Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 11, 2006 C/C Minutes Meridian City Council April 11,2006 Page 26 of 49 community. You have addressed some of our concerns on roads and donating right of way for the roads in the intersection. You have addressed off-site improvements that certainly this Council has been interested in the safety of the kids in getting them to our schools. We appreciate that and thank you. Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 05-067 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.9 acres from Ada County RUT to R-15 Medium-High Density Residential zone for Casa Meridiana by Insight Architects - 1777 Victory Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 05-060 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 32-unit multi-family development in a proposed R-15 Medium-High Density Residential District for Casa Meridiana by Insight Architects - 1777 Victory Road: De Weerd: Okay. Items 13 and 14 are public hearings on AZ 05-067 and CUP 05-060. I will open these two public hearings, 13 and 14, with staff comments. Canning: Okay. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Casa Meridiana project -- it's not located at Medford Place. There we go. It's located at the corner -- the southeast corner of Locust Grove and Victory. And this is a request for annexation and zoning and conditional use approval. The gross density of the project -- I'm going to go down to the colored one. You can see the units here, although this is not the current proposed layout, but it shows a little better in color. But these are a combination of 31 units on one lot. So, it is a multi-family development. You will notice that these units are in pairs of twos, as in this case, or threes, as in the larger units are threes. So, here is three, two, two -- so, varying combinations of one, two, and three units standing alone. This does require -- because it is multi-family it does require a Conditional Use Permit and you are actually seeing that application before you tonight. The Commission has -- because these are coupled together with the annexation, the Commission has just recommended on the Conditional Use Permit, rather than made a final action. Okay. So, this is our current layout. And I will let the applicant explain more about the layout. I did want to point out that the overall density is 4.6 units per acre. Normally we would see that kind of development in an R-8. They are asking for the R-15, because that's the first district that allows a multi-family development. It is prohibited in an R-8 development -- or R-8 district. We do have elevations. As seen here. The Commission heard this item on March 16th and they have recommended approval. Russ Phillips, the applicant's representative, spoke in favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition. And Eric Oaas, the applicant, did comment on the application. The key issues of the discussion by the Commission were gates. The original -- it gets a little bit confusing. The applicant, when they first came to us in pre-application discussions, indicated that they wanted to do gates. We informed them that the code did not allow that. So, they withdrew that, but it's still been very much a topic of discussion with this application. We have talked to them about doing a text amendment. That has not been submitted, but we do understand that they may be moving that direction. Other issues of discussion by the Commission included high groundwater, cut-through traffic, private streets for what is, essentially, a single family residential or attached residential Meridian City Council April 11, 2006 Page 27 of 49 development. Some townhouses. Interconnectivity of the private road system. Currently they are proposing these as private roads. The Planning and Zoning Commission -- I'm getting ahead of myself. Sorry. They are currently proposed as private streets or private roads. There was discussion of redesign of this development to provide internal access from adjacent properties, either to the south and/or to the east. Discussion about access to major road systems or local roads access only, kind of tied with the previous one. And, then, emergency service drives, instead of stub streets. And I believe that discussion was for this extension here of the private street. The key change to staff's initial recommendation was to require that this kind of generally north-south street that connects to the south be a public street. So, the outstanding issue before the City Council as presented in the staff report, there is a couple. One is the site design considerations that each unit needs provide a 20 by 20 parking pad. And, then, some questions about the fencing plan along the common open space and along the perimeter of the site. And, then, again, the public versus private streets. That system. This is a -- as shown is a very narrow street and to make it a public street will require some site redesign. It also would require that the applicant submit a preliminary plat, because you can't dedicate a roadway, except through preliminary plat process. So, that is still an outstanding issue for the Council. Those are the issues as presented in the staff report. This project has been very difficult for staff and for the applicant and for me in that what they are proposing technically meets the code and so the staff report focuses on how this project meets or does not meet the specific code. However, this project takes our code in several directions that I'm very uncomfortable with and the applicant and I have talked about this. I presented a memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission. We have had other discussions with them and their attorney. And I want to let the Council know what those concerns are and where I'm headed with those. Again, it's -- the major one is this public versus private street system. And I'm happy to say that the fire marshal and I completely agree on a street issue and this is the one, so that was cause for celebration, perhaps, but -- when we were doing the Unified Development Code, the fire marshal was particularly concerned with having some means of addressing multi-family developments and for commercial developments where they didn't have a public street that went into the depth of the project. So, we added the private street provisions -- we had private streets allowed under the old code and what they basically mimicked was the standards for the reduced right of way section for Ada County Highway District, because we wanted -- we didn't want people -- the old code didn't want people using a substandard street and calling it a private street, just so that they could avoid ACHD standards. So, those private street standards were, really, based on ACHD standards. Well, no one ever used them. They just figured if they have got to build a comparable street, then, why not dedicate it to the highway district and have them maintain it. So, no one was using those. So, the fire marshal and I saw an opportunity to allow private streets as part of the Unified Development Code strictly for addressing purposes. It was for multi-family developments where you come in off a commercial drive aisle, you have 90 degree parking and, usually, you have a system of interconnected drive aisles that get you through the apartment complex. It was a way to name those drive aisles, so that the fire department and the police department could respond to emergencies, rather than just having, you know, a hundred addresses listed out at the front of the property and this is Meridian City Council April 11, 2006 Page 28 of 49 how you get in. And any of you that have ever lived in an apartment complex or tried to visit someone in one, it is very difficult to find your way through those sometimes. So, that's why we started the private street provisions. It was not to start an alternative street standard for residential development. It was just for multi-family for addressing purposes and for commercial addressing purposes. Well, because this project is technically multi-family, they are able to ask for the private streets. They do plan on condominiumizing -- try and say that one fast. They do intend on doing a condominium plat to make those -- each of those residences an individual ownership. But it will be done for a condominium process. So, I'm very concerned, one, that we are setting a precedent by this project regarding the use of private streets for, essentially, single family homes. The other precedent I'm worried about, along with the fire marshal, is that this may set a precedent regarding these private streets in order to just have reduced construction and development standards for a residential development. You know, this should probably meet the same standards that another attached single family or townhouse project would have to meet and currently they don't. Moving onto the next issue. It's the interconnected street system. As it's shown now, they do have a stub going south, but if they move forward with this whole gate discussion, which has been discussed quite a bit, because they don't want cut-through traffic, then, we are losing that interconnected system. And it's very important here. You have a very -- this one shows it better. You have some severe physical constraints. You have got two irrigation facilities that are quite large, both in this area. So, you really have one property that's to the south and one and a half or two properties to the east, along with this one, that all have to interconnect. I don't know if this is Tuscany Village or Tuscany Lakes, but this Tuscany project here does not stub into this area. And, then, the rest of undeveloped land in the section is the DeChambeau property and currently we do show that as a neighborhood center. So, the idea is to get folks moving toward that neighborhood center for their services, for their local retail, you know, to go buy coffee, to go buy ice cream, to have a central gathering place there. This project does have one going to the south, but it doesn't have one going to the east currently. The gate issue -- and the interconnected issue and the gate issue are closely tied. As I mentioned before, the applicant's original solution -- they were rightly concerned that this would become very much cut-through traffic and so their solution was to have gates on that and, again, it's not part of this application as it stands, but it -- just the discussion keeps on coming up. And the gates don't seem to offer any other security or amenity feature, they just seem to be mostly designed to cut -- to prevent cut-through traffic. But, again, with the Comprehensive Plan we talk about this interconnected street system quite a bit. So, I'm concerned about the precedent that this project may set regarding interconnected streets, one, and gates as it moves forward as the other. If we are approving a design that needs gates, then, maybe that's the question. Do we approve it or do we annex it, rather than do we allow gates. Finally, the issue of the condominium plat is -- concerns me. As I mentioned before, they are requesting R-15 zoning. They are about 4.6 units per acre and the reason they are requesting it is to -- so that they can allow -- as for this multi-family development and, then, in turn, do a condominium plat. You won't see the condominium plate. It's an administrative approval under the Unified Development Code. What the UDC says is that a condominium plat application for property in any district may be processed as a short Meridian City Council April 11, 2006 Page 29 of 49 plat where no new development is proposed. Now, this is another one of those ones where, you know, we were trying to do the right thing and maybe opened up a can of worms here, because where we were starting to see these condominium questions come up was not in residential, it was in commercial, and in a commercial you're allowed to have multiple buildings on a site, so -- and even multiple ownership within a building was not really a concern. It's, you know, instead of a leased space, it was a condo space. And we had seen the struggle that these commercial properties were facing when they came in to do a condominium plat, having to go through a four or six, nine, 12 month process to get the condominium plat done. So, we said, okay, well, if the development's already proposed -- or approved, there is no need for City Council to see a condominium plat, because it's not changing the land use. And that's very much I think the -- Mr. Watson would say very much in keeping with what the intent of the state's provision regarding condominium plats are. In this case where we have got a residential property, it gets very tricky, because so much of our residential standards are based on ownership. You have single family attached -- a duplex is different from single family attached and physically they are the same structure almost, it's just you have a lot line under one. And multi-family is different from a townhouse in that, again, you just have these lot lines sitting under these houses that the built form looks the same, but the ownership really plays a very much different role. So, we have got, through the condominium process we are, again, kind of not developing to the same standards. It's kind of like the private streets, where we are setting a different standard for this -- this development could set a precedent for allowing a different set of standards by using the condominium plat process. You know, when we did the UDC we sat down with all the development community that we could gather at the table and said, you know, we don't want to be doing planned developments anymore, we want consistent standards across the board. We want all -- you know, we want to meet what your standards are, but we want them all to be the same. And now we are opening up this condominium process to basically have a whole different set of standards on every project that comes through again. So, I'm very much concerned about the precedent that this project may set regarding using condominium plats in residential developments. You do have Findings for approval before you tonight. Although the staff report does recommend that you have the applicant submit a site plan that depicts the public streets and the other site design considerations pointed out in the staff report. And with that I will answer any questions. I know that was a long presentation by staff and it's a little confusing, but I am concerned. De Weerd: I know. I was going to ask you to summarize five minutes ago. I do have a question. What is -- now, my parents lived in condominiums and, actually, I did a presentation to an older group of citizens that made the comment, as the baby boomers begin to age, we need to start paying more attention to the type of housing they desire and these were probably the first of the baby boomers that are hitting that retirement age. And they are very interested in condominiums. What is the difference between this and townhouses, other than you're owning lots, but not the land? Is that -- or you're owning the house and the land? Meridian City Council April 11,2006 Page 30 of 49 Canning: With a condominium you own airspace and, then, the land is held in a common association. So, all the land and all the structures are held in the association and, then, you own an airspace. You own from interior wall to interior wall. De Weerd: Okay. And that's what my parents owned and they preferred that. Canning: And I didn't mean to say that I have a problem with the condominium ownership, I just have a problem with the difference in standards that we are using. If this were a townhouse development this would have to meet much more rigorous standards. So, I'm worried about the equity between different forms of ownership. De Weerd: Okay. So, we are not looking to exclude condominiums, but they have a different process than, apparently, this one is coming in under? Canning: Right. They -- I guess optimally I would like to see this development have to meet the same standards as say a townhouse development would have to. They have a mix of single family -- single family detached, single family attached, and townhouses, if they were on lots. And, again, they don't have frontage on a public street. Right now they don't have the 20-by-20 parking pad. They don't -- they have a 24-foot street, instead of a 33-foot street. I mean it's just the standards are very different in how this is being able to develop, because they are going through as a multi-family development and, then, with the intent of doing a condominium plat in the future. De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have any questions? Bird: Not at this time. Borton: No. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant's representative here? You got into planning, uh? Butler: I did. Good evening. Joann Butler, 251 East Front Street, representing the applicant. And I'm just going to stand here for a moment. We'd like to start our presentation with an overview by Russ Phillips, the architect, and, then, I'll come back to the podium, and Eric Oaas will summate -- do a summation. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. You have -- okay. So, you all have a collective 15 minutes. Phillips: Okay. Madam Mayor, City Council, I'm Russ Phillips, with Insight Architects, 2238 Broadway Avenue, Boise, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Phillips: And we do have a CD that is right here. We are proposing a small development on 6.9 acres that we feel really implements recommendations and guidelines as set forth in the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, by offering social Meridian City Council April 11,2006 Page 31 of 49 and economic diversity and a variety of higher end housing. We are accomplishing this by providing owners -- owner-occupied residences with high quality materials and design, a mixture of attached and detached owner-occupied residences. We are promoting social, economic diversity within the city in a variety of ways, yet within a rural setting. We are taking some natural features and vegetation type environments that are there now and trying to make those features and we are looking at exteriors that will be maintained by one organization, one entity, homeowners association. Next slide, please. As pointed out, this is our site right here. It's a unique site. It's bound by Victory Road, which is at the time of our application deemed a collector. And, then, Locust Grove as another collector. Next slide. As pointed out by Anna, this was our initial presentation, 32 units. And I'd like to say that Oaas Laney, the developers of this property, are extremely community-oriented and conscious and thoughtful in their developments. For example, in this one we have been -- they have been taking a look at the -- a number of factors for a year now, considering -- meeting with city leaders, citizens in the community, and conducting several focus groups to ascertain the type of development that the city is looking for. We are -- the intent is not to try and stretch or divert from standards that are set and policy. What we are trying to do is create the diversity that we feel Meridian has been looking for. And to do that it takes thinking outside the box. And we have to compliment staff. I think staff has been very helpful in helping us work through these issues. We understand that they -- staff is somewhat constrained by their assignments and in this case we are -- what made sense to us was to accomplish this layout with private streets. The main premise is that we have got an existing -- a seasonal feature, water feature, that runs through this area and we wanted to site the homes first and look at how people in this environment would want to live in their homes, what they would want to see, considering noise from these two collectors, sun orientation on back patios, noise, and so forth. So, we -- if you look, it's not a standard grid. We have oriented minimal -- these homes so that there is minimal impact along these streets. Where there is a patio area, we have got a screened wall. But the idea is, really, for focus inward in a community that provides young professionals or empty nesters with an alternate housing environment that fits their lifestyles. The idea is they can work in downtown Meridian, St. Luke's, other areas in Meridian, and not have to travel from Eagle or Boise or other communities to enjoy this type of lifestyle. We have -- this is an amenity enhanced area, not only with the water features -- seasonal water features, but abundant open space. Each unit has its own private patio and yet it shares on common areas as well. We have an activity building, a pool, hibachi courts. The theme is built around a southern -- a Mediterranean type lifestyle and so we picked activities that fit within this type of community. These are -- these are very nice homes as far as -- they are roughly 22, 23 hundred square feet. They have upstairs and downstairs to each .- each of them. They have three bedrooms, essentially, but we have a -- several mixtures of rec rooms upstairs, library or master suites or a guest suite upstairs as far as bedrooms. Downstairs we have got roughly 1,500 square feet in each unit. They are town homes. We need to design them for the UDC multi-family housing standards. They are townhomes. They are connected. But in lieu of having walls of homes facing your community, we elected to break those up and a benefit from that is that the focus group -- some people would like to have a stand-alone home, others would rather share common walls and we worked with the fire Meridian City Council April 11, 2006 Page 32 of 49 department extensively, with Joe Silva, regarding private streets. He is very comfortable with a 24 foot street width that we propose. The cul-de-sacs meet his requirements and, then, we have areas between the buildings so that fire truck access and hoses can reach between each of these buildings as well. Private streets is what makes this development work. The Commission had various opinions from we need connectivity regardless of the development, to one Commissioner stated I don't know if connectivity is really important in this instance. Next slide. What we are proposing tonight is -- is not a gated community. We have -- it seems that one of the concessions we made was to eliminate the Locust Grove access to created emergency access stubbed to the south grass-creet, so that emergency trucks can still come along this area. We would have bollards. And we would have one point of access off of Victory and with a private street we are allowed to have some parking at the activity center that can back into the private streets. The street widths are narrowed down, so that we can accomplish the 24-by-24 parking pads and we did lose one unit due to the loss of Locust Grove egress, but the developer is willing to work with that. Connectivity is -- we do not have vehicular connectivity, except for emergency access to the south, which is what this was a requirement by the Commission. And we do have pedestrian connectivity to the south and to the east that if there is a regional shopping area off to the east or neighbors to the south, there is no reason to jump in a car and drive there, that with our environment and gas situation and so forth, that we'd rather encourage people to walk. And this is a small area if you look at the entire area. And so walking really makes a lot of sense. Next slide. I'd like to just flip through quickly some slides and, then, let Joann speak. Next slide. These are ideas of -- this is where we got our images from. Next slide. These are from the type of -- same materials, stucco, clay tile roof. Next slide. Next slide. Next. Next. Next. Next. Next. Next. Next. And each one will have -- next slide, please -- will have a trellis area. Next. And at this time I'd like to turn this over to Joann. Butler: Thank you. Joann Butler. And I'm going to talk a little bit about a planning issue before I get into a legal issue. Let's see if I can make this out. What this slide represents is not Casa Meridiana. It represents where I used to live. This -- let's see if I can do it. I'll have to go up here and see. Bird: Grab the mike there, Joann. De Weerd: She's talking to herself. Butler: I am talking to myself. Bird: Just us old guys are supposed to do that. Butler: Okay. I'm not sure if I'm going to do this exactly right. But this particular house is -- yeah, it is. This is my house or -- we just moved from here. And I just want to comment on the pathway and the connectivity. You have got an area down here in Meridian that is fairly secluded because of natural and other borders. What I had in my house was a neighborhood over here. I was in this neighborhood. There was a creek Meridian City Council April 11, 2006 Page 33 of 49 here and another neighborhood over here. Right along my side yard was an emergency access and a pedestrian pathway that led over to this street. This is how I met all of my neighbors. In fact, I was so oriented because of this pathway, that this is - - this became my neighborhood. Not where I drove in, but this. It's a very effective way to insure that you don't have vehicular traffic going through an area and cutting through and that is one of the main things that you do ask for in your Comprehensive Plan as a goal, is to prevent cut-through traffic. And so the only reason this slide is up there to say I'm just giving you a personal anecdote of where not only did it work, but it worked well and it brought neighbors together, because they were on their feet, they were walking through what amounted to your yard, and it's a very good technique for connectivity. Now I just want to talk a little bit about the legal issues, because this is a really very important issue and it's so important that by the time I get done with this I'm going to suggest that we table this matter and we ask your attorney to look at it for a week until next week and I'll explain why. As Anna said, what we are interested in is consistent standards. And that's exactly what we are trying to do here is treat things consistently. Like things alike. And so bear with me as I go through a little bullet point of what things you already know. First of all, I'm going to talk about some state statutes and I'm going to talk about the local Land Use Planning Act, which deals with use. Not ownership of land, but land use. The act enables you to create a comprehensive plan on 11 components that you have to address. None them are ownership. The act enables you to draft a zoning ordinance and regulate height, size, setbacks. It absolutely says nothing about ownership. And that's for a very good legal reason. Zoning restricts the limit that land can be used and not based on the identify or the status of users, because if you do that, generally, your ordinances are going to be held invalid. The proper concern and the focus of zoning has to be on the use of the property, not the form of the property's ownership. Anything else raises very important due process and discrimination concerns. The Idaho Condominium Property Act establishes condominiums as a form of real property ownership, so it becomes a single family ownership in the condominium format. The condo act also says that zoning ordinances must -- must treat structures alike, regardless of whether the structure is zoned as condominiums or is owned as an apartment and leased. So, a multiple -- meaning more than one, family building must be treated like any multiple family building regardless of the fact that the ownership is in the form of a condominium. Your Comprehensive Plan talks about transportation. It discourages cut-through traffic. It encourages pathways along the lines of what I'm talking about here. It calls for diversity of housing types. The UDC, again, governs land use, not ownership in any way, shape, or form you do not address the status of folks. The UDC does allow private streets in multi-family developments and now it's very important here to talk about what your code defines as multi-family developments versus multi-family dwellings. A multi-family development is anything with three or more homes. They could be individual detached single family. They could be multi-family structures with more -- three or more units in them. But a multi-family development is very different from a multi-family building. The UDC goes on to explain that private streets are not intended -- they are intended in multi-family developments, but the UDC -- and I'm looking at 11-3F-1 for later -- is that private streets are not intended for single family, other than those that create a common mew and that is a design technique that, obviously, you are championing where you're Meridian City Council April 11,2006 Page 34 of 49 creating private streets and mew comes from an old English term meaning formerly private stables turned into homes and that's what you're trying to create, more of a private cul-de-sac type of situation. Canning: Not cul-de-sac. Butler: That's what the definition is. I don't know what you were considering. But be that as it may, I just wanted to say that the UDC says private streets are intended for multi-family development. I would think that the language of the UDC may be -- may be in need of tweaking. It appears to me that the private streets are intended for multi- family developments that include multi-family dwellings, not intended for multi-family development that are included in detached single family. But that's not what we have here. This would be in keeping with state law, which requires multi-family dwellings to be treated consistently no matter what the ownership is. The private street requirements are met with this application. It meets the design criteria. There is no detriment to others, especially because it promotes a comprehensive plan for no cut- through traffic. It may be that you have a real concern about private streets in Meridian and that may be and I have no idea -- it sounds like it from the fire department's perspective. As long as you have private streets, you just have to use them consistently with the same kind of structures. And that's all we are saying here. It's not pressing the envelope, it's saying just be consistent based on the type of dwellings that are being involved, not on the ownership, because that's where the slippery slope of discrimination comes into play. So, if this city wants to look into ending private streets, then, I think that's certainly within the purview of the city, but for right now with multi- family dwellings, I think it would be inconsistent to treat it any other way than to allow as was requested the private streets. I know that's 180 degrees from what Anna is saying, because she's talking about ownership, and so that's why I do think it really is an important issue for the city to grapple with and I would suggest that maybe some time, even just a week, be taken to look at it. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. You probably have 30 seconds, Eric, since your colleagues here have taken all your time. Oaas: Eric Oaas. De Weerd: Okay. Time's up. Rountree: But good to see you anyway. Oaas: Oaas Laney, 519 West Front in Boise. Madam Mayor, Council Members, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I think the only thing that I would say is that we have -- what we have tried to do with this development is we have tried to do something maybe a bit different, maybe like Russ said, thinking out of the box a little bit. But what we wanted to add to Meridian is to add some diversity in terms of development projects that maybe attract some people that Meridian is losing. We believe that this project, because of its -- because of the nature -- because of the dual income, no kids folks, plus Meridian City Council April 11, 2006 Page 35 of 49 the empty nesters, this is an amenity rich subdivision that really -- really offers something that we don't think the City of Meridian currently has and right now we are afraid are going to Eagle and going elsewhere. Now, the gates on the community would be nice, but we understand that the city really hasn't looked very favorably at the gates issue. But having said all that, we truly would like the city to take a good hard look at this. We have designed it in a way that we think is very accommodating, but at the end of the day we want to bring some diversity to the city that we don't think it currently has. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Oaas: And do you have any questions? De Weerd: Council, questions? Bird: I do have some questions, but I think that what Joann brought forward, if we was to continue it I can ask at that point. There is a couple of clarifications I'd like to get, but one of them has to come from our fire department, which I will get. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: I don't need it now, no. Not unless we are not going to continue. De Weerd: Okay. No questions at this time. Oaas: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, Eric. Is there any testimony on this application? Okay. Now is the time for your questions. Mr. Baird. Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I do appreciate the approach that counsel for the applicant is taking here. She's bringing forth some issues that are best probably not discussed in a Public Hearing and I think I would appreciate the opportunity to sit down with the planning department. I'm not sure if we are really talking about ownership or if we are talking about a distinction between single family attached and condominiums. I think that's kind of what the planning director was getting at is we have certain standards for single family attached that are vastly different from multi-family. I'm not sure if this is an unintended consequence of the Unified Development Code, but those are all things that I think a week or two to look into we would all benefit from. De Weerd: Okay. Council? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. - Meridian City Council April 11,2006 Page 36 of 49 Borton: It makes sense, in light of Mr. Baird's comments and what Ms. Butler had recommended, that the matter be set over for a couple of weeks for this work to be done. And with that I would move to continue Public Hearing AZ 05-067 and CUP 05- 060 for two weeks to April 25th. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to continue this to 4/25. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: That's April 25th. Mr. Rountree. Rountree: You didn't give us an opportunity for discussion, but -- De Weerd: After a motion like that you don't have discussion. Rountree: I'd just like to be on the record that this does create some issues for the city, obviously, and certainly for the developer. Having been involved in far too many nightmares on Idaho Street over the past years and with the concern that staff has and I think the genuine desire on the part of the application to create a real quality community for the City of Meridian, I would very much like to see us get together and get this worked out, so we aren't back here at some point in time in the future trying to rectify the sins that we both created from one another. With respect to private roads, we are now seeing private roads that have been approved in the past in the City of Meridian coming back to be vacated in order for ACHD to take them over at the desire of the residents within those closed communities. So, it is an issue that we are dealing with. And I think the issues of the various standards -- and I appreciate everybody's comment that we want uniformity in what we see. I think we can reach resolve. It might take more than a week, but I would hope that the next time we see this that staff is comfortable, so we can be comfortable and myself in particular, because, again, I don't want to create something for a future Council that they have to solve as it relates to a bad line or a bad plot or a bad piece of planning that went on at this point, when it could have been corrected and not create a future problem. So, I just had to say that. De Weerd: I appreciate that. And I think that's, too, what the applicants were trying to give time to to work through. Personally, this is the kind of development we would like to encourage. So, if there is a way we can figure out how best to bring these kind of developments in that meets both goals, the goals of the city and the goals of the developers in addressing market, this is a product I think the market will accept. So, this has been continued to April 25th and we appreciate that your time. Item 15: Public Hearing: Proposed New Park and Recreation Fees and Fee Increases to Cover Cost of Recreation Programs and Park Services: