just the access alone is going to answer this question for everyone in this room, including the people sitting up here. And so I don't think setting this over is the answer. Two weeks ago I sat here and suggested that we hear this, so we could hear these concerns and allow these folks the opportunity to tell us what their concerns were about it. I don't see that setting this over adds anything. The access point isn't going to answer every question that's been raised here. It is a significant piece, but it isn't going to answer it and, honestly, there is only a couple answers that it's going to be and I don't think it's still going to work, so I'm not in favor of setting it over. I think we can make a decision based on all the testimony we have received at this point, so -- De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Thank you, Madam Mayor. My comments on the project -- I'm going to agree with the neighbors on a lot of different points, but one of the things I'm going to disagree is the developer said that he's been working with neighbors and I believe there is evidence tonight that that communication isn't happening and I'm not an engineer, but just on the drawings that I have seen of the drawing, it appears to me that you can see the property line, which is running through the road where the developer proposes to build that project and so I guess from a layman's point of view that's certainly -- placing your road on someone else's property, even in drawings, demonstrates that to me. On - - two weeks ago on the 7th Mr. Unger made a comment that during the development agreement process and the annexation that that was the opportunity for the neighbors to comment on what they wanted to see there and that is specifically not what this Council decided. This Council decided that we would bring each of these projects back as a conditional use to allow all of the surrounding properties to comment and the community to comment on that specific development and that's what's happened here and that's what will happen with every one of the projects in there that we have -- that we annexed and so that's an important note to remember. Internal circulation, one of the things that we have looked at -- and I agree with the neighbors on -- Anna, if you could pull the site up for me, please. If this access is not denied, then, you're going to see all the traffic come from here to the commercial development. Regardless of what kind of commercial development you have here, you're going to have increased traffic Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 31 of 59 through this and so that's something that needs to be thought of for the next person with this property. I do agree that there needs to be more buffering and I believe that the neighbors have provided enough testimony and have indicated a willingness to talk about what they want to see buffered on their projects here and I believe they have demonstrated the case there. The access issue we already talked about. And, then, I believe that the developer stated that this is the first step in the overall development and I don't see that -- I don't see this piece as being that first step, in my opinion. I'm sorry, I take that back. I don't see this project -- not necessarily the piece -- I don't see this project as leading the development for that corner. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: Madam Mayor, as motions are being made -- I was unclear last week as to the status of the preliminary plat and just -- I just wanted to remind everyone that there was kind of an outstanding issue of whether it needed to be remanded back to Planning and Zoning for the findings or whether we would just prepare those findings for City Council approval. So, I just wanted to -- I dread raising that issue again, I apologize, but just if we could clarify that as motions are being made. De Weerd: I guess my recall was that those findings could be done at this level. Is that correct? Okay. I guess the only thing -- I agree with Councilman Wardle and Nary and I know I don't have a note, so sometimes I feel a little obsolete, but, you know, I would strongly suggest that the property owners get together. This is a really complex corner and I cannot see how any one -property owner can bring in a viable application without the other property owners and so my suggestion is if you want your property to work with an application, you really have to work together. It's the only thing, with the complexities of the circulation and being on Eagle Road, it seems like that will be the only answer to bringing forward a viable application. Do I have a motion to close the Public Hearing? Wardle: So moved. Nary: Second. Sorry. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Items 14 and 15. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Just one more comment before -- maybe Councilman Wardle made a motion, but I think Mr. Unger and his Council left. It's very discouraging. I do believe that there was some attempts by the property owners to attempt to contact neighbors and deal Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 32 of 59 with that. Obviously, they are not interested any longer this evening to have any more discussion or have any opportunity for input. I guess they are going to just read our minutes later, but I find it very discouraging, because I do think, as you stated, to make projects work, especially on these very challenging pieces when you have a portion of a property that's a portion of a larger property and abutting adjacent landowners and property owners, you really have to do your work and your homework to make these fit and I'm certainly not saying that just because Mr. Unger and his counsel decided that they didn't want to listen anymore tonight, that that's the reason for my feelings about this project, but that certainly is a very discouraging sign in trying to meet these challenges that have been raised by the neighbors and I think there are legitimate concerns that have been raised, so I just wanted that on the record, too. De Weerd: Thank you. Nichols: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, a couple of items. One is I'd like you, for the record, to comment on the product type that he showed you with regard to the four-plexes, so that that's in the record. And, secondly, I would ask that in your motion that since -- with regard to the Conditional Use Permit, certainly, and perhaps the preliminary plat, that the portion of the state code comes into play that requires that in the event of a denial you tell the applicant what, if anything, they could do to obtain approval. So, I would ask you to include that in your discussion in the motion, so that it's in the findings. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Mr. Wardle, the task is before you. Wardle: Madam Mayor, I'd like -- before I make my motion, just some clarity from Mr. Nichols as to what we need to provide in the sense of what they could do to obtain approval. Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, what state code requires is that you indicate what, if anything, the applicant could do differently with regard to the application that would obtain approval. So, if to obtain approval that the property has to more closely tie into the other surrounding properties, if it has to have a larger buffering area -- whatever it is that you believe is necessary for that type of thing to be approved -- one of the reasons I asked you to address the product type -- this was a different product type than any four-plex product type that we have seen here I think ever. I don't recall seeing anything like this. So, if you like that concept because it's different, then, I think you need to say so in the findings, because if we come back with another multi -family residential, perhaps not as dense as this, however you craft it, product type will be one of the considerations that they have to make. So, I'd ask you to address that. The concept, Councilman Wardle, is to, basically, say what you don't like about it and how that could be addressed in a different application, different project. Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 33 of 59 Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we deny CUP 04-023, Conditional Use Permit for Sadie Creek Subdivision, based on the comments of the public, as well as the staff and the applicant. Also, on the basis that there is inadequate buffering for transitional densities through the -- from the lower residential densities, along with some of the issues expressed in the traffic -- and I need to comment on product type. The product type here at this location for this multi -family residential could potentially work, however, the bigger issue is the transitional density from the surrounding uses. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to deny Item 14 with the stated reasons. Are there any further comments? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I think we have -- when we zoned what these people brought in, we had some public testimony, I can't remember from who, that said we were probably causing ourselves some gray hair and baldness by taking in a development that wasn't owned by all one person on a corner like this and I think it's proof here. Even though I was for taking it forward, they'd have to completely change everything for me to be behind this as they presented it. De Weerd: Well. I'm glad you got the gray hair on it. Bird: I got the gray hair. About a year ago I had it bald. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yeah. I guess the only other thing -- only other comment I would have is one of the frustrations that was expressed by the developer was attempting to comply with the development agreement and I don't -- and I don't fault them for trying to do -- I mean that's what they are supposed to do and what they have brought forward certainly has some of the intent of the development agreement, I just think there was not quite the level of scrutiny that could have been done. I agree with Mr. Bird, I mean we were told that this was probably not the wisest thing to do and -- but that's the challenge, not just that we have, but the challenge that all those property owners have and that's not something that it's always our responsibility to make sure all of these people fix all of the Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 34 of 59 problems before they get here. We are trying to be very flexible with the different choices people want to make in developing the properties that they own. I guess the only other thing I'd like to put on the record, if the developer feels that that level of frustration, that this development agreement, what they have now, based on what they thought they could do and what they'd like to do instead, they can always come and ask us to amend the development agreement and do something else. I don't think they brought that up tonight, but that's certainly an option. They always have the option to ask. It is an agreement between them and the city and we can amend it. If they think that's a more fitting resolution to the problem, then, the level of frustration that they are feeling, then, that's what they should probably do. Anyway, that was my only other thought. Unfortunately, they are not here to hear it. De Weerd: Okay. Well, if there is no further discussion, we do have a motion to deny. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Thank you. Item 15. On Item 15, as I understand it, we would have to ask for drawings -- to draw up Findings of Facts. Okay. Nichols: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, in your motion to deny the preliminary plat I would recommend that you include that the plat did not show the roadways on the -- entirely within the applicant's property and, secondly, that the -- it did not show the buffer, which the developer later said he would put back on on the northern side of the development that would buffer the property from the north. De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Wardle? Wardle: Madam Mayor, I move that we deny PP 04-021, to include all staff, applicant, and public comments, specifically comments that the plat did not show all the roadways entirely within the developer's property and did not show the 20 -foot buffering to the north of the property. Nary: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to deny PP 04-021. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Clerk. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 35 of 59 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 16 -- and, oh, would you like to take a short break? We will reconvene at 9:10. (Recess.) Item 16: Public Hearing: AZ 04-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.4 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Chatsworth Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC — west of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road: Item 17: Public Hearing: PP 04-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 77 single-family residential building lots and 4 common lots on 19.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Chatsworth Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC — west of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road: Item 18: Public Hearing: AZ 03-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 46.40 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road: De Weerd: Thank you. We will reconvene. Sorry, we had some special guests drop by. We are on Items 16 and 17. 1 will open the public hearings on AZ 04-018 and PP 04-25. Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is an application for Chatsworth Subdivision. It's immediately south of Roseleaf Subdivision, which recently came through by the same developer, by the way. It is located just across Locust Grove Road from Tuscany Lakes Subdivision and you can see the entrance there on our vicinity map. They are requesting a rezone from RUT to R-8 and it's just shy of 20 acres in area. As you see from the aerial, there are two existing homes. There is one just to the south of them, owned by Ms. Lori B! and then, the existing home on the property. This is the layout, it is a straight subdivision. They have not put in a planned development application. The lots do meet the minimum dimensional standards for the R-8. I did want to point out they do have two sets of four lots that share access from a common drive and, then, those also face onto the -- or side onto the open space. The open space comprises six percent of the project and meets the minimum five percent requirement. There are 77 building lots and four other lots. Those are the open space lots here in the center of the project and here along the buffer and, then, the entryway going into the property. The gross density of the subdivision is just short of four units to the acre. The lot sizes range from 6,500 square feet up to 10,562 square feet. They do have one stub street from Roseleaf Subdivision, so they have taken access from that, as well as from Locust Grove. They have provided a stub street going south and, then, again going west. And also going east into the B! property. I would like the record -- the minutes have -- this name is misspelled several times, so I do want to point out that Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 36 of 59 this is an unusual name. It's spelled B exclamation point. So, Ms. B! did testify that she had concerns about the access road. There is a 30 -foot access easement coming in here. That issue was resolved, but at the Planning and Zoning Commission the only major change they made to staffs recommendation was to include a gate at the end of this stub street, so that she could still gain access to the rear of her property. ACHD is requiring two types of traffic calming devices along this entry road that comes in. And they gave them a number of options as to what method they could use. I don't know that the applicant decided exactly which two you will use. None of them involve speed bumps. They are more along the lines of concrete -- stamped concrete pedestrian crossings, landscape medians, chokers, et cetera. This application does come forward with a recommendation for approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. At that hearing Shawn Nickel representing the applicant testified in favor. David Bailey, also representing the applicant as his engineer, discussed the existing east -west easement in this area, a portion of which will be vacated. And Lori B!, the property owner to the south, testified on concerns regarding access to the back of her property and requested a gate at the end of the stub street as I mentioned before. The Planning and Zoning Commission also discussed the location of the proposed access road to Locust Grove and how it related to Tuscany. As you can see here, it is south of the Tuscany entrance. It does meet their offset requirements. The only change that staff made, as I mentioned before, was to require the gate at the terminus of East Pisa Street and to our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before the City Council this evening. And with that I will end staffs presentation. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant's representative here? Were you sworn in? Nickel: I was not. De Weerd: Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Nickel: Yes, it is. De Weerd: Thank you. Nickel: Thank you, Madam Mayor, and Council Members. Shawn Nickel, 52 North 2nd Street in Eagle. I don't have much to add to staffs report. As she stated, we did agree at the P&Z to provide Ms. B!, with an explanation point, her gate to access her property, which we have agreed to. We did, on our revised plat, show chokers along that north east -west street to break that up as requested by staff and the only other issue that came up during the review process with ACHD was to relocate that stub to the west. It was originally located up here and they requested it be mid block and we did that at their request. The open space in the middle of the property is about 53,600 square feet. We are going to provide a tot lot, playground apparatus for children within the subdivision for that. Other than that, I'll stand for any other questions you may have. Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 37 of 59 De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: No questions. Thank you. Nickel: We are going to call that T-shirt Park, by the way. De Weerd: T-shirt Park. Nickel: It looks like a T -Shirt. De Weerd: Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Council, any questions for staff or the applicant? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Hearing no comments, I move that we close the Public Hearing for AZ 04-018 and PP 04-025. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Items 16 and 17. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: If there is no further discussion, I will entertain a motion. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve AZ 04-018, Chatsworth Subdivision request for annex and zoning and to incorporate all staff, applicant, and public testimony. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 16. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 38 of 59 De Weerd: Thank you. Item 17. 1 mean you can make this more difficult. Mr. Nickel -- I mean Mr. Nickel shouldn't get of this easy. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve PP 04-025, Chatsworth Subdivision preliminary plat. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 17. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Clerk. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 18: Public Hearing: AZ 03-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 46.40 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road: Item 19: Public Hearing: PP 03-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 214 residential lots and 39 common lots on 46.40 acres in a proposed R-8 (PD) zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — east of South Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road: Item 20: Public Hearing: CUP 03-070 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for residential subdivision in a proposed R-8 (PD) zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC — east of South Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Items 18, 19, and 20, public hearings on AZ 03-037, PP 03-046 and CUP 03-070. 1 will open these public hearings with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think I'll give you the application history first and, then, I'll go into the specifics a little bit. This application or this property originally came to you -- it was on February 19th, 2004. It was heard by you on March 23rd, 2004. You, then, voted to remand the proposed planned development, preliminary plat, and annexation and zoning applications back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. At that time -- and I have a copy of that plat. At that time your reasons included -- you asked them to revise -- to provide for a mixture of lot sizes, frontage widths, and housing types throughout the development. Sorry. A mixture of Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 39 of 59 those things. And to address the location of the amenities and the open space. There was three parks before. It, then, went back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and they have recommended approval of a revised plan and they heard that on August 19th. I guess I should mention where it's located. This is located south of the extension of Pine Street. The Castlebrook Subdivision is north of the property and, then, the railroad tracks bound it to the south. There is also a canal that runs along the east and there is a private road for Pine Street as you go to the east. It is not a dedicated public road. Sorry, Ma'am, Members of the Council. There we go. The applicant is requesting to build 214 build -able lots and 39 common lots on 46.4 acres with the R-8 zoning in a planned development. The applicant has revised the application to provide a greater mix of lot sizes. He's got alley -loaded product in the center of the property as shown here. The alley is here and here. The park is centrally located and is very open to the public. As you see, almost all of it is open to public roadway, with the exclusion of this one property in length on the east and one property length on the west. There is a public street to the north of the park as well. The amenities will be located -- or the tot lot and other recreational amenities will be located in this large central park. There are still two other parks that -- on the property. One at the west end -- at the very west end to act as a buffer to the adjoining properties to the west and, then, one kind of in the central west location of the property. They also increased lot sizes, particularly along the east property line and, then, again, right here on the west property line, these two large lots as it bounds the western property. The residential lot sizes range from 3,167 square feet to 11,000 square feet. The alley loaded run around about 3,187 to 3,300, more or less. Their standard lots range from 5,200 square feet to about 11,000 square feet. And there are also patio homes with shared common drives averaging 5,000 square feet in area. Those patio homes are located on the south property line. This one doesn't show it very well. The landscape shows that a little better. You can see that they have got four units here that share access from a common drive and, then, an intervening open space, four units that share access to a common drive, intervening open space, and that pattern repeats itself pretty much along the south boundary there. This does show the open spaces much better. They have also got the landscaped entry corridors with the divided centers at the front and this is primarily a drainage lot, as I understand it, and it also provides some buffer to the property to the immediate northeast. The applicant has proposed a number of setback adjustments for the -- for the project. There is one that -- the staff report notes that they are asking for an exception to the front setback of 15 feet for living area or 20 feet for the garage. The Planning and Zoning Commission, that request was withdrawn and the applicant did say that they would go to -- change to the standard front setback from the common drive. That did not get reflected in the recommendations that are coming forward -- came forward to you tonight, so I do need to ask that on the conditional use recommendation, that the request for the front setback be removed. Other requests include that the street side, instead of a 20 -foot landscape -- or a 20 -foot setback on corner lots, such as you see here, or these properties here, they have requested a five foot landscape strip and, then, a five foot setback on the property. The lot size, they are asking for a reduction from 6,500 square feet to 3,100 square feet. And the lot frontage requirement, they are asking for a 35 -foot minimum, instead of a 65 -foot minimum. This plan -- this project does come forward with a recommendation for approval from the Planning and Zoning Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 40 of 59 Commission. The applicant Kevin Amar testified in favor of the application at that hearing and, then, three members of the public testified in opposition to the proposed subdivision. They expressed concerns regarding the density of the proposed development and the potential for increased traffic on EI Gato Road. I'll show you where EI Gato is. As Pine Street connects out to Ten Mile -- Black Cat. Thank you. Immediately across the street there is kind of two roads that run side by side, one being Pine Street, one being EI Gato. They show up on the map as kind of side-by-side. So, that was the concern that as traffic accumulates at this intersection that it will impact their properties and people may use EI Gato to cut over to Canyon County and the Nampa area. It does go for about a half mile, I think, before it turns north on EI Gato. I'm sure somebody will tell me if I'm wrong on that one. There were no -- there were no key modifications to the staff recommendation. As I noted, the applicant did kind of withdraw their request for the eight -foot front setback. The outstanding issue for City Council is -- would be installation and maintenance of the pathway located on the northeast corner of the subdivision and I'll explain that briefly. In Castlebrook the applicant offered to build -- same applicant -- offered to build an off-site improvement as part of that development and that off-site amenity was a pathway on the southside of the Ten Mile. The Ten -Mile Drain. The Comprehensive Plan anticipated one -- there is already one that exists on the north side and they were proposing one on the south side. As Castlebrook has gone through, the final plat process, Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District, has said that they are comfortable with that pathway being in the easement, as long as it's going to be maintained and owned by the city. So, they either want it to be a public pathway or they don't want it to be within their easement. That issue just came up recently. The applicant, when he brought Chesterfield through, provided a similar off-site amenity in that he's proposing a pathway in the Nampa - Meridian Irrigation District easement on the kind of northeast corner of their property. He would like to be able to do that. At this point it does appear that it would require that the city agree to take over ownership and maintenance of that pathway. So, that would be an outstanding issue before City Council. I did want to also mention that during the Public Hearing process for the Planning and Zoning Commission, the issue of fences came up again for the surrounding property owners and I'm just going to briefly go through that, so that I can point it out with a steady hand and not the laser pointer. But, apparently, the idea is to bring a fence down at the property line, which is kind of in this location. They would cross the street, the extension of Pine Street as it's shown, to the edge of their landscape easement and, then, they would take it east -west as far as they could until they hit the Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District property. It's not an easement, it's actually fee -owned property. So, they would take it to their property line and they would agree, if they could, if allowed to by Nampa -Meridian, to fence it to the -- to the actual drainage facility, but that is an off-site improvement, so they are asking that if the City Council wants that to happen, that they just leave a little leeway as far as getting that done, because it is not on their exact property line. And they would ask for the same consideration regarding the pathway, just that it is an off-site improvement that involves Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District. Those are the issues that staff has noted regarding this application and I would answer any questions. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions at this time? Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 41 of 59 Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Would the applicant like to come forward? Have you been sworn in? Amar: I have not. De Weerd: Okay. Is the testimony that you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Amar: Yes. De Weerd: Thank you. Amar: Thank you. De Weerd: Please state your name and address. Amar: My name is Kevin Amar, address 114 East Idaho, Suite 230, in Meridian. I'm here tonight, again -- we were here once before on Chesterfield and asked to look at some modifications to the plat. Here with those modifications tonight and also to provide some additional information based on the staff report and on our request for the subdivision. As Ms. Powell stated, this is a subdivision within -- or hoping to be within Meridian. It's 214 residential lots. The density is approximately 4.6 units to the acre. The area is slated to be medium density residential, I think, on your Comprehensive Plan, which can go up to eight units to the acre. I don't know how we can do that without apartments and four-plexes. What we are trying to provide is a comprehensive neighborhood throughout the entire area, providing -- providing a project that will build on what is already there. We understand that there are neighbors here and they do have concerns. We are addressing those concerns as we go through. Some of those issues initially still -- or initially had to do with overall lot sizes. In fact, I believe it was Councilmember Nary that had a question on all of the lot size and the frontages on the previous application were similar, somewhere in the 50 -foot range. It was a request to come back with -- the density was not an issue, as I recall, and we have been working with Anna and your Planning and Zoning staff to come back with a plan that meets what we think we were directed to do at the previous Council meeting and that's what we have here tonight. The density as -- in talking to Anna was not an issue, but, rather, the variety of lot sizes. So, there is opportunity within the subdivision to build different types of houses. Not all the houses are the same. So, what we have done is -- primarily on the exterior of the subdivision, with the exception of the area that borders the railroad tracks, increased the lot sizes on all of those and moved the density interior to the subdivision, so the smaller lots will be less of an impact to the neighboring properties. The rear lot line was, as I recall, not a concern on the previous application as it borders the railroad tracks and the neighbors are rarely there and they are only there for a second. The property also needed a -- before it had a common space roughly in this area and in this area. It was requested to combine all the common spaces or look at Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 42 of 59 locating all the common spaces in one centralized location. We have provided a large common space in this area, approximately two acres, also providing access to that point, funneling to the common space. All of the amenities, meaning the playground structure, the volleyball pit, the gazebo, all of that will be located within this area. So, all of the activities will be able to take place in that common area and it's large enough that they can be separated, so that big kids and the small kids, still in the same area, can be separated. Big kids and small kids typically don't play real well together and also have an area for parents to watch there big kids and small kids not play well together. The lot sizes and frontages, the open space, the roadway system, and the amenities were the items that we were asked to address. Some of the things that we are continuing on is I know the neighbors -- and at this location across the Ten Mile Creek is an old bridge. It's not a bridge where anybody wants the public to drive across. So, what we had done in the past and are still wanting to do is put a fence here all the way down this boundary. First of all, the fence across the road will restrict any vehicle traffic. It will be locked and we will be working with the fire department should they need to access it, that it will be it will have a key, although they, I imagine, won't cross that bridge either. It's a pretty it may be built well, I have been told by the neighbors it is built well, I have driven across it, I haven't fallen into the creek yet, but you wouldn't think that by looking at it. And we certainly don't want any neighbors driving down that private lane, because it is a private lane on the east side of Ten Mile Creek. Now, on -- also, they don't want the kids to walk down there. We know -- is the aerial map -- Anna, do you have that to where we could look at it? The school, I believe, sits here, for the local elementary school. The concern is -- and not only elementary kids, but people will walk here to get to the school. When we first -- in Castlebrook Subdivision -- I'll give you some history on the pathway. When we first talked to Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District on the pathway in Castlebrook Subdivision, they had no objections to us having that pathway on their property. Since they have had some board meetings and some additional information from neighbors and surrounding areas that they had re -thought that. So, we still want to have that pathway in this location and, eventually, through Castlebrook there will be a bridge, so they can connect to the school and get there easily, so all the kids can walk through the Fuller Park and get to the elementary school at that location. That is still our desire. I understand it is an off-site improvement, it's also not an amenity that we are proposing as part of the PUD, it's not something that we are counting towards the PUD process. Something strictly that we hope in the future if this property develops there will be a pathway not only on the north or east side of the canal, but also on the other side of the Ten Mile Drain, rather. Just simply to provide pedestrian traffic and people can access the Fuller Park better, they can access the entire pathway system, an amenity, I certainly see the benefit to the city and the community -- or the residents that live within the community. So, those are the — I believe the questions that have arisen. On the pathway, as Anna stated, it is something that we would construct, we would landscape, we will do all the work, but Nampa -Meridian will not allow it unless it becomes a public pathway, something that I'm sure Mr. Nichols can explain and their attorney, but I just know that that's their legal stance on it. With that I appreciate the opportunity and I appreciate you working with us and allowing us to redesign this project and come back with, obviously, what I think is a much better project than what we had before. With that I'd stand for any questions. Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 43 of 59 De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Thank you. Amar: Thank you. Nary: I do have one, I'm sorry, Madam Mayor. Amar: I knew I couldn't get out of here without getting a question. Nary: Mr. Amar, those ones that you wanted the smaller lot sizes, those middle ones, I mean is that -- this stuff here. Amar: This area? Nary: Yes. Are they attached homes? Is that what that is? Amar: No. They will be detached. The most similar project that I can think of in Meridian would be Heritage Commons. They are of similar size. They are all detached homes. They have a five-foot side yard setback. The garages are all in the rear and they are alley -loaded lots and so the front of the house is facing the street. If you haven't had a chance to drive through Heritage Commons -- Nary: Yeah. I have. I just -- I couldn't remember the size of those and those just seemed such a significantly smaller lot size, but now you have explained what the comparison is, that's fine. Isn't there -- and I can't remember. I know we had a discussion. I was thinking up here, maybe within this other project, didn't they build some culvert type of access to Fuller Park or did that get -- Amar: We are building -- Nary: Building. Amar: It's not built, but it is in the process — or we hope it is. Nary: So, this pathway here would connect to that up here somewhere? Did you put the park a little further north? Amar: It is. Right now there is a parcel here that -- Nary: Right here, isn't it? Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 44 of 59 Amar: Correct. This is Fuller Park. This area is Castlebrook. This parcel is yet undeveloped, so our thought right now is they'd have to walk down here and down the pathway and, then, through the subdivision to get there. At some point that this develops, we hope that the pathway would be continued. We don't control that parcel and we can't control the pathway, obviously, across that. But that would be our hope. Nary: And so that fencing you're talking about, would it be on this property line here? Is that where you're talking, where the fence would cross the road? Amar: Yeah. Nary: Approximately there? Amar: It would cross the road about there. We have to fence this property line as part of Castlebrook Subdivision and, then, it would cross the road and run down our north boundary as a dedicated -- dedicated landscape lot and that would keep and few things -- people off of it, vehicle traffic, and also pedestrian traffic off of that road or that would be our hope. Nary: Okay. Amar: If we can get agreement through Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District, we will actually fence down to and across the canal right of way. That, of course, would be through approval with Nampa Irrigation District. Nary: All right. Thank you. Nickel: Thank you. Canning: Madam Mayor? Councilmember Nary, your question was if they plan to construct attached or detached, the staff report does note that the applicant wants to -- reserves the right to reconstruct attached single housing. if that is the case, we may want to ask them -- I'm not -- I just realized the setbacks do not ask for a waiver of the side yard setbacks to zero, so that would be another amendment to the Conditional Use Permit that's being requested. Nary: And the only reason I asked is it seemed more fitting for attached homes in that particular location, because of the much more intense density, but I mean I don't care, either one, I mean if it's something comparable to the Heritage Commons type of size lots and the setbacks, then, I think it's fine. I guess is what Mrs. Canning is saying is it's -- you probably want to have some language that allows either one, if you want to have the opportunity, maybe, to build them as attached homes, then, you're going to need to have a zero lot line requirement. Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 45 of 59 Amar: I believe what we are requesting is that we have the opportunity to do either/or, not restricted to attached or detached. So, if it is detached, then, the setbacks would be five feet. If it's attached, then, there is a lot that can be a zero lot line. Nary: Okay. All right. Thank you. Amar: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. I have several people who have signed up to testify. George Haneke? Haneke: Very good. I have been sworn. De Weerd: Okay. If you will just state -- Haneke: My name is George Haneke, 4600 Quarterhorse Lane, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. 1 own the property to the west of this. The -- if I can borrow your -- Nary: There is one right on the thing. Should be one on the -- Haneke: Yes. Thank you. So, I own two parcels. I own this parcel right here, which is eight acres, and I own this parcel right here, which is two acres. I have two concerns today, but, first, I'd like to make a couple of points. One is after participating, painfully, in the earlier exercise, Madam Mayor; I have no intention of submitting a letter of interest for the position that may become vacant here shortly. Second, the developer has been very very responsive in working with the neighbors from my perspective, having been in business in a prior lifetime and would just like to compliment that team on the efforts they have made to take into consideration some of the things that the neighbors had requested. Now I'm done with the good stuff. De Weerd: Okay. Haneke: The concern that I have is the number of units that are -- could we go back to that other — that's fine -- that are being proposed for this area right here and the fact that this road does not go through to Ten Mile, so all that access from here will be going passed the north side of my property to exit out here on Black Cat. I'm not sure whether it's 214 units or 200 and -- I'm not sure what the number is here, but if you consider the amount of traffic that that's going to generate, that's a fair amount. This subdivision over here developed by the current developer is of a density that is very nice, they have done a great job there. We think it's very very beneficial to the neighborhood, in spite of the fact that it's a development. What my request is to the Commission today is to ask for a review of the lot sizes -- and if we could go to the next slide, please. The density in these areas here and the fact that the lot size of these lots is less than half the square footage of my home and half the square footage of the building I own on the other acreage. Pretty intense shift in size of dwellings and to the extent that that could be modified or maintained at the 60 -foot level or the 6,000 square foot level, I'm not sure Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 46 of 59 what the exception variance that is being asked for here, but those are the considerations that I would like to see, again, pointing out that the developer has been very responsive in buffering the outside here. I think you're going to be hearing the same thing from the other people here that the density is quite, intense overall and that the traffic that it's going to generate will be problematic for the neighborhood and it will have a significant impact on the value of the surrounding properties. So, with that, Madam Mayor and Commissioners, thank you very much for listening. De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Tom Noll. Were you -- Noll: I was sworn in earlier as well. De Weerd: Okay. Just state your name and address, then Noll: My name is Tom Noll, N -o-1-1, I live at 5947 EI Gato Lane. I'm here representing the EI Gato neighborhood. It's about 20 families or so on EI Gato Lane. They are five - acre parcels. I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight. That's -- I saw the Boy Scouts here and I remember back in Boy Scouts and it's one of the advantages of our governmental system that we actually do get an opportunity to speak up. Like Mr. Haneke, we agree that Mr. Amar has come and worked with us and tried to improve this subdivision. We think it's a step in the right direction, but we cannot support the subdivision as it's proposed. Our neighborhood cannot support that. We -- I guess if we will go back to the picture, there was some question earlier about EI Gato Lane. EI Gato Lane does run here and it goes for a mile over to McDermott and it actually -- it takes a little jog, but it's -- so it would be maybe a mile and a tenth long or something, because of the curvature. All development in here will most likely exit onto Black Cat and development going west, if there is some Sam Clubs and stuff that are talked about over there in Canyon county, will be tempted to take EI Gato Lane and EI Gato Lane is a very quiet street right now. So, as I said, we cannot support the subdivision as proposed. We do not support the high-density development. If we go back to the picture that -- this picture, I'm not sure what the development -- the density, the lot sizes in these areas, but we agree with Mr. Haneke, that these are reasonable subdivisions, but to go from five acre parcels to 3,000 square foot parcels, well, I'm not sure of the arithmetic, but I believe that 70 of these will fit in a five acre parcel, seventy or more. so, we think it's kind of an abrupt transition, if it is sort of hidden in the middle of the subdivision. That's more like the north end, I think, and we don't have the services out here like we do in the north end, there is no bus service, the nearest train station is 350 miles away. The bus -- nearest bus stop is probably five miles. So, it's not -- we are not quite ready for that yet. The parks -- we think the proposed parks for this kind of density are really insignificant and inadequate. In Boise Elm Grove and Wilder parks are considered to be small neighborhood parks and we are far larger. Elm Grove Park is three acres and Helen B. Lowder Park is five acres. Elm Grove is a north end park and Helen B. Lowder is a southeast Boise park. I got that off the Boise Parks and Recreation website. So, we -- what we would like to see is we'd like to see Mr. Amar continue to work and we would like to see this whole subdivision look more like the subdivisions that are not shown on this map, but to have the lot sizes larger. The lot Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 47 of 59 size and the density has been an issue in all the discussions and it was part of the discussion in the Planning and Zoning meeting and so on. It's been an issue ever since last February. So, what we would like to recommend is we recommend one of two choices. First off, we recommend this be remanded to Planning and Zoning for reconsideration and I wanted to significantly reduce the density and expand the neighborhood parks. That would be our first recommendation. Or if that's not possible, to delay the subdivision until the infrastructure is in place to support the high density. I'm thinking that's probably going to be unacceptable. We think Mr. Amar has done a reasonable job, but we think that he can probably do a little bit better. So, that's our recommendation and I thank you for the opportunity to express the thoughts of the EI Gato neighborhood. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions, Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you so much. And the last person on this sheet I have is Gary -- and, Gary, I'm sorry, I can't read your last name, so -- Schweiger: Schweiger. De Weerd: If you will just state your address. Schweiger: I have been sworn. De Weerd: Okay. Schweiger: My address is 3515 and 3715 West Pine Lane. De Weerd: Thank you. Schweiger: And I have several neighbors who couldn't make it who asked me to speak on their behalf and they are Rod and Nancy Boslow, Rick and Faith Jensen, and Debbie and David Hicks, who also live on the -- if we could go back to the other -- everybody lives on this dead end lane. Well, I have to concur with my neighbors, we, too, are very concerned about the density and, in fact, we are already having people problems from Castlebrook Sub One and Two. We have a lot of stock down there. We all have cattle, horses, and sheep. We already have people who are cutting through from Castlebrook, they think it's a nice place to walk, and it is, but they bring their dogs and they chase our animals and we are already having problems. I would like that developer to do something, post that like very soon. We would like to ask for 80 -foot wide lots, same as we have for Castlebrook One. And I think Castlebrook Two, if I'm not mistaken, if my information is correct, has 65-oot wide lots. And, you know, we were wondering why we have lots as small as 30 to 35 feet wide abutting our property. I have approximately 800 acres -- I mean 800 feet, I'm sorry, right here that back directly up to this subdivision. My concern is with this kind of density, if and when the time comes in the future when I Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 48 of 59 want to develop or if I every choose to, I'm going to be limited to what I can put on my property by what I already have next door. If I have a very small, crowded neighborhood, what am I going to be able to do on my property? And I'll tell you, the other situation we have is we have a very -- as Tom mentioned, our home values at this time are probably going to be around four to five times what these homes that are proposed to go in here are going to cost. It's like getting shot in the foot. I mean this type of development doesn't -- it doesn't hurt our land values, but, you know, it definitely hurts our homes. We are — I won't -- I won't belabor the thing that you have heard all night already, but in closing I just want to say we are not opposed to development, but what we are opposed to is this project that is being proposed. All we are asking is that you bring something that is compatible with our neighborhood. Thank you. Any questions? De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions, Council? Bird: I have none, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: No. Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Rebuttal. Amar: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council Members. For the record, Kevin Amar. I appreciate the neighbors' comments and we will try to address the ones that I have noted. With respect to -- maybe I'll start in reverse order. Some of the access issues or some of the problems that Mr. Schweiger has noted, we are the ones that are developing Castlebrook Subdivision No. 1 in this area and in this area. I was unaware that we were having access problems, but I can certainly post it and get notice up there that it is a private lane. This is in the process of development now and I know I chased a couple of kids off of there tonight. We are as concerned about people getting on private property as I'm sure the neighbors are, but we can post that and we will also send a flyer out to the neighbors letting them know that it is private property. So, we can do that and, hopefully, that will help. With respect do the lots on this border -- can I -- Anna, can you put up the -- just the Chesterfield proposal. Anna: No. Amar: Okay. Anna: Yes. Hold on. Amar: In this area -- the previous application we, actually, removed lots from the previous application to this application. Mr. Schweiger, I believe, lives in this area on the other side of the Ten Mile Creek; is that correct? Down here? De Weerd: Yes. Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 49 of 59 Amar: Oh. Okay. There are fewer lots here than there were on the previous application and we did that in order to increase the width. The smallest lot in that area is 65 feet, which is right here and, then, they increase up to 86 feet, I believe. But we did increase that lot size trying to accommodate that. We are hoping that that pathway gives some sort of buffer with landscaping and fencing, should that pathway be allowed. So, we are aware of that concern and we are trying to address that and have addressed it in the form of removing lots. And that's the same thing that we did around the entire project, make the smaller lots inside, the larger lots on the outside. We know the desire that density for this area, based on the Comprehensive Plan, is anywhere from I believe four to eight units to the acre. If we can -- Anna, do you have that Comprehensive Plan? We took a copy of the Comprehensive Plan from the city and put in this project. If you look at it real close, it's actually the old proposal, but it will work for illustration. As we look at the -- this is the Chesterfield Subdivision. This is Pine. As we look at this project, there is proposed within the Comprehensive Plan light rail or whatever you want to call it, with smart growth at this location. There is also some mixed use with significantly higher density that is already approved on the east side of Ten Mile. This property is for sale. It's not purchased yet. And also this property here is for sale. All of that from mixed use and I have heard rumors of anything from apartments to residential to mini storage. That not mattering as much as this is an area of transition. We understand that the city has also looked at this area and said this is a good area for a higher density proposal. Now, we are on the low end of that and we are also, as I stated, trying to work with the neighbors in accomplishing that. Mr. Noll had spoken about the parks. The Boise city parks and their comprehensive plan and their ordinances, actually, don't require any open space in the subdivision. So, when they go in and do a subdivision, there is no open space and they make one regional park for that area. In Meridian you get the best of both worlds, because Meridian makes parks for regional areas, such as Fuller Park, and other parks in the area, but there is also pocket parks within the subdivision. There are areas where the people within that subdivision have an area to recreate. So, Meridian is, actually, in my opinion, ahead of what Boise has as far as their ordinances. As far as his request to remand it to P&Z, I believe we have done that once and I would request that it is recommended for approval this evening. We have looked at the project and we have made changes based on comments from this body. We have worked closely with staff and tried to work with the neighbors to come up with a plan and a solution that -- although everyone will not be happy -- I'd love for everyone to be happy, but have never ever had it. I don't know that that exists. We are trying to come up with a compromise that will be beneficial to all and I see my time's up and I appreciate your time and stand for any further questions. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions, Council? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 50 of 59 Nary: Mr. Amar, the street access right through here, how big is that street? That seemed to be where the concern is, is that the volume of traffic along this -- isn't this the street right here? Amar: Correct. It's currently from here to this location. The street width is 28 feet wide, actual paved surface. Eventually, when it's paved out it will be a full width street. With our project it will be built to this location. De Weerd: A full width? Amar: Up to 28 feet. The half -- it's two travel lanes now. It used to be half plus 12. Nary: And, Mrs. Canning, I was noticing on the Comprehensive Plan, this is shown as high density. Is this already developed or is this just -- it's just shown as a high density residential? Canning: Yes, sir. And, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this portion where the developer has both properties along side of Pine, is developed to its full width. It's just that small portion that's a half -- a half street there and, then, I believe it's half plus 12 over here. Nary: Thank you. De Weerd: Any further questions? Amar: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council, any further information needed? Okay. What would you like to do? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the public hearings for AZ 03-037, PP 03-046, and CUP 03-070. Nary: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on Items 18, 19, and 20. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Discussion? If there is no discussion, do I have a motion? Nary: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 51 of 59 De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I had discussion first and I guess we will see where that goes. You know, I -- it does look pretty dense. I understand the neighbors' concerns. The issue here, though, is what does the Comp Plan ask for, what's our intent, and I recognize we have got this sort of chicken and the egg kind of situation. This is recommended to be medium density residential. R-8 is a medium density residential. This is recommended to be high density residential, which is R-15 or R-40. Part of our rationale when we approved this Comprehensive Plan was because of the railway corridor; the potential for longer term usage and without having density near the railway system there is never going to be a railway system. I recognize the other side of the argument is going to be, you know, in our lifetime, I don't know if there is a railway system going to be here or not. But that was the intent of what this area is, that's what it's designed for. Yeah, it does seem pretty thick, but, again, that entire area is geared towards medium density residential and if I recall, other than the lot sizes, if I recall in Mrs. Canning's staff report, she said the density was either just slightly above or slightly below four units per acre. So, it is a medium density residential area, it has the diversity of housing, which is what. we requested, it does have a more centralized park. If I recall the prior green space, they broke up the different areas, but if you had kids and you lived in the wrong spot, then, your kids couldn't get to the park that was designed for them. Now, it is more centrally located, which is a better design than what we had seen previously. I think the challenges of the areas on this side -- I understand very much what the neighbors are saying about the access and all that. The only thing I guess I would disagree with is I have never seen anybody in the time I have been here say I would like to build bigger houses next to these smaller houses and nobody wants that. It's usually the other way around. So, I don't see that there is a limitation on the type of development that this side of the canal can do, if they want to develop and to do different densities, they are going to probably be given more by the area along Ten Mile more so than this area just to the west of them, especially in this area here where we have approved -- I think it's here is where we have the higher density development, along with the commercial that's right there on the corner. So, I think there are a lot of options available, but I guess I don't have -- I don't have a concern. I do think that the developer has done what we have asked them. I do recall specifically we did not have a concern with density, the density hasn't changed, but the variety did, whether they are attached homes, which is, at least in my mind, probably better for that style of housing, but if they want to do detached homes that's certainly an alternative and we have seen a lot of very nice detached homes that have been put up in Meridian in the last few years that I think are very positive and enhance the quality of the development. So, overall, I just -- I can't -- I can't really see a reason to deny this, it does fit the Comp Plan, it does fit what we have requested, it does have some positives. I understand the negatives. I don't discount them, I just think that in the balance of two things I think the negatives do not outweigh the positives that this development brings. Bird: Is that a motion? Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 52 of 59 Nary: No. It was just a comment, like I said, to see where it goes. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: And I would agree with the comments from Mr. Nary, certainly agree with the comments from the neighbors, but I think that the last time this development came through we used the term postage stamp lots and some of those other things and I think this has gone through a metamorphosis, which is positive. It buffers the exterior properties and they have done a nice job there and we are attempting to gain some density within this region and so I think that the plan, while I agree with Mr. Amar, certainly won't please everybody, I think it does meet the intent of what we are looking for in the Comp Plan. De Weerd: Thank you. Wardle: And so with that, if Mr. Bird has no more comments, I will move that we approve AZ 03-037, annexation and zoning for Chesterfield Subdivision. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 18. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Clerk. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Item 19. And on Item 19 1 believe there was an issue about ownership and maintenance of the pathway. Is that correct, Anna? Canning: Yes, ma'am. To leave some -- I guess you need to provide the applicant with some indication as to whether the city is willing to assume ownership and maintenance of that pathway. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: On the maintenance, I guess would our parks department -- I mean we maintain other pathways. I just -- Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, what has been done so far is the parks department has said once that connects a major point to a major point, they would take over maintenance of that. They are assuming responsibility for ownership Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 53 of 59 and maintenance on the north side, so this would be two systems on each side of the Ten Mile Drain. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I have a question for Anna. As far as -- and I know the parks department has been looking at this and working with Nampa -Meridian Irrigation is -- they will provide that portion if it's a public -- public right of way and some of those issues. Can we put a -- maybe not a restriction, but can we put a condition that it will be considered for public ownership at such time that it does connect with that other property? Am I understanding that the developer is going to make the improvements to the pathway only when the property connects with -- through the portion which they don't control to the portion to the north? Canning: No. They are trying to complete those improvements. Like for Castlebrook, they are trying to complete them currently. But this issue came up. So, they are, actually, coming to talk to you about it, the miscellaneous app, so it's the same issue, though. But, no, the intent of the developer was to build those as the final plats went through. Actually, that's how the condition was stated previously. We could state it differently here, if that's what you want to do. The applicant is willing to discuss this issue and he's also indicated that he's willing to maintain the property, it's -- it's this odd arrangement that we have with Nampa -Meridian in that, actually, the homeowners associations are doing the maintenance, but the agreement says that, eventually, they will be public ownership and maintenance. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Could we hear from the applicant on this specific issue, please? De Weerd: We have a closed Public Hearing. Mr. Attorney, is there -- okay. We need to open the public hearing back up in order to gain additional testimony for 19 and 20. Nary: So moved. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to reopen Items 19 and 20. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 54 of 59 Amar: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council Members. Madam Mayor, Councilmember Wardle, with respect to this pathway, it is our desire to have the pathway there. We will agree to maintain it or have the homeowners association maintain it. Nampa -Meridian, as I understand it, requires it to be a public pathway. They did not specify who has to maintain that and if I can put words, we can maintain it until such time that the city desires to take over operation and maintenance of that pathway, which, in my mind, would really leave it wide open to the city never maintaining it or within a few years if it becomes convenient for the city maintaining it at that time. But as we have it now, we want the pathway there, it was something that we were doing, we weren't looking for the city to maintain it, this came up because of a condition from Nampa -Meridian. So, we will maintain it, you own it, and I think we can all be happy here. De Weerd: Sounds good to me. Nichols: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. Okay. It may not sound so good. Nichols: Madam Mayor, don't presume my answer. Madam Mayor, within the standard conditions I think we have talked about if an irrigation company requires an indemnity agreement, that the homeowners association would enter into an indemnity agreement with the city sort of thing, we have contemplated some of these arrangements. I think what you could do is simply have a condition in the approval that the applicant enter into a contract with regard to the maintenance responsibilities of the pathway and -- because there will have to be a license agreement between the city and Nampa -Meridian for the pathway, which includes certain maintenance responsibilities and I -- my reading of that pathway agreement is that we are not prohibited from contracting out how that maintenance gets done. So, I think we can do an agreement between the city and the applicant to get those things covered that way. So, it gets done, but it's not necessarily ours. I do know the policy of the parks department is to not have little pieces of pathway that they have to maintain, they'd rather have that goes from like an arterial that crosses down to another arterial, so that they have got a longer piece to maintain and take care of, instead of just little disjointed pieces. De Weerd: Okay. And you can get that done by next week? Nichols: Madam Mayor, I believe that October 5th is the magic date for all of this work, isn't it? Nary: It will happen when it happens. De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further -- did that answer all questions here? Wardle: Yes, Madam Mayor, and I move we close the Public Hearing on Items 19 and 20. Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 55 of 59 Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. We are closing 19 and 20 again. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT Wardle: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve PP 03-046, preliminary plat for Chesterfield Subdivision and to place a condition that the city will enter into a maintenance agreement with the homeowners association for the purpose of maintaining the pathway. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 19 with the additional comments. Any further discussion? Mr. Clerk. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve CUP 03-070, Conditional Use Permit for Chesterfield Subdivision, to include all staff and applicant comments and to reduce the -- excuse me. To make the front setbacks standard and also to allow the reduction of setbacks within -- Canning: Side yard setback. Wardle: -- side yard setbacks to allow the option for either attached or detached homes. Nary: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 20. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Clerk. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 21: Ordinance No. AZ 03-036 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.7 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 by Earl, Mason & Stanfield, Inc. — south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 56 of 59 De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 21 1 believe -- what are we doing on Item 21? Mr. Berg? Berg: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't know what you're going to do, but we do have a development agreement that we needed to modify and I don't have those signatures, which is our -- kind of our wedge to get it done before we approve an ordinance and so I'd recommend maybe tabling it until next week. We could get them to sign the new amended development agreement. De Weerd: Mr. Nichols? Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we are talking about some changes on the first two pages of the development agreement if the other signatory to the agreement approves the substitution of the pages to the already signed agreement, which the clerk's office can check tomorrow -- and I don't imagine they have any objections to it, so it doesn't change the zoning or what was actually approved, it's just scrivener's errors in the document, so if you put if off for a week I think it can be done. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, can we have a number? Okay. Let's have a motion. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we continue -- or I guess not continue -- table AZ 03-036 until September 28th, 2004. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to table Item 21 to 9128. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 22: Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies: De Weerd: 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 21st, 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 22nd, 2004, unless payment is made in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her water, sewer, and trash delinquency? And since Frank doesn't have a water bill coming from the City of Meridian, I can't imagine. They are hereby informed -- oh, yeah, you use water in your office, don't you? I was thinking residential. They are hereby informed that they Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 57 of 59 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 $26,665,87. Do I have a motion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve the water delinquency turn off of September 22nd, 2004, in the sum of $26,665.87. Nary: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve the delinquency shutoff list. So, Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Just to invite you that the LDS church on Ustick is having an open house Thursday evening on the 23rd and he's hosting a special VIP tour at 5:15. If you are interested in coming, the tour lasts about 20 to 30 minutes and they would love to see the City Council members there. And also they just very much appreciate the building and fire departments that have worked with them during construction on their new chapel and if you will exchange those comments -- or not exchange them, but pass them along I would appreciate it. Also, just to remind you about -- and I messed up, I really wanted to recognize Gary, since he was here. Probably the last time I could recognize him during a City Council meeting. Nary: He still works for you next Tuesday. De Weerd: I really apologize. Nary: He still works for you next Tuesday. De Weerd: Does he work for us next Tuesday? Nary: You could make him come. De Weerd: If you will make him come, Brad. There is a years of service retirement party for him on the 27th and it's going to be held from 4:00 to 7:00 with presentation at 5:30. It will be held at the police department. So, please, all come and I guess we would like, Anna, I'm sure to submit a letter from the Mayor and City Council on this park stuff to the county, right? Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 Page 58 of 59 Nary: I thought we already did that? De Weerd: Oh, no, we have talked to them, we have sent them a letter, but it wasn't from all of us. Canning: Yeah. And Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, also parks has raised the issue that they are currently re -looking at their park impact fees and they want to try and get the county to adopt those new park impact fees. I'm not sure there is a way that we could craft that wording, so that we didn't have to go back to them every time. I'm not sure what Boise city does, if they automatically accept an adjustment in the impact fees, if Boise city changes them or, likewise, with ACHD. So, I haven't -- been a little stumped on that one. Knowing what I know of Ada County, I just can't imagine them cart blanche agreeing to adopt something the city has adopted without going through that whole laborious process each time. De Weerd: Any wild suggestions from Council? Council or counsel. Nichols: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Members of the Council, a couple of points. First of all, there isn't so much on development in the area of impact that the difference of approximately a hundred dollars, which the park impact fee committee looked at, would be so significant as to warrant probably delaying the process of Ada County adopting your current stuff now. So, it would be my recommendation that you go full speed ahead with what you have and when and if the city amends the impact fee ordinance to increase or change the fee, that, then, by that time, hopefully, you have got -- you're close enough for the county you can start whatever process you decide to start for upgrading it. The park impact fee committee is committed to looking at the fees every year, so that there aren't any large increases in chunks every five years, but any increases are incremental. So, that's what they are doing. De Weerd: Thank you. Very good advice. Any other comments? Wardle: Madam Mayor, just -- I was informed tonight that the parks department -- or the parks commission had come back with a recommendation and I believe our instruction was to take that to the parks commission, which meets here shortly, and, then, to see -- it meets the second Wednesday. I can't remember what day that was. 1I:�T TI=— # k1r4.i rr1i §Ti" Wardle: Right. And, then, to bring that back to Council shortly. So, that's a time line that we would have something at least before Council if we choose to move faster on Meridian City Council September 21, 2004 - Page 59 of 59 this, as Mr. Nichols says, we could have something that would follow it very closely behind. De Weerd: Yeah. I just have seen how long this has taken. It would just be, I think, to the advantage of the city to just move forward with what we have. Nary: Before it's all developed out. Canning: I will draft a letter for the City Council. I'll try and get that done tomorrow. I'm sorry I didn't get it done last week. De Weerd: No. That's not a problem. We all need to sign it, so we can just bring it to City Council next Tuesday? Canning: I will. Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Canning! Is that a question? De Weerd: That had a red exclamation mark on it. Nary: Like that lady's name. De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Wardle: So moved. Nary: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Thank you. MEETING A, RNED AT 10:32 P.M. (TAPE I FI E OF TH EDINGS) MA ORT E WEERD 'A ` �� . ,,PP ,, ATTUt: A /ice O WILLIAM G. BERG, JRrCI CLLR P 2 , D4-