Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 06-27 Meridian City Council Meetina June 27, 2006 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:20 P.M., Tuesday, June 27, 2006, by Shaun Wardle. Members Present: Shaun Wardle, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, and Joe Borton. Members Absent: Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Others Present: Ted Baird, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Bill Musser, Jeff Lavey, Ron Anderson, Len Grady, Doug Strong, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X Shaun Wardle X Charlie Rountree o X Joe Borton X Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd Wardle: All right. I would like to apologize for our brief delay. Call to order the Tuesday, June 27th, Meridian City Council meeting and begin with roll call attendance. Mr. Clerk. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: Wardle: Item NO.2 is our pledge of allegiance. I'd like to invite Girl Scout Troop No. 714, Angela, Lindsay, Abby, and Natalie to lead us in the pledge, please. (Pledge of allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Burton Roberts, with Meridian Gospel Tabernacle: Wardle: And, ladies, I have a City of Meridian pin I'd like to present to you for helping us out. Thanks for being here tonight. Item No. 3 is our community invocation by Pastor Burton Roberts with Meridian Gospel Tabernacle. Pastor Roberts. Roberts: Shall we pray. Most kind and gracious Heavenly Father, we pause tonight to invoke your presence upon this meeting. With grateful hearts we come to you again knowing that when we ask for wisdom and guidance that we can expect to receive it, so tonight we need that throughout every part of this meeting. We also want to, once again, thank you for your watch care over all of our lives. Thank you that we can live in such a wonderful country and a special thanks to all those that are fighting on foreign soil to protect our rights to live as we do in this wonderful country. So, we ask your continued blessing upon this meeting and we ask all these things in Jesus' mighty name, amen. Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 2 of 71 Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: Wardle: Thank you, Pastor Roberts. Item NO.4 is adoption of the agenda. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: We do have some stuff on the Consent Agenda, a request to pull Items K and S to the regular agenda and make them 7-K and 7-8. And on the department reports, under item A, we'd like to add the police department, Chief Musser, and our resolution number on Item J in the Consent is 06-522. Our ordinances, Items 28 and 29, is 06-1239 and 06-1240. And I move with that that we approve the agenda as stated. Rountree: Second. Wardle: Thank you. Anna, we have a motion and a second. Discussion? Planning director. Canning: We had asked that Item 5-G be pulled off the agenda to 7-G. Bird: I'm sorry. I would include that in my deal, to pull Item G to -- do you need it to a date certain? Canning: No. To 7-G. Bird: Oh, 7-G. Okay. Canning: And, then, on Items 15 and 16 we are asking that you make a decision on number 16 before 15. I don't know if you want to change the agenda or just deal with that when you get to the public hearings. Bird: We can just deal with that when we get to it, Council -- Mr. President. Okay. With that I move that we approve the revised revised agenda. Borton: Second agrees? Rountree: Agree. Wardle: Second agrees. All in favor of approving the revised agenda. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Consent Agenda: Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 3 of 71 A. Approve Minutes of April 3,2006 City Council /ACHD Special Joint Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 05- 058 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 49.95 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Keeao Sprinas Subdivision by Todd Campbell - 5910 North Black Cat Road: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 05- 060 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 building lots and 9 common lots on 49.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Keego Sprinas Subdivision by Todd Campbell - 5910 North Black Cat Road: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06. 020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.65 acres from RUT to a C-G zone for Williams Pipeline by Northwest Pipeline Corporation - 1301 Locust Grove Road: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 06-011 Request for a Variance to allow for larger temporary structures from the maximum 500 square feet allowed per UDC 11- 3E-4C1 for fireworks sales, Christmas tree sales, and produce sales for Fat City Fireworks by Richard Handke - 535 N. Eagle Road, 3301 W. Cherry Lane, 20 E. Fairview Avenue, 1375 E. Fairview Avenue, 97 Main Street, and for the lot at the northwest corner of Ten Mile Road and W. Franklin Road: F. Findings of Fact and Conelusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06- 004 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 358.57 acres from RR to R-2 (66.02 acres), R-8 (167.02 acres), R-15 (79.82 acres), C-N (17.26 acres) and C-C (28.45 acres) for The Tree Farm by Treehaven, LLC - north side of Chinden Boulevard on both sides of Black Cat Road; west of Spurwing Subdivision: H. Development Agreement: AZ 05-045 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 91.085 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reflection Ridge Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC - 4275 South Locust Grove Road: I. Development Agreement: AZ 05-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 76.29 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Zebulon Heiahts Subdivision No.2 by Traditions by Amyx II, LLP - south of East McMillan Road and east of North Locust Grove Road:: Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 4 of 71 J. Resolution: : EstablishinQ the Mavor's Anti-Drug Coalition and Adopting the By-Laws of the Mayor's Anti-Drug Coalition: L. Award of Bid I Approve Contract for the 2006 Trunk Sewer Proiect with Sommer Construction: M. Contract for Power and Radio Installation at 6 PRV Sites with Lea Electric, LLC: N. Change Order No. 1 for the Pine Interceptor Sewer I Ten Mile Sewer Proiect with Bodiford Construction, Inc.: O. Water Main Easement Aareement for The Reserve Subdivision bv Jake Centers: P. Water Main Easement Aareement for The Reserve Subdivision bv Meridian Joint School District NO.2: Q. Water Main Easement Aareement for Paramount Elementarv by Meridian School District: R. Water Line Easement Aareement for Petra Office by Rosario Place, LLP: Wardle: Consent Agenda. Item 5. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: In the Consent Agenda it's been asked that Item G be moved to 7-G, Item K be moved to 7 -K, and Item S be moved to 7 -So And with that I move we approve the rest of the Consent Agenda and for the Council President to sign and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers. Rountree: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve the revised Consent Agenda. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Department Reports: Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 5 of 71 1. Police Department - Chief Musser: De Weerd: Item NO.6 is Department Reports. Police Department. Chief Musser. Musser: Mr. President, Members of the Council, I'm before you this evening as we have had a number of issues with weeds recently here in town. One property in particular has received a number of complaints into the City Hall and the police department that lots located at 1088 East 2 1/2 Street in Meridian -- it's up on the board now -- the weeds are, obviously, in excess of the eight inches as noted in the ordinance that they are not to be above that. There is some concern of the people living in the area of potential hazards with the Fourth of July coming on and we do have service of notice to clean up and abate the problem that was served through the code enforcement back on 5/10 of '06, along with numerous follow-ups, all the way through 6/14 of '06 when the file was routed through to our code enforcement supervisor for processing through to prosecution. Prosecution has been declined at this time, because of the age of our property owner. She is an elderly female and it does look like we are going to have to move forward and seek the Council's assistance in going ahead and initiating abatement through the city for the weed problem on this specific lot. There will probably be some additional ones coming forth also as this person does own a number of properties here in town. And with that I'm looking for direction from the Council to so direct city clerk to be able to move forward pursuant to Section 43 -- 4-3-7 for the city clerk to go ahead and be able to initiate the abatement. We do have quotes for doing that. We have three of them at this time, the lowest being 950 dollars. We have another one that came in at 1,150, and the highest was at 2,000 dollars to abate the weeds on this property. I would request that if the Council decides they are going to move forward on this, we look at not exceeding the 950 dollars on this. Apparently we have one other contract that we may be able to contact as well for a quote on it, but we at least have that amount right now, so we can do something with this property within this week. I would stand for any questions if you have any. Wardle: Thank you, Chief. I apologize for the late notice for adding this to the agenda. As I walked in the door for our Pre-Council meeting I received a brief note from the legal department just outlining the process that this has been through. It appears that our legal opinion is that we have followed our due process within city ordinance and if the Council so chooses to spend the funds to abate this, we are within our authority to do so and also to recoup those costs and maybe, Mr. Baird, if you would have anything specific you wanted to add about the city's ability to recoup costs for abatement? Baird: Mr. President, Members of the Council, the City Code Section 4-3-7 does allow us to -- after you have approved the work to be done, the amount can be levied as a special assessment against the property and we would do that as a matter of course if you direct that the work be done. Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 6 of 71 Wardle: And just to follow up, I will mention that there is a line item for code enforcement in the city budget for 1,000 dollars. The low bid that we have currently would leave 50 dollars left in that account. Rountree: Okay. Wardle: I think the chief is seeking our direction. Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we instruct the city clerk to initiate the abatement of the weed problems on East 2nd 1/2 Street in an amount not to exceed 950 dollars and that the work is to be completed by the end of this week. Bird: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to direct staff to complete this action. Is that clear enough for you, chief? Musser: That's clear enough. Wardle: Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 05-027 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3.H requirements for access to State Highway 69 for Meridian Gatewav by White- Leasure Development Company - 1601 South Meridian Road Wardle: We have three items moved from the Consent Agenda. Item 7-G. Canning: President Wardle, Members of the Council, the applicant has asked for some clarification on the Findings for the Meridian Gateway. I just want it clarified that the 500 foot would be measured from the center line of Overland Road. I did check his submittal materials and he has consistently requested from the center line. So, staff is supportive of that clarification. Wardle: Okay. Meridian City Council June 27. 2006 Page 7 of 71 Canning: I think it could be done as a handwritten note on the existing Findings if you would like. Wardle: Is there any question from the applicant? Okay. So, we would need a motion to approve Item G with the noted clarification of 500 feet from center line of Overland Road; correct? I would make that motion. Borton: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 7-G as noted. Mr. Clerk, would you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, abstain; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. K. Contract for Medical' Biomedical District with AspireOn: Wardle: Item 7-K is a contract from medical/biomedical district with AspireOn. I had asked to -- and I will apologize, these were meant to be department report items for the Mayor's report, so I will begin this item. We have Cheryl Brown, who will answer any questions for us. Essentially, is to -- the city has been discussing the medical district at some length and has sought services to help staff and specifically the economic development staff solidify a strategy and a plan for that. You have those items in your packet. If you have any questions, I believe Cheryl is -- did I get everything? Brown: You did wonderful. Wardle: Thank you. Anything to add? Brown: The only thing that I'll add to this is as we get farther into looking at our medical district, we have a lot more developers, a lot more people wanting to get on board with this and it's just growing at a rapid pace. It's not just the 170 acres, that next project coming on line that I talked to you about earlier, it is other developments within our medical boundaries and so we are -- we are needing some help with driving our planning and coordination, focusing on our marketing and promotional materials. I have also had other developers interested in being a whole part of this and want to be involved in it. So, it's growing rather quickly and we just -- I need some help with this. Wardle: Thank you, Cheryl. And the funds of not to exceed 8,000 dollars are currently budgeted within your budget -- Brown: Yes. Wardle: -- on economic development activities; correct? Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 8 of 71 Brown: Yes, it is. The money is coming out of the Economic Development Fund. Wardle: Thank you. Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: Cheryl, is this Phil or whoever with AspireOn, is that who is going to be doing it? Brown: Yes. Borton: Under your direction or control? Brown: Yes. Borton: Who is -- okay. You're the lead? Brown: Yes. Borton: Okay. Wardle: Thank you, Cheryl. Brown: Thank you. Wardle: Council, any questions? With that I would entertain a motion to approve Item K. Or to move Item K to an additional discussion item potentially next week. Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: Cheryl, I guess I had another question for you. Brown: Okay. Borton: Is there anything about this particular project, any documents or materials, set forth yet? I mean is this really really really in the infant stage? Brown: No. No. I am talking to potential users within the boundaries of our medical district. I need -- no, this is going right now. This is an urgency. I would really hate to see it put off to next week. This is something we need to move on now, because I have -- I have companies wanting to come into this area and getting all of our material that is going out across the country to these biomedical users for this area. Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 9 of 71 Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Mr. President, question for either you or Cheryl about the credentials of AspireOn to do this kind of work. I know they have worked for the city in other capacities in human resource type of activities, but I wasn't aware that they were planning land use and -- Brown: Right now they have been donating -- Rountree: -- this sort of activity. Brown: They have been donating a lot of their free time to me, pulling all this particularly and coordinating all of the players that are going to be involved in this area. They do -- I feel very comfortable with them working with me on this. We are also going to be working, bringing this to MDC, the developers, and other entities that are going to be involved in the medical district. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: Cheryl, you say we got a medical 170 acres I think you said? Brown: That's one of the developments. Bird: That's one of the developments that's going to be medical. What if the market for the medical says no, they will go somewhere else? Brown: Well, it's going to be a true mixed use. It's going to be a true mixed use. It's going to have the support of residential, retail, and restaurant uses as well within that development. We have talked to a couple medical companies that are seriously looking at going into that property. Big users. Bird: Well, to me, a medical campus is something like a college campus where you have so many acres in nothing but medical, so -- Brown: This is going to be health sciences as well. It's not just going to be doctors offices, things like that, it's going to be a lot of research, bio-nano technologies, and a true health sciences area, with -- and I had told you before I am working with a higher learning education that is looking at -- within our medical district, which would be a true campus style. Bird: And, Cheryl, for my benefit and the public, what is AspireOn actually going to be doing? Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 10 of71 Brown: I can get you -- I don't know if you have this -- Bird: We have a little bit, but just for a stupid layman like me, just tell me what __ Brown: They are going to help me work on all of the marketing materials that need to go out. With the medical district I cannot just hand out our City of Meridian brochure. I need to curtail this specifically for medical users. They are going to help me with the marketing, with the promoting of this area, coordinating all of the meetings with the developers within that area and the businesses. When I went through the medical packet we identified who the users are within the boundaries medically related, where they are, and what they are and meeting with them to see who can we bring La that area to help their business succeed and that's a lot of businesses that, me being one person, I'm not going to be able to attack that the way I would like to and I just need more bodies. Bird: Follow-up, please. Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: You know, you stated to Councilman Borton that you didn't want to wait a week, but what is the deadline for getting it done to -- I don't see that in this -- in this deal we have got here on our computer screen. Is there a time commitment of -- if they want to start this week, are they going to finish -- Brown: The week of the 10th we have a meeting with Planning and Zoning on designating some uses for that area, so we are starting with Planning and Zoning as far as the area. We are already moving forward with the marketing of it and going out and meeting with the companies, we are already doing that, and sending advertising out and the information out across the country. So, right now we are hitting every little area, but we are meeting with Planning and Zoning the week of the 10th. Bird: Okay. Wardle: Council, if I may -- and, again, I apologize, as my agenda item, not having a full presentation to give you. If you might ask for a week, I will work directly with Cheryl to refine the scope for this specific deliverable, as well as a time line. I think that's important to talk about and I can bring this back to you next Wednesday for your reconsideration as a department report. Would that be acceptable? Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: I guess a question for you or for Cheryl. If that's the route we are going to go, I don't -- I don't have a problem with the idea of what's taken place and how you described the various mixed uses that can take place here and residential and medical Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 11 of 71 and educational, I think it's an awesome thing to undertake. My -- I guess a concern that I would want addressed is that's a lot for a contract not to exceed 8,000 and do you anticipate this being a situation where we approve for 8,000 -- you know, you can get our feet wet and, then, he comes back, boy, to finish this it's just an extra 295,000 dollars. Brown: I don't. Borton: You know, you're already eight grand. Come on. Brown: Yeah. I really don't. And one thing to kind of put your mind at ease, this is not city funds, this is -- these are the funds that I raised myself with the developers, with the other businesses, I informed them what I was doing, how their money was being spent, so this is coming out of the Economic Development Fund and I don't see it going over the 8,000. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: I have no problem passing on it now. I don't need to wait a week. And I would have the same concern that Joe has and even though this is private money that's been given, it has been put into the city coffers, so it is -- in my idea it's public money and we answer to the taxpayers. I have no problem, I think -- I think that it is very aggressive for 8,000 dollars and I hope he don't come back half done, which I don't think he would. So, I have no problem with going forward with it. Wardle: Is that a motion? Bird: Oh, I would move that we -- if you guys are ready, I would move that we approve the contract not to exceed 8,000 dollars with AspireOn to help with the economic development working with our subcontractor in economic development Cheryl Brown. Borton: Second. Wardle: Discussion? Mr. Rountree, did you have something additional? Rountree: I just had a question as this relates to the next item we are going to discuss, the resource center. There is a connection here -- Brown: There is. Rountree: -- it appears. So, in answer to Joe's question, it's 8,000, plus 15,000, so -- Wardle: Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 12 of71 Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. S. Marketina Contract with Resource Center, Inc.: Brown: Are we moving right into it now? Wardle: Moving right into -- Brown: Okay. Okay. Go ahead. 1'1/ let you kick this one off. Wardle: Thank you. Council, again, my agenda item, I have for your review from the economic development department and the Mayor's office a proposal from the resources center to essentially put together our marketing and branding for the city. Cheryl can share with us some specific electronic deliverables, which she is in dire need of and I think that we have heard requested a number of times. I will point out that the original proposal, which I have here, has deleted a portion of that which would have included airport advertising and signage and so you see a revised proposal. I have a concept plan which -- do you want to go through with Cheryl? Brown: Do you want me to? You took my copy. Wardle: Council might like to hear a brief -- a brief presentation on this. Brown: Okay. What -- this is the -- I told you at my last -- my last time -- my last economic development report that I had been getting bids from ad agencies, marketing companies, on doing some branding and some advertising and putting some materials together for me. The one that came in with the best price and the best quality was The Resource Center. What I am asking is for the hard copy and the electronic material. What that is -- right now what I have is the packets I gave you at the last report that had the graphs, the maps, what the city's willing to do as far as city wide and the medical district. Now, this does not only mean this is for the medical district, this every department can use. It would be a very nice folder that all of the different city departments can use. When you open up the folder, then, you have your inserts. This is where I can take inserts for the medical district, I can put demographic information in here to send out. Police department can use this. Fire can use this. All of our city departments can use this. Right now the only city piece I have is the brochure that we did two years ago. We -- as I have been going out and meeting with site selection companies from across the country and I have been meeting with othor cities as well -- I was at one yesterday where the surrounding Treasure Valley cities presented -- pitched their city to them. They all had the nice -- very nice pieces to hand out to these national companies that -- not just a little brochure to hand out to them or something that was copied off of our printer that I did and handed to them. It's time we step up the level and if we really want to compete with these cities that we are, then, we need to show Meridian in the best light and we need to come across as professional. And so this is a Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 13 of 71 professional piece that the whole city can use. The inserts can be curtailed to whatever they need to be. For me it would be for the medical district and other areas. We could do one for downtown, just do the inserts for downtown. We can use this throughout the city. Wardle: Thank you, Cheryl. One of the items that I will point out is this does -- as we have discussed in the past the need for the ability to electronically communicate quickly our message in attachment form or direction to website to relocating or current businesses. Brown: Correct. Wardle: The only Question I have, Cheryl, it does mention hard copy. Have we predicted how many hard copies we will need and is that included? Brown: Yes. That's all -- yes, that's all in the packet. There is 2,500 hard copies. Now, electronically, 90 percent of the companies that we are dealing with go to the website first and I am sending out more information across the website. The hard copies would be mainly for when these companies come in from out of state for site visits and I sit down with them and hand them the piece on Meridian. Wardle: Council? Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: And, Cheryl, the funding, again, is from the economic development funds within your budget? Brown: These funds -- I'm not sure how the Mayor was breaking this one out. Wardle: I don't have a specific report on that, Cheryl. Brown: Okay. Wardle: Certainly if that's a question we can get that. I don't believe this is -- certainly it's a urgency item, but could potentially wait until next week. Brown: It could. It could. Rountree: I'd like an answer to that Question. Bird: I would, too. Wardle: Are there other answers that Cheryl can bring back? Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 14 of 71 Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: Cheryl, has there been any discussion with the Chamber of Commerce to either share in the information or at least maybe in the expense on this? Brown: In the cost? We do share cost with the brochure that we currently use and I have talked to them at their Economic Development Council meeting and told them that I would like to bring this to them as well and get them on board with us. I would also like to get MDC on board with this as well. I have talked to developers and I have commitments from two different developers that they would like to be a part of this as well and by -- by sharing money with a whole marketing plan, because they can use the piece, we are sending out one message on Meridian that everybody agrees on and one nice piece going out, instead of several different pieces going out that aren't telling the same story. Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: Cheryl, do you need a week, do you need 30 days to go to MDC, the chamber board, and make an official request for them to allocate some funds, so when we come back the figure might be lower, once we know what -- Brown: I can. I can. Or if you would like The Resource Center to come and give a PowerPoint presentation. They would be more than happy to do that as well. Borton: My question isn't really the validity of their work or its quality -- Brown: The money. Borton: -- there is other individuals -- it's no sense of doing duplicative efforts with the chamber, by way of example, and if they are willing to participate and fund it a little bit, because they are going to benefit. Brown: Right. Exactly. I would like to have everybody pitching in on this one, so that everybody is sending out the same material. Borton: Me, too. Wardle: Further comments? I would suggest -- and I guess I need a procedural question, Mr. Baird. We are going to remove this item from our agenda for approval. My question is we have some additional comments from the Council, I believe, that in Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 150f71 our agenda meeting we can find a definitive time to bring it back to the Council for consideration, but what sort of a motion do I need to remove it from this agenda? Baird: Mr. Council President, because this doesn't require any special notice, you don't need to continue it to a date certain, so you can just table it and bring it back at the appropriate time, with the instructions for what you expect to see at that time. Wardle: Thank you. I would entertain a motion to that effect. Rountree: So moved. Borton: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to table Item S. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wardle: Thank you, Cheryl. Brown: Thank you. Item 8: Item 9: Item 10: Item 11: Item 12: Reauest for Reconsideration for ComDrehensive Plan Amendment, Annexation and Zonina, Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit for Wells Street Subdivision by Conger Management Group: Tabled Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial from June 22, 2006: CPA 05-002 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change approximately 11.79 acres from Office to Mixed- Use Community by Conger Management Group - 675 and 715 South Wells Street: Tabled Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial from June 22, 2006: AZ 06-017 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.79 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Wells Street Subdivision by C2B Developments, LLC - 675 and 715 Wells Street: Tabled Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial from June 22, 2006: PP 06-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 84 building lots and 14 common lots on 11.79 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Wells Street Subdivision by C2B Developments, LLC - 675 and 715 Wells Street: Tabled Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial from June 22,2006: CUP 06-012 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 18 multifamily dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone for Wells Street Subdivision by C2B Developments, LLC - 675 and 715 Wells Street: Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 16 of71 Wardle: Item 8 -- that concludes Item 7 moved from the Consent Agenda. Item No.8 is request for reconsideration for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, Conditional Use Permit. for Wells Street Subdivision by Conger Management Group. I'm going to begin this with a brief discussion from legal counsel. Mr. Baird, what is our specific process for being able to reconsider? Baird: Mr. Council President, Members of the Council, you do have a request to reconsider and the Council can make that consideration anytime before a final decision has been made on the matter. As you can see, you have the Findings on your agenda as Items 9, 10, and 11. If you choose to grant the request for reconsideration, those would be tabled until after a hearing would be held to reconsider the matter. If your answer to the request is no, then, you would move on to consider Items 9, 10, and 11 tonight. As far as the request for reconsideration is concerned, I would advise you not to entertain any specifics regarding the proposal. All that you're -- the only question you're answering tonight is do you want to set this for another hearing to reconsider based on the request from the applicant. According to the Robert's Rules of Order, only those who voted on the prevailing side of the motion can make a motion to reconsider. So, with that as background I will hand it back to you. Wardle: Thank you. And, for the record, the two members of the Council who voted in the affirmative on that motion to deny were myself and Councilman Rountree. Mr. Borton was in the negative and Mr. Bird abstained. Is that correct? Bird: I was -- Rountree: He was absent. Wardle: Absent. Sorry. Bird: I was here at the last one -- Wardle: And abstained from the -- okay. I will recognize that we have the official request for reconsideration from the applicant and ask if there are any further comments specific to the request for consideration? Beecham: Mr. President, Members of the Council, again, we would appreciate that opportunity to bring back some new information to you, specifically in light of some of the discussion we have heard tonight. Baird: Mr. Council President -- sorry to interrupt. Could we get the name and address for the record. Beecham: Excuse me. Scott Beecham, 405 South 8th Street in Boise. Again, we would appreciate the opportunity to come back to you with a number of pieces of information that we think are worth considering and need to be considered with regard Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 17 of 71 to this application and specifically in light of some of the discussion tonight with the medical district and appropriate uses within that district. Again, we would appreciate the opportunity and we thank you. Wardle: Thank you. Council? Bird: Mr. President, let me make one statement, as I promised last week. I did -- I did not get a tape, but I did get the written copy of the minutes and I was able to read all the testimony from both public and staff and comments from Council. Wardle: Thank you. Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: I know I can't make a motion, being the loser up here, but I can comment, I believe. I'm allowed to comment. Baird: In the discretion of the chair. Borton: Let the record reflect that Councilman Rountree is laughing at -- Wardle: I will allow comments to be brief. Mr. Borton. Rountree: But you can't make a motion. Borton: But I can't make a motion. The request to reconsider for me, what I'm looking for, what, generally, is of interest to me is a situation where an applicant has additional information they can provide the Council, some new materials, new discussion, that couldn't have been or wasn't presented before. We have loosely used that standard before in allowing reconsideration. To the extent that this particular amendment request coincides with what we are now approving to be new marketing efforts for the region, I think it's an opportunity for us to hear what the applicant has to say and it's not making comment one way or another on the viability of anything -- of the project or reconsideration, but the fact that the Council can have an opportunity to keep its ears open and obtain this new information. The written request says a couple particular items, dated June 21 st. It makes sense. But that position is probably no surprise. Wardle: Thank you, Mr. Borton. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 18 of 71 Bird: Even though I can't either make a motion ~- cannot make the motion, if they have considerable changes and stuff, I -- I, for one, would be one councilman that would not mind hearing it. If they are coming back with the same plan and everything that they had -- that I read in the minutes of the 6th of June meeting, that would be a different situation for me. But if they do have some different recommendations and different ideas, I would be willing to give them the benefit of coming back and looking at it. Wardle: Additional comments? Rountree: Mr. President, my comment would be if there is such a significant change in this application that there is a request for a consideration, it probably ought to be moved back to Planning and Zoning at that point anyway and I'm not -- I'm not in favor of making a motion for reconsideration. I'll leave that to you. Wardle: Mr. Baird, if we have no motion to reconsider, do we -- Baird: Then, the matter would be considered moot and/or denied, so you would just clear that item from your agenda and proceed with the other items. Wardle: Hearing no motion, I will move to Item No.9, Tabled Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for denial from June 22nd, CPA 05-002. I will open this up with -- this is not a Public Hearing. Rountree: No. Canning: No, sir. It's just Findings. I think you could make a motion on 9, 10, 11 and 12 altogether, if you would like. Wardle: Council? Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we deny the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law as identified in Items 9, 10, 11, and 12. Wardle: I will second that motion. For clarification, that was Lo approve the Findings for -- Rountree: To approve the Findings for denial. Yes. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Findings for denial on Items 9, 10,11 and 12. Mr. Clerk, please call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, abstain; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, nay. Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 19 of 71 MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSTAIN. Item 13: FP 06-027 Final Plat approval for 74 residential building lots and 5 common lots on 16.47 acres in an R-8 zone for Ambercreek Subdivision No.2 by Dyver Development, LLC - south of McMillan Road and west of Meridian Road: Wardle: Item No. 13. Anna, do we have a consensus on Items 13 and 14 or do we take them separately? Canning: Take them separately, please, sir. Wardle: Okay. Item 13, FP 06-027, final plat for Ambercreek Subdivision NO.2. Canning: Mr. President, Members of the Council, this final plat is not ready for consideration. At this time we ask that you table it to the 11th of July, please. Or continue it. Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we table Item 13 until the 11 th of July. Bird: Second. Wardle: Moved and seconded to table Item 13 to the 11th of July. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: FP 06-026 Final Plat approval for 18 residential building lots, 1 existing lot and 2 common lots on 4.98 acres in an R-8 zone for Pisa Place Subdivision by Briggs Engineering, Inc. - 3893 South Locust Grove Road: Wardle: Item 14, FP 06-026, final platfor Pisa Place Subdivision. Canning: Mr. President, Members of the Council, we do have a letter from the applicant stating that they are in agreement with the conditions of approval and staff is recommending approval of the final plat. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 20 of 71 Bird: I move we approve FP 06-026, final flat approval for Pisa Place Subdivision. Rountree: Second. Wardle: Moved and seconded to approve Item 14. Mr. Berg, please call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Continued Public Hearing from June 6, 2006: VAR 06-002 Request for a Variance for two access pOints to Eagle Road SH / 55 for Gatewav Marketolace by Landmark Development - southeast corner of Ustick Road and Eagle Road: Wardle: Item 15 is -- I'm sorry, I will open Item 16, prior to opening Item 15. It's a continued Public Hearing from June 6, 2006, VAR 06-002, and I will begin with a quick apology from the Council's tabling of this motion until this date. I know we had a late meeting and so thank you for bearing with us. Glad to see you here tonight. Canning: And no baby in arms. Wardle: I will open with staff comments. Baird: Mr. President, before we proceed, I'd like to raise the question of whether it might be appropriate to actually open both public hearings at this time. Is there a preference from the planning director to that regard? Canning: Mr. President, Members of Council, you could. I really don't think you're going to hear any testimony on the preliminary plat tonight and we are recommending that you continue that Public Hearing, so -- Baird: Okay. Wardle: Thank you. All right. So, Item 16 only, Anna. Canning: So, Mr. Rountree, Item -- Rountree: I need to recuse myself. Canning: Okay. Thank you. Rountree: Now that we have got that resolved. Canning: Mr. President, Members of the Council, this is a reconsideration and a continued hearing of a reconsideration request. The original hearing was on April 18th. Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 21 of 71 At that time Council did deny the variance request for access to Eagle Road. The property is located, again, at the southeast corner of Ustick and Eagle and it includes the variance and the preliminary plat. We will get to the preliminary plat discussion in a moment. The original proposal that was denied was one full access -- find the original one. One full access at the southern end of the property and one right-in, right-out only toward the center of the property. The applicant's revised proposal is two access points to Eagle Road in the same location as before. What they are proposing is a right-in, right-out only at those locations, with the right-out being temporary until the property to -- until the collector road that ACHD intend on building is connected to the half mile location and, then, that collector road is also constructed. There are a number of outstanding issues before City Council. I'm going to start with just some comments from lTD. Because ITD has already acted on the access permits for this property, they are not willing to give comments on the specific proposal. I did talk to ITD, because I wanted to get some more information on right-in only or right-in, right-out, and how those compared to other accesses and, basically, what it is is a typical intersection will have 32 potential conflict points they call it and those are areas where traffic is crossing in front of another area or where they are merging or changing lanes. Where there would be a median at a property -- and in this case there would be a median at this location -- you reduce that down to about four conflict points. So, the median does have a significant effect in reducing those conflict points. For a right-in only you would reduce that further to just having one type of conflict point and that would be where they were coming out of the lane into the turn area. So, the type of conflicts you would see would be a rear-end collision. So, ITD was able to at least provide some information on that. Unfortunately, that's all the staff analysis we have, because this isn't an active application before ITD at this pOint. Regarding ACHD recommendations and concerns, this proposal has at the applicant's request been pulled from the ACHD commission agenda. When they were considering the -- when they were asking Council for the reconsideration, they wanted to hold off ACHD's comments until they knew for sure whether or not they would be getting the access into the site. So, ACHD commission has not seen this proposal. You have acted on the -- well, this particular concern to the preliminary plat I can reiterate this again when Mr. Rountree returns, but it's important to note that ACHD hasn't commented on the plat. You did make a motion to approve the plat before at your previous Public Hearing. I would be concerned that -- I think I failed you in that respect. I didn't realize that ACHD hadn't done it yet. So, again, I will present this again for Mr. Rountree, but that was an error on my part. I would suggest that we wait until we have ACHD's comments before moving forward. So, therefore, all the comments coming from ACHD are just from ACHD staff at this point, not from the commission. Their primary concern -- or their recommendation, they have stated weak support for the right-in only at the center of the project. So this one. So, it would be this alternative. This is the right-in only. That site would seem to allow the full deceleration lanes, whereas we have some question about whether they are able to get the full deceleration lane at the south end of the property. And, again, as staff we are struggling with the fact that no one's provided an analysis of this alternative yet, because it's not an active application before lTD. ACHD has stated their opposition to any access onto Eagle Road in this area, as it diminishes the classification and function of the future north-south collector Allys Way, as I have pointed out earlier. If access Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 22 of 71 pOints are allowed to Eagle Road, ACHD may change the road project to a lesser classification or not construct the project at all. So, there are significant concerns there. ACHD is still very concerned that the applicant has not committed to participate in the construction of Allys Way as a future collector roadway. I think there has been perhaps some verbal conceptual agreement, but they have not -- don't have any written agreement of any sort that this project will participate in the construction of Allys Way. The application has stated that given Council's decision tonight on the variance request, they may elect to construct the frontage road on their property, instead of contributing towards Allys Way, and this would clearly be inconsistent with ACHD's purchase and annexation of the collector roadway property. Finally, we go to planning staff recommendation and concerns. As planning staff -- again, without the benefit of having advice from a transportation agency on this, we are -- it does seem to us that the right-in only is a suitable compromise, especially for Eagle Road. If this were any other state highway, we would be asking that you stay with your denial, but Eagle Road, there does seem to be this perception that we have perhaps lost this battle and maybe this is a good compromise, these right-in onlys. It gets people into the site and, then, if we can get them out somewhere other than the state highway, that may be appropriate. There would be -- there would appear to be sufficient room for a full deceleration lane at the center of the project, as noted before. We do have questions at the south end, but perhaps further transportation analysis will answer those questions. Regarding the right-in, right-out, the right-out being temporary, staff has concerns about temporary access and it just doesn't seem appropriate in this instance. We sometimes were able to make temporary work, other times we are not. In this particular case, once those access points approved, it is unlikely that any of those retail tenants are going to want that access to go away and we think it will be very difficult to make that go away. The next question is how do we physically get those improvements done. Do we hold a bond, do we get a letter of credit, do we ask for cash. If -- depending on the timing, you know, if it happens a year from now perhaps we gathered enough money to accomplish that. If it happens ten years from now, certainly we will be --have been way off on our estimates. And just with the rise of construction costs, we are concerned about those -- the funding for that. Also, staff kind of supports ACHD in questioning the need for the temporary right out or the nexus in trying to tie the temporary out to the collector road connection to the south. It just doesn't seem logical to us that the right-out is only necessary until the collector road connects to the south. It's just -- the right-out facilitates movement going north, not going south. So, we don't really see that tie in there, so we would just support the right-in only. Finally -- oh, no, not quite finally. I'll try to speed up. This property is still tied to the one to the east, the development agreements were linked, and, you know, maybe the right-in will be a solution over there. I am concerned that these two development agreements are linked, but the one over there we are having concerns with Bienville, they have indicated that they are not able to get public road access or cross-access from this developer at this time. So, it just kind of adds to the muddy waters, I suppose, on the west side. The reason we ask that the preliminary plat be pulled is because the -- depending on the answer tonight, the applicant may want to redraw and will raise that issue further when Mr. Rountree comes back. Let's see. I think that ends my discussion on the variance, so I will Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 23 of 71 answer any questions that you may have. There still are some outstanding issues about the preliminary plat that I will bring up later. Wardle: Thank you, Anna. Questions for staff? Bird: I have none at this time. Wardle: Would the applicant, please, come forward. For the record, if you would, please, state your name and address. Thompson: Sure. Mr. President, Members of the Council, Tamara Thompson, Landmark Development Group, 1882 Taluka Way in Boise. Thank you for the opportunity to come back before you. Anna raised a lot of issues, which I will try to answer the majority of. Like she said, from our original proposal we had left turn movements and that was what was approved by lTD. We have taken those all off the table. What we are looking for is two right-ins, right-outs at the -- at the same location as previously and making the right-out function temporary. And let me explain our -- I don't know -- the issue with just having right-in only is that all existing traffic has to make its way to Ustick and what our traffic study shows is that funneling all the traffic -- all the traffic from the whole development up to Ustick to exit makes the intersection operate at a worse level of service and at a more unsafe level of service, because you're introducing all these left turn movements in in order to go right, rather than just the right turn movement here. The nexus as far as needing people to be able to get out and go north, as opposed to closing that down once people are able to come to the backage road and get out to Eagle Road, is basically, you're just splitting that traffic. Because right now the right-out people can -- don't have to get onto Ustick and, then, once that's closed down those right-out -- the people that want to go north do have to get to Ustick to go out, but the people that want to go south can make it a different way, so that they are not going through that intersection. Hopefully that makes sense. As far as on a mechanism, there is several different ways we can -- that we would propose to give the city some surety that those would be closed in the future, some sort of a cash bond, you know, a set aside letter from a bank, something like that, where it's actually cash set aside. My discussions with Anna were that, you know, security bonds actually have to be renewed each year and, you know, you have got surety companies in there, which make it harder to actually collect if you had to collect. Where, you know, some sort of cash set-aside or something like that would -- we would be willing to do something like that, so the city could be assured that they have that mechanism in place, that we wouldn't have the -- you know, access to that money until the city released it or something to that effect. Let's see. As far as the preliminary plat, I'll just touch on that briefly. It was my understanding that our preliminary plat was already approved, which I guess was in error. Baird: Mr. Chair, I'd like to advise that we will have a separate hearing on the preliminary plat, so only as it relates to the variance. Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 24 of 71 Thompson: Okay. Well, in my letter for consideration I did include the preliminary plat as the conditions related to the access and that's what I thought was going to be before you, but I guess it's the entire thing. It is true that we have been talking with ACHD about the backage road and, actually, Anna, could you put it to -- you know, the one that shows how the whole network is going to -- yeah. That one right there. About the backage road. In our preliminary plat conditions that were approved by you previously, we did have the condition in there that we had to contribute 50 percent of the roadway to that point right there, which we agreed to in the previous preliminary plat. So, I'm not sure where the confusion is that we haven't said that we would do that, in writing especially, because that is in writing in the conditions of the -- of the preliminary plat. We don't have ACHD commission approval yet, but in talking with ACHD, with Gary and others, they are recommending that we could put a condition -- just a global condition basically saying that attaching any conditions that come up in that hearing to our preliminary plat. So, hopefully, we can cover that. Let's see. I think I have answered all of the things Anna brought up. So, just in wrapping up, I -- we tried to come up with something that we thought was a win-win for both the property owner and for the city where -- where we do get some access, but once these backage road systems are fully operational and in place -- and fully operational I'm just talking about this connection here and with our development this road will go into this point and the traffic signal is already there. The main -- one of the main issues right now, I guess, is that we were given cross-access across this property, but we don't control when that cross-access is actually going to happen, although, you know, the road may be in, but we may not be able -- because we don't have the right to go on their property and actually construct that, but from my discussions with them they are moving forward relatively quickly. So, we don't control that, but I have been given assurances that they are moving forward. Oh. The one other -- as far as this decellane, we looked at that for the full access here, because we still had the same right-in movements for a right-in, right-out, as we did for a full movement and all the right of way is there for a full deceleration lane. ITD already has all that right of way. So, that's -- that's not an issue of having to come up with more right of way for that decel. So, in closing I'd just like to add that the proposed accesses will not be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare and that we appreciate the opportunity to come back before you and answer any questions that you have. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: Tamara, if we move favorably in this variance, do you or your owner have any problem -- one of the stipulations on the developer to the northwest corner was -- by ITD was to redo the intersection and where every corner is going to benefit from it, would you have any problem with participating in the cost of Changing that, which would -- it's going to help your development as much it's going to help anybody else's on that corner. Would you, for instance, participate moneywise or -- and I don't know what the cost is. Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 25 of 71 Thompson: Mr. President, Mr. Bird, I -- just so I understand, we are talking about the southwest corner? Bird: We are talking -- no, we are talking about the northwest corner. The developer on there, to get his right-in, right-out and stuff -- Thompson: Right. Bird: -- the ITD brought it upon him to change -- make two turn lanes, left-hand turn lanes, and that benefits everybody on that corner. Would you be willing to work with that -- work with that developer with the costs? Thompson: Our conditions for -- that -- because we did receive ITD approval for the access points on this southeast corner, the conditions are almost identical to what Mr. Moore has to do on the northwest corner. Bird: So, you are participating in that? Thompson: They can give us those conditions if we move forward and pull a permit. Bird: And you would be willing to-- Thompson: Most definitely. Bird: Okay. Thompson: Yeah. And at this point -- I know Mr. See I is here and he will give you a little bit more if you'd like, but at this point my understanding is that they are only going south on the intersection 200 feet and with our permits, the conditions that ITD gave us is we would have to pull that the whole length of the property. So, it would go to the half -- I'm sorry, the quarter mile point, instead of just the 200 feet. Bird: But you are willing to participate -- Thompson: Most definitely. Bird: Thank you very much. Wardle: Council, additional questions for the applicant? Bird: Mr. President, I would -- while she's up here, I would make a statement that I don't think they are being outrageous asking for this. Since we have had these two corners come up, I have made numerous drives and counts down there of -- on and off on Chinden Boulevard and it seems like we have got one mile here that we are trying to exclude from what's been the practice through Eagle and Boise City and a lot of Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 26 of 71 Meridian. So, while the public is here -- or while -- unless something is testified to change my mind, I'm for this variance a hundred percent. Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: Tamara, real quick. I take it that -- or maybe I assume that your preference would be, in a perfect world, to have the right-in, right-out and not have to deal with the temporary right-in, right-out that would be converted to right-in only. Thompson: Definitely. I mean our preference would be as much access as we can get. And, yeah, not having to deal with any type of bonding situation or, you know, security situation in order to have to close that in the future and so that the -- you know, the tenants know what they are going to have and for how long, since that is kind of an unknown of how long is that going to be, is it going to be a year, two years, or ten years. You know, we don't really know what's going to happen to the south of us, but definitely that would be -- that would be preferable. Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: You had indicated that -- I think in that request for reconsideration there was some concern over the April 18th pre-Council discussion that we had about access issues on Eagle Road and I just wanted to give you the chance if there was anything you wanted to add to that or a comment on it. Thompson: To April 18th? Borton: Yeah. We had a meeting on April 18th and it was just noted in your letter that you wanted the opportunity to respond to what we had heard and I'm just giving you that chance. Thompson: Yeah. I appreciate that. Yeah. I mean we -- I wasn't at your pre-Council hearing and so when I -- I got all the tapes and listened to them, it was a little concerning that it seems that there was a lot of information that was given to you on half mile and quarter mile access points that we didn't have an opportunity to respond to that night that you guys had fresh in your mind. The only thing that I wanted -- that I would like to add to that is that -- because I think we have given you a lot of different information, but our brokers have talked to different brokers in the Denver area where they actually did that and, first of all, it was kind of a global thing, it wasn't just done to a couple property owners, it was done to a whole corridor or a whole roadway. So, that's kind of a different issue. But, secondly, there were some businesses that had to close their doors, in talking with the brokers in Denver, because of the limited access and the convenience. The customers weren't there any longer. Thanks. Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 27 of 71 Wardle: Thank you. I have one person signed up for this application. Jonathan See/. Please state your name and address for the record. Seel: Jonathan Seel, W.H. Moore Company, 1940 Bonito, Meridian. I was here in front of this rather smaller commission a couple weeks ago. I gave a little bit of the history on our project, as Councilman Bird has probably mentioned to you. Just very Quickly, as you know, we own the project over here. So, obviously, this is somewhat self-serving, but we have agreed to improve Eagle Road both north and south of Ustick. On our side we will improve it the entire length of our project, including somewhat beyond it to a project called -- it's owned by Don Olsen. Down here we will improve approximately 200 feet of curb and gutter on both sides and I think there is just a couple of critical things that I'd like to bring up in this that I -- I guess I don't completely agree with ACHO, in all due respect, but at this intersection both ways there will be dual left-hand turn lanes. So, I don't completely accept the fact that if you had accesses on this project, that you're not going to be using this backage road. I think with the dual left here, with traffic coming down and entering this way, you will encourage a lot of people who maybe don't want to go down here to utilize this road. In addition, the backage of Bald Cyprus going around to what is Allys Way, I think, again, you're going to encourage this road. I will also mention that as of yesterday, because our plans have just been -- have been approved, although it's been a very lengthy process, the executive committee for ITO decided to change the speed limit on Eagle Road from 55 to 45 miles an hour. One of the reasons I bring that up is I know there is concern on about right-in, right-out traffic slowing down. Well, if you begin to slow this road down -- and I think it's a recognition by ITO that this is not a main thoroughfare any longer, I think this will enhance or improve the ability to do your right-in and right-outs at these intersections, have less potential for accidents. So, again, if anyone has any questions about that, Kevin Sublon from the city -- from ITO e-mailed me that today that they -- our plans reflect it at 45. So, I think the fact that you do have at least at minimum your right-in and certainly right- outs with your deceleration lanes, I think you're certainly going to mitigate or certainly eliminate a lot of safety concerns that I think that you would have through here. Also, with our plan and our tapers in our design over here, if there is -- I think it's potentially a win-win for the city if they do allow these access points. Obviously, it benefits us, I will be very candid about that. We are putting up a million three hundred thousand dollars in our project, we are going to fund this, we know this, we came in with our eyes wide open on this, we understand we are going to pay for this and if there is no access, we are going to carry the burden all. Obviously, as Councilman Bird said, if this comes true, they will help pay for that. We like that idea. But I think also what it will do is it will put your deceleration lanes in here, it will put your curb and gutter, and I think it will enhance the appearance and improvement of Eagle Road. You will take those deceleration lanes really down beyond their project, just as we have done on ours. So, I think it's an opportunity to improve Eagle Road and at the same time I think with reducing the speed limits, I think it eliminates some of the concern. It's not going to eliminate the accidents, but it's going to eliminate some of the concerns for you as far as giving access off of Eagle Road. So, again, I would encourage you to do it. I think the right-in, right-outs are a very fair compromise. I think with the deceleration lanes and Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 28 of 71 the designs, which ITD has worked with us a great deal on and it's very comfortable with, I think if they are satisfied I would think that the city should be comfortable with that concept. So, I appreciate your time and unless you have any questions I will sit down. Wardle: Council, questions for Mr. Seel? Bird: I have none. Seel: Thank you. Wardle: Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this project? Does the applicant wish to respond? No? Okay. Council? Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. President? Bird: Go ahead. Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: Anna, can you tell me what the -- I guess the most recent request -- what's the distance from center line of Ustick to these two points? Canning: The southern paint is approximately at the quarter mile, so that's 1,325. The other one is less than half that distance. We will have to pull a plat to find that out, but -- Borton: Maybe I can ask that question of the applicant. The reason I asked is I saw the range of 780 to 930 or something like that. Thompson: Yeah. The original letter that we had from ITD back in October of '04 listed a range of between 700 and 900 and something. From center line our traffic study currently says that the first access point at that location there is roughly 850 feet back and, then, this point is at the quarter mile paint and just to give you a reference, on the north side, the ones that Lowe's has and the ones that CentrePointe has is at 700 feet. So, we are further than that. Borton: Okay. Thank you. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: If we have no more public testimony, I would move that we close the Public Hearing for VAR 06-002. Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 29 of 71 Borton: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 16. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Discussion? Mr. Bird. Bird: Before I make a motion or anything, I feel that in four miles there we are trying -- we are penalizing one mile by doing this and it's too bad that Anna and staff didn't get in on this at the start, but we go through three public entities and I don't think it's fair to punish the developers or in one mile. Now, if everything was like that, but I welcome anybody to go down Eagle Road and see the cuts and the full access, not just right-in and right-out, at least we have went to the right-in and right-out on this corner, so -- and I, for one, would pull the temporary on right-in and right-out, because I think right-in and right-out is very very safe. We are not giving them full access, so that's my statement. Wardle: Mr. Bird, my comments and thoughts on this application -- I heard a couple mitigating circumstances. One is the applicant has certainly expressed interest to continue to improve the roadway and to help improve transportation. I heard a number issues with regard to public streets, public access, a backage road, all things that in my mind make this different than the application that we heard earlier and moved to deny it. So, the one comment that I would have -- and I do agree to a certain extent, especially within the retail industry, that a temporary right-out would be less than -- it would be difficult to do in the future and I hate to set a future Council up for at least a perception of something that would be negative. I have heard from the staff, though. I would question the validity of the right-out on the northernmost entrance. Certainly would agree with the two entrances and a right-out on the southern most one, but just a little discussion on that, the northernmost entrance. Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: I agree with the sentiment of Councilman Bird and yourself. I think I got confused on what you were saying at the tail end there on the northern access point. Nonetheless, I do agree -- Wardle: I can clarify. Borton: Well, let me just stop. Can you clarify what you meant as far as -- do you have a problem on the northern access with right-out or with right-in? Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 30 of 71 Wardle: I heard -- I heard staff's presentation on the ability to make the deceleration lane and the number of conflict points reduced to one and so I would support -- at least initially in this discussion support a motion to have a right-in only on the northernmost access and it would eliminate the need for a temporary and, then, something that goes away and I do support fully the right-in, right-out on the southern most piece of property. Does that help you? Borton: Crystal clear. Wardle: Okay. Borton: I think I heard you wrong or heard you say something inconsistent. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: Could I make a statement? I agree with everything but that. I think you're taking traffic through -- and I know this is a preliminary plat, but you're taking traffic through the parking lot where they could exit at an entrance there at both -- if they had both entrances, right-in and right-out only, you wouldn't -- you're going to have people come in there and, then, they are going to drop -- have to drive through the parking lot to come back and get out on the right and to me that -- I would sooner see them getting out right only at that northern part. than trying to get out as a complete access on Ustick Road. So, that's my statement. That's why I -- Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: Mr. President. I lean with Councilman Bird on that one. What I would add is that what we will probably find with only one right-out is cars stacked up to turn right at that southern exit to get onto Eagle Road, a couple cars at a time, is the light backs up and it becomes problematic when that's fully built out. Nonetheless, what I would add in addition to earlier comments is this particular project -- I think what I really want to stress and applaud the applicant for doing, is going back to the drawing table and listening to our concerns. I think all of our concerns with regards to access on Eagle Road are on the money and we need to try and preserve the corridor or what's left or what we can preserve for Eagle Road are on the money. We are in a difficult spot because of what's taken place and other developments in access up and down the corridor, but the applicant has brought additional information and has brought a mitigating presentation, which allows for access, addresses some of the Council's concerns, does it in a constructive manner, and regardless of what happens today, I just -- I applaud the applicant for doing it. I think that's the right approach. And I as a Councilmember, speaking for myself, appreciate the opportunity to hear something like this and discuss it. I think it's the most constructive way to address the transportation issues on Eagle Road in this particular case, but in all areas where there might be a Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 31 of 71 variance issue in a denial. So, I think it's important -- it's important to me that it's covered this way. Canning: Mr. President? Wardle: Anna. Canning: I would like to remind Council that you don't have -- your draft Findings were for denial, so staff will need to come up with new Findings for approval. Generally, in that situation -- in particular for variances we ask that Council provide staff some direction on where you would like us to go. Those Findings for denial deal with three primary things. One is a hardship. I think Council -- the testimony tonight has discussed that this is kind of a special section of roadway, so I think that we would understand your -- what you would do there if you choose to approve this variance, of course. The second one is a safety concern and, again, I think Council in their comments has discussed that. The third one, the granting of special privilege, I haven't heard discussed. In past discussions generally Council will indicate to staff if this is something that you want to see changed in the UDC, then, we can include that in the Findings and, then, therefore, diminishes the fact that this might be a special grant, a special privilege. So, if you could give staff some direction regarding that particular finding I would appreciate it. Wardle: Thank you for that direction, Anna. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, on the changing on the UDC, we are only talking about this one mile that it's going to affect; am I not right? I mean most everything else is done, cut in and stuff along -- it's going to be cut in. Canning: Yes, sir. For the most part you're probably right. There may be -- this mile and the one south of it I would anticipate that you may see some redesigns of some of those properties and as you get south of Pine Street and that may be applicable there. Bird: But they have got -- those -- they have already got so many cut-ins there -- between the railroad tracks on the west side there is -- and Pine Street, there is three cuts already. I mean, actually, paved cuts. Two roads. So, I -- and I don't want to change the UDC on state -- on other state highways within our jurisdiction. So, can we -- is it a big problem for staff if we use the variance type or something like that, instead of Changing the whole UDC, which I don't want to do. Canning: Mr. Baird, can you help me? I'm not sure -- Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 32 of 71 Baird: Mr. President, Members of the Council, I think what has been described is a special situation that's been created and that you're treating this differently because it is different. The cats out of the bag, basically, on this, that you have expressed -- the Council's expressing its desire to maintain the concept that's in the UDC where possible on alternative sections of state highways. I think that's what I'm hearing. Bird: That's fine. Wardle: Thank you. Council, further information needed before a motion? Bird: I have none. Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: Would you entertain a motion? Wardle: Yeah. Entertain a motion. At any time. Bird: Okay. I move -- I move that we approve the variance 06-002, the request for two access points and both points will be right-in, right-out only, on a permanent basis, and to include all staff, applicant, and public testimony and to make Findings showing the change from denial to acceptance or approval and in the public testimony from the applicant it was stated -- and this is why I'm including public testimony from them, it was stated that they will be willing to be participants in costs on the -- redoing of the intersection. And with that I think I have got everything covered in a screwy way, but it's covered. Borton: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded. Just a point of clarification for discussion, because we have had one of these at a number of different feet at certain times. Is there any -- is there any direction, maybe, that we can give to the motion to -- Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: I would -- if the motion maker would so amend the motion, the northern most right-in, right-out access would be no closer than 850 feet from the center line and the southern most would be a quarter mile from the center line. Bird: From Ustick Road? Motion maker agrees a hundred percent. That was -- I think was part of the public statement between you and the applicant. Wardle: Thank you. Just for staffs clarification. All right. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll on the amended motion. Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 33 of 71 Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird: We can get Charlie now. Wardle: Thank you. I'd like to welcome back Councilman Rountree. Rountree: Thank you. Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from June 6, 2006: PP 06-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 23 commercial lots on 22.85 acres in a C-G zone for Gatewav Marketplace Subdivision by Landmark Development - southeast corner of Ustick Road and Eagle Road: Wardle: And open Public Hearing on Item 15, continued Public Hearing on PP 06-002. I will begin with staff comments, but I believe Mrs. Canning will inform us that potentially want to continue this discussion. Canning: Yes, we do. Wardle: How would you like to handle that? Canning: I just need to make a brief presentation and you probably need to talk to the applicant, so -- Wardle: Okay. Canning: The applicant had asked for reconsideration on the preliminary plat. That opens up the whole hearing. We are not presenting the whole hearing tonight. I don't think anybody -- if they need to, we can do a full presentation at some point, but I don't think it's necessary. The applicant wanted to see the results of this reconsideration in anticipation that she may want to change the site if access points were not approved. Since the Council has approved the right-in, right-out request, I suspect that the applicant will not want to change the preliminary plat. However, it needs to get to ACHD for their conditions and for their commission action and to -- for their conditions of approval, so that we can get the final conditions of approval in your approval. Therefore, we would recommend, if that's the way the applicant wants to proceed tonight, that we table this until July 18th. That should give the Commission a sufficient time to act and we can get those incorporated into your draft Findings. Wardle: Thank you, Anna. Would the applicant, please, come forward. And for the record please state your name and address. Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 34 of 71 Thompson: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Tamara Thompson, Landmark Development Group, 1882 Taluka Way in Boise. It is true that if the -- if the access changed, that we were looking at, you know, maybe some site redesign or maybe even changing some uses from retail, but -- thank you very much. As far as the conditions, we do have draft conditions from ACHD, which were attached to the previous preliminary plat approval and I guess it was kind of a -- we all missed it. You know, we thought they are approved and they weren't. So, at this point I have talked to ACHD, they said they don't think there is going to be any issues as far as, you know, their commission changing anything, but -- but they did say that they would be okay with us just adding a global condition to comply with any of the conditions that come from ACHD and we are okay with that if we can get that approved tonight. If not, then, July 18th will have to work. Thank you. Wardle: Questions for the applicant? Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, do you, as a staff, have any problem going ahead if they have no problem? Canning: Yes, sir. I think it sets a bad precedent. I think that we have waited for ACHD comments before and that's the best way to go. Bird: Surprises.Yeah. That's-- Wardle: Is there anyone further that would wish to testify on this application? Does the applicant have any closing remarks? Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: Seeing no other remarks, I move we continue Item 15, PP 06-002 to July 18th. Bird: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item 15 to the date certain July 18th of 2006. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 17: Public Hearing: RZ 06-001 Request for a Rezone of 5.40 acres from R-8 to L-O (Limited Office) for Sundance Subdivision No.5 by Dave Evans Construction - northeast corner of Ustick Road and Meridian Road: Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 35 of 71 Item 18: Item 19: Item 20: Item 21: Public Hearing: PP 06-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 commercial lots on 3.77 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Sundance Subdivision No.5 by Dave Evans Construction - northeast corner of Ustick Road and Meridian Road: Public Hearing: CUP 06-011 Request to modify the previous Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development (CUP 01-026) by adding additional office lots, changing building and parking layout and allowing potential drive through sites for Sundance Subdivision No.5 by Dave Evans Construction - northeast Corner of Ustick Road and Meridian Road: Public Hearing: MI 06-001 Request for Miscellaneous application to modify the recorded Development Agreement (Sundance Subdivision AZ 01-012) for Sundance Subdivision No.5 by Dave Evans Construction - northeast corner of Ustick Road and Meridian Road: Public Hearing: VAC 06-004 Request for Vacation of the existing utility easements on the interior lot lines for Lots 21, 22, 25 and 26, Block 7, Sundance Subdivision No. 3 Sundance Subdivision No.5 by Dave Evans Construction - northeast corner of Ustick Road and Meridian Road: Wardle: Thank you. Items 17,18,20 and 22 -- Mr. Baird? And 21. Canning: Twenty-one? Baird: Yes. Canning: Did you say through 21, sir? Wardle: Yes. Canning: Yes. Wardle: Thank you. I will open Public Hearing on Items 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 and begin with staff comments. Canning: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. This is the Sundance Commercial addition. This has suffered from having two different names. The other name it's known by is Sundance Subdivision NO.5. We generally try and keep the numbers out of the title, so that's why it has the revised name. But apparently it's not completely revised. This is located at the northeast corner of Ustick and Meridian. It was previously approved and platted as four lots with an R-8 designation as part of a planned development, but it was approved for office uses. So, it has been approved for office uses. The proposal includes a rezone of 5.4 acres, which would be the -- out to the center line of the roads and they are rezoning that from R-8 to L-O. As you know, staff has consistently asked folks to go ahead and get the proper zoning for those use Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 36 of 71 exceptions that were approved through the PD process. So, this was an opportunity to ask for that correct zoning. And they have also got a preliminary plat for a total of 12 commercial lots again. So, they started off with four and now have 12 and that's on 3.77 acres. It's nearly one and a half acres less, because it does not include the landscape buffers. So, the rezone would include that, but the landscape buffers -- the landscape buffers are actually owned by the homeowners association, so the plat does not include those. They are also asking to modify the existing CU for the planned development by adding the additional lots and changing the building and parking layout and potentially allowing drive-thrus. They have also asked to modify the recorded development agreement to reflect the change in zoning, primarily. They have asked for alternative compliance to reduce the required landscape buffer adjacent to the residential. And this, again, was conceptually approved with the planned development. It's just they didn't quite get all the I's dotted and T's crossed in the first approval. And, finally, they are asking to vacate easements on the previous plat. The total number of proposed buildings are 12. The cross-access areas are generally shown in gray here. The two access points into the site would be on the east and, then, on the north off of Meridian Road and east off Ustick Road. The first approval for this project showed both those access points that I just pointed out, one off Meridian, one off Ustick, yet the face of the plat includes a note that says no -- that does not allow direct lot access to Ustick Road in this area. It appears to have been an error. It was inconsistent with what ACHD actually approved. So, we have modified that, that the note should state that direct lot access to Ustick Road may be prohibited in the future. It is fairly close to the intersection and if ACHD deems it necessary to close that, then, that access may go away. So, this makes the third access point important as the one on Ustick Road goes away. Excuse me. There is an access from within Sundance Subdivision that's -- it's about over here. And there is a cul-de-sac that stubs to this property and this would just be a drive aisle. It wouldn't be an extension of the street, but it would be a drive aisle connection from Sundance into the property. With regard to the landscaping and the alternative compliance, because the driveways come in right at the property line, they are not able to provide their full 20 feet of landscaping. As an alternative they are proposing a sound wall where they are not able to provide that 20 feet and staff feels that's an appropriate alternative compliance. With regard to the conditional use, one of the things they are asking for in the conditional use is approval for drive-thrus on Lots 7 and 8 and you will have to forgive me, but I can't read those right how. I believe it's in this area here. Those two lots -- they don't have specific configurations at this time and they don't have specific uses or how those drive-thrus would be oriented, so staff has not been generally supportive of that portion of the conditional use request. We do think they need to come back for more specific approval of those drive-thru facilities once they have the layout and configuration. Code would require that. They are within 300 feet of a residential property, so that would be required normally. With regard to the vacation, there was a little misunderstanding. Mr. Hood doesn't usually do vacations, but because of a shortage of staff he was -- he was preparing that application and wasn't aware of the fact that we have been requiring all the relinquishments before we recommend approval. So, the staff report you have is recommending approval. We have talked to the applicant, they have begrudgingly agreed that it's probably appropriate to wait until they actually get all the relinquishments done, so just on that Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 37 of 71 portion of the Public Hearing we ask that you leave the vacation hearing open tonight and continue that matter to the 18th of July as well and that will give them some time to work on those relinquishment. They may need a couple more weeks, but this will not slow down the process, they just need to gather those relinquishments and, then, we will get it right back on an agenda, so -- we do have some elevations that came in today. They are typical -- probably 3,000 to 5,000 square foot structures, very residential in appearance. The Planning Commission did recommend approval at their May 4th hearing. Tim Mokwa spoke in favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition or commented. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were restricting vehicular access to the site and the drive-thrus. The key Commission changes to staff's recommendation -- there actually were none. And except for that vacation issue that I mentioned briefly, to our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council. Wardle: Thank you, Anna. Question for staff? Rountree: None at this time. Bird: None. Wardle: Would the applicant, please, come forward. If you will state your name and address for the record, please. Mokwa: Mr. President, Members of the Council. my name is Tim Mokwa with Toothman Orton Engineering, representing the applicant here in this -- in these -- several of these applications. As Anna mentioned, I have reviewed this, I think I sent e-mails to staff that I have no issues with any of the recommended conditions of approval. One thing I would like to request is that if we are going to be scheduled for a later Council meeting, that it be a couple weeks later than July 18th, give us time to get all those relinquishments. I don't think we will have them all by then, so rather than schedule and not make it; we may as well plan on that now. I don't really have anything to add beyond what staff has already done, so I would be happy to answer any questions. Wardle: Thank you. Council, questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none, Mr. President. Rountree: None right now. Mokwa: Thank you. Wardle: I have no members of the public signed up. Would anyone like to comment on this application? Council, it appears we have no comment. Rountree: Mr. President, seeing there is no further comment, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Items 17, 18, 19,20 and -- and 20. Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 38 of 71 Bird: And not 21. Rountree: I said and 20. Leave 21. Wardle: Second. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Items 17 through 20. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wardle: Motion on Item 17. Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the rezone request RZ 06-001, Item 17. Bird: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 17. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wardle: Okay. Rountree: Mr. President, I move that we approve Item 15, preliminary plat, PP 06-014, for Sundance Subdivision No. 5_ Bird: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 18. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wardle: Sorry, I should have asked if we could have done them all together, but -- Item 19. Rountree: Mr. President? Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 39 of 71 Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the Conditional Use Permit 06-011 for Item 19. Bird: Second. Wardle: Moved and seconded to approve Item 19. Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the miscellaneous application request, Item 20, for MI06-001. Bird: Second. Wardle: Moved and seconded to approve Item 20. Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wardle: Item 21. Rountree: Mr. President, I move that we continue the Public Hearing on Item 21 for the vacation request VAC 06-004 until July 18th. Bird: Second. Wardle: The applicant's request I believe was -- Rountree: Another week? August 1 st? Wardle: Two weeks? Canning: August 1st. Berg: We are not going to have a meeting August 1 st. Rountree: August 8th. Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 40 of 71 Wardle: Motion has been amended to August -- continue Public Hearing on Item 21 to August 8th. Second agree? Bird: Yes. Wardle: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 22: Public Hearing: AZ 06-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.01 acres from RUT to R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) for Incline Villaae Subdivision by Incline Village, LLC - north side of Cherry Lane west of Black Cat Road: Item 23: Public Hearing: PP 06-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 64 single-family residential lots and 8 common lots on 20.01 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Incline Villaae Subdivision by Incline Village, LLC - north side of Cherry Lane west of Black Cat Road: Wardle: Item Nos. 21 and 22 -- I will open public hearings -- excuse me -- 22 and 23, AZ 06-018 and PP 06-016 and I will open with staff comments. Canning: Mr. President, Members of the Council, this application is for preliminary plat approval -- or it's the Incline Village project and it's located on several parcels that take access from Cherry and, then, wrap behind two churches located on Black Cat. The applications include annexation and zoning and preliminary plat. The plat -- the original application was for 64 single family residences on about 20 acres and a proposed R-4 district. The gross residential density is 3.2 units per acre as proposed with the 64 lots. Staff did recommend that the applicant lose at least three lots and that brought the density of the development down to 3.05 dwelling units per acre, which would, then, be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of low density. That was included as part of the Planning and Zoning Commission approval. I'll get there in a moment. The access to the site is currently provided from Cherry Lane and a private street to Black Cat Road. You may remember that discussion as part of the -- the Seventh Day Adventist Church, thank you, where we had long discussions about that private road access. The Commission has recommended approval at their May 4th Public Hearing. Daren Fluke spoke in favor of the application. Don Klowers, Steve Kadie and Brent Law spoke in opposition. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the location of the multi-use pathway in this area and through the site. There is generally one shown. The Parks Department was a little -- it's shown generally west of here. The Parks Department has been concerned that that may not work, so they were looking at this site as perhaps providing that. What they ended up recommending is that it come through generally in the same location as the existing private street for now and, then, would connect up through a public street pathway system -- basically a sidewalk system going toward the north and, then, looping back down south. The intent being to get folks to the Borup property to the west of here. I think that issue has been resolved. Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 41 of 71 There was quite a bit of discussion about that at the Planning Commission. Staff had recommended a development agreement. The site specific provisions of that development would include that a maximum of 61 single family building lots be platted on the property and, again, that's a reduction of three, so that they are consistent with the Comp Plan, and that also that the Commission preferred the alignment of the multi- use pathway to be along basically Black Cat Road and that they would construct a multi-use pathway from their east property line as shown on the revised preliminary plat in that general area, so -- did I get that right? The key Commission changes to staff's initial recommendation -- they accepted the applicant's proposal for a fencing type, limiting the lot -- three of the lots to single story homes. Those three lots are down here, kind of on the south end of the flag portion of this property. And micropath construction on the site. The Commission also recommended approval of the revised preliminary dated April 19th. To our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council and with that I will answer any questions. Wardle: Thank you, Anna. Council, questions for staff? Bird: None at this time. Rountree: I have none right now. Wardle: Would the applicant please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Fluke: Thank you, Mr. President. Daren Fluke, JUB Engineers, 250 South Beechwood in Boise, representing the applicant in this matter. Anna did such a nice job summarizing the application I don't have much to add. We really have done everything that the city and the neighbors have asked to this point. Changed fencing. We took care of the pathway for the Parks Department. We lost three lots. I think everybody is happy. It's got good access to this site. It is -- will be a nice addition to the neighborhood. These are relatively large lots, 8,000 square feet on the short end and about 16 to 20 thousand feet on the high end, averaging somewhere in the 11,000 foot range. So, these are not small lots for an urban type development. All the services are here. We have worked with Public Works to assure that we can provide sewer and water to the site and we will have pressurized irrigation, so I don't really have anything else to add. If the Council had questions I would be happy to take those. Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Let me get my high tech pointer out here. If you could just explain -- and I'm going to have a couple questions -- what's here, what's going to go on here and here and I can't tell at this distance what's happening here and along the northern boundaries, so -- Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 42 of 71 Fluke: Mr. President, Commissioner, let's see, there are three existing dwellings on the site. One here, one here, and one here. Those did end up being the largest lots, just so we could accommodate those existing structures, meet setbacks, and sewer to them. This is the park area here. It's almost an acre down in this corner of the site. This is a drainage swale that you're looking at here, a seepage trench specifically. That's conceptual at this point, but we anticipate something like that. We have about the southern two-thirds of the site from here south will be served by sewer going out to Black Cat Road through an easement -- well, through, first, where the multi-use pathway is going to go and, then, through an easement out to Black Cat here. And, then, the remainder of the site will serve to the north to an existing stub street here in the Turnberry Subdivision on the north. There is a Nampa-Meridian facility -- the name escapes me at the moment -- Safford Sub Lateral, running right here along the northern portion of the property. There is, actually, two ditches in that area, one lies within Turnberry and, then, a user's ditch within our property that we will be piping there. Did I hit everything? Rountree: I just have one more question for you, if you don't mind, and this is like an inter-neighborhood pathway, probably an easement for something, but -- Fluke: It's not, it's just a pathway to provide connectivity there between the two -- two sections of the project. Rountree: And is that proposed to be an island -- Fluke: It is. That's a roundabout. ACHD was requesting because of the length of that street and the -- sort of the lack of modulation, it struck them as a little too straight, so we added that there as traffic calming and it does work pretty well, being that we have two stub streets right there. Rountree: Thank you. Wardle: Council, additional questions for the applicant? Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: Just one question. Tell me why common area open lots are down here and -- you know, on Cherry Lane, as opposed to somewhere up where the rest of the subdivision can utilize it more? Fluke: Well, the easy answer is -- I guess it's a two part answer. The site dictated to us where those open spaces went. It turns out that this portion of the site is extremely difficult to sewer because of the depth of the sewer line in Black Cat Road, we are going to end up filling this area probably in between two and three feet. So, it was very difficult to get sewer down to the southern end of the project and make it work. So, in Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 43 of 71 working with the constraints of the site it sort of dictated that it go there. The second part of the answer is it's only a 20 acre site. This is about 600 feet from here to here, so, you know, a little more than 1,200 feet total north to south dimension on that. It's really not that far, it's within a quarter mile for anybody to walk to that park. And that will be greened up -- excuse me -- greened up and be a nice facility for the neighborhood. Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: Is there something on it? I didn't see any -- Fluke: Well, the landscape plan just basically shows landscaping at this point. These are relatively large lots and so we didn't design a tot lot on there. Borton: Okay. Thank you. Wardle: Council? Thank you. Fluke: Thank you. Wardle: I do not have anyone signed up for this specific application. Would anyone like to provide additional public testimony? Anything to add? Okay. Council? Rountree: Mr. President, seeing no additional comment, I move that we close the public hearings for Items 22 and 23. Bird: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on Items 22 and 23. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the annexation request for Item 22, AZ 06-018, subject to the staff's specific recommendations in their outline related to requirement of a DA, the indication of a 61 lot maximum, and that comments about the multiple use pathway. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 44 of 71 Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 22. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea_ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Mr. President, I move that we approve the preliminary plat request for Item 23, PP 06-016. Bird: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 23. Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 24: Public Hearing: AZ 06-019 Annexation and Zoning of 10.59 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Southwick Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - 1255 West Ustick Road: Item 25: Public Hearing: PP 06-018 Preliminary Plat approval of 42 building lots and 6 common lots on 10.59 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Southwick Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC -1255 West Ustick Road: Wardle: I will now open public hearings on Items 24 and 25 and begin with staff comments. Canning: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council, I did want to point out that I believe you also have some written testimony on this project from Mr. Brewer, Christopher Brewer. This is the Southwick project. It's located on east of Linder Road and south of Ustick Road. It is two very skinny long lots. Crossfield Subdivision was approved to the east of this -- east and south, basically, and, then, there is an existing subdivision to the south. We have rotated this 90 degrees. Sorry about that. North is going toward the north. There we go. The applications include annexation and zoning and preliminary plat. The highlights of the development include 42 building lots on about 10.59 acres in a proposed R-8 district. I do want to point out what you're looking at here. This is an existing home site. This is -- we worked with the applicants quite a bit on this site design, because it is fairly constrained, you cannot get two roads in there, really, so what they have proposed is a -- four buildings that share access from a common drive. They have agreed to orient all the houses toward that common drive to create a courtyard feel, so you have got one, two, three, four sets of four homes. So, essentially, there will be no garages on this west side of the street for this whole section Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 45 of 71 of road. They will all take access from the common drive. The gross residential density is 3.92 units per acre. The net density is 5.64 per acre. I did point out the common drives to you and the existing home. The Commission did recommend approval at their May 4th, 2006, Public Hearing. Shawn Nickel, the applicant's representative, spoke in favor. No one spoke in opposition or commented. The key issues of discussion were the common drives and the home orientation on those. Key Commission changes to staff recommendations, there were none. And to our knowledge -- well, I can't say that anymore. We received that letter from Mr. Brewer after I had written this, so there are some outstanding concerns presented by him in his letter. Again, I do not believe those were presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. With that I guess I'll answer any questions Council may have. Wardle: Thank you, Anna. Council. questions for staff? Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Anna, what -- with the existing residence and lot on Ustick, are there going to be improvements on Ustick? Canning: The house will take access from the new public street and, then, the applicant will be required to do -- improve their frontage along Ustick. It's a short section, but -- Rountree: Sidewalk, et cetera? Canning: Yes. Rountree: Okay. Canning: I can double check. I can't imagine that ACHD didn't require that, but -- this does -- I want to point out one other thing. This is, really, a difficult area to anticipate redevelopment. There is one -- a third really long skinny lot here and, then. these -- these properties we have seen some interest in, but I think that those three kind of travel together and, then, this one other long skinny lot is held in separate ownership. So, we did ask the applicant to stub, so that they can get a street on that piece of property and they also have -- so they have two stubs going to that property, because it is so constrained to facilitate future redevelopment of that long skinny lot, the same size as half of one of these. Rountree: Well, Mr. President, another question for Anna. Would you take me back to the slide that shows the surrounding zoning. Canning: So, Crossfield was zoned R-8. The property just to the south of this one is zoned R-4 and, then, there is some R-4 over here in the Waterbury Subdivision. Meridian City Council June 27. 2006 Page 46 of 71 Rountree: Thank you. Wardle: Council, additional questions for staff? Bird: Not at this point, Mr. President. Wardle: Thank you, Anna. Would the applicant please come forward. If you will state your name and address for the record, please. Beck: Richard Beck, 839 East Winding Creek Drive, Eagle, Idaho. Mr. President, Members of the Council, we agree with the staff report and the conditions of approval and appreciate the help that Anna has given us on that regard. Again, a ten acre site that's pretty constrained. We are asking for the R-8 zoning designation. The area's listed on the future land use map as medium density residential, which has the spectrum of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Our density is just under four dwelling units per acre. With regard to -- with regard to the common driveways, we will be -- I believe that was a topic of discussion with Planning and Zoning Commission. I was not present, but I believe -- I have been told that we will providing an orientation that leads more toward the courtyard feel. All the homes will be oriented towards the common drive. That is the plan. And don't really have anything else to add and I will stand for any questions that you might have. Wardle: Council, questions for the applicant? Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Could you give me relative size of those lots that are going to share a common drive, the width of the common drive, the number of garage doors that are going to access the common drive, at cetera? Beck: Mr. President, Councilmember, the typical lot size -- see if I can read it myself. It looks like the lots that are closest to the roadway are anywhere from 7,300 square feet to 7,400 square feet. The lots on the rear are 8,200 to 8,600 square feet in size. There would be four -- each home site, of course, would have a garage and they would all access from the common driveway. Those are typically -- I believe they are 20 feet wide. The common driveway would be 20 feet wide. Trying to think if I covered everything you asked. Rountree: And question for Anna at this point. They would have to have a 20 foot setback off of that common drive as well -- Canning: Yes. Rountree: -- if they are going to front the common drive? Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 47 of 71 Canning: Yes, sir. The UDC still requires a 20 foot parking pad in front of each home. So, if they provide the parking pad somewhere else, they could conceivably move the garage closer. We can -- we could certainly add that as a condition of approval if they -- if Council wanted to set a garage setback or a building setback, we could include that. Rountree: That's helpful, but it doesn't paint a very pretty picture. Canning: If I could, sir. The other thing we could do is just determine -- we have that aspect to designate home orientation. With that orientation we could say that that is the front of the lot, so that would be a 15 foot setback for the home, 20 foot setback for the garage, and, then, the rear would -- so we would treat this as a front setback. That would be a front setback. That would be a street side setback_ Rear. Rear. Sides_ So, with that orientation we can measure the setbacks accordingly. Bird: Mr. -- oh, go ahead. Rountree: No, I'm done. Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: Anna, I'm not -- maybe on the elevations. Is what I'm just hearing a description of a shared drive and, then, a bunch of garages and 80 feet of concrete and driveways all around with four different garages? Did I hear that wrong? We have got home orientations and, then, garages and 20 foot driveways and -- Canning: What it would be -- if Council gives me a moment, I will just -- I'll draw something on the plat and put it up above. That might help. Wardle: Mr. Bird, did you have an additional question? Bird: Yeah. Anna, I have got a real -- well, the applicant can maybe answer this. I have a real problem -- we are telling them it's 20 feet on the width of the driveway? What do you do when guests come and are going to be parked in there and stuff like that? I hope all four of them people are awful good friends. Boy, I tell you, we have had trouble with just having two houses to a common driveway and, then, when you have four of them then -- and they are only 20 foot wide and you and I both know that people will be out there and those two back houses, I mean they have no parking, other than their driveway as it is. I think the concept is -- really hadn't been thought out, to be truthful with you. Beck: Mr. President, Councilmember, I guess just to respond, you know I -- we have a couple of these in my personal neighborhood and I know it is a challenge many times for the parking situation. Luckily in this design, since there won't be any I guess front-on housing or, if you will, access to the roadway itself, essentially, the -- actually, I do have a pointer here. Essentially, this strip here will be available for on-street parking for Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 48 of 71 guests as well. Many times people will also be able to park, depending upon how people are, in the actual driveway portion as well. That's kind of the parking pad in front of the required parking, but we would anticipate a lot of the guests parking on the street there. That would be an option for them. Bird: Follow up, please. Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: Sir, yeah, and I agree with it, but on a 20 -- what if you have parking on both sides out there, what are you going to do if an emergency vehicle needs to get to that back one or two houses back there? Seck: Mr. President -- okay. I'm going to defer to the project engineer. Bird: Okay. Wardle: State your name and address. Bailey: Mr. President and Councilmembers, Dave Bailey, 1500 East Iron Eagle Drive in Eagle. These flag lots, I guess we have been calling them, have actually been in the Meridian city code for quite awhile, so these meet the standards of your code for the R- 8 zone for the flag lots. And if -- I suppose if you look -- I think Anna did a great job drawing a picture here, but if you look at the building envelope it's intentionally, on our part, significantly larger on these than it would be on a standard R-8 zone lot, because we do need to have the garage on one end or the other and -- and take access off of that common driveway. If you notice that to any point on the homes, as far as fire access, that we are required to have 150 feet -- or be able to be a fire vehicle within 150 feet of all points of the home, which we can do with this without considering these as fire accesses. So, we are not required to have a turnaround, nor to designate these common driveways as fire access. They are intentionally left at 150 feet. I don't know if your code specifically limits them to 150. I know that Boise city code does, but they just can't be longer than 150 for that very reason, for the fire access. But these are actually dimensionally correct in accordance with both the current Meridian city code and your previous one, for that -- the UDC. We have actually done a couple in south Meridian west Of Locust Grove in the Roseleaf Subdivision. We did some in there. In fact, we did six off of one common driveway, which you folks didn't like, and fixed your code after that, so we couldn't do it anymore. But we do have one in there that has six off of a common drive backed up to a park. But I guess my point, in general, is that they are dimensionally correct in accordance with your code requirement. Bird: And I'm not doubting that. Wardle: Mr. Borton, did that answer your specific question you had for Anna? Borton: It does. What I thought it would look like. Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 49 of 71 Canning: Okay. Borton: Well done. Wardle: Council, while we have the engineer, do you have -- Bird: I have none. He's answered mine. Bailey: Could I make one additional comment that he didn't point out is that we do have detached sidewalks in the project. So, we have a wider right of way in there so we can have detached sidewalks on the project as well to add a little more green space to a project that we can't get a good green space in, so -- Wardle: Thank you. Council, as Anna has noted for the record, we have written testimony from Christopher Brower. No additional members signed up for public testimony. Is there anyone that would like to provide additional public testimony for the record? Hearing none, Council, any additional question you might have for the applicant? Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: I do. One question. Again, I'd love to have seen elevations on this project. Is there a reason why elevations aren't included? I know they are expensive to do, but -- Beck: Mr. President, Councilmember, I'm not familiar enough with the code. I don't believe it's a requirement to submit the elevations at this point and I don't know if they have them. I know that -- I believe that the applicant's done this project in -- this product in different -- different projects, but we don't have any elevations at this time. Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: I know you don't, I just -- I'm just asking for the specific reason why. Maybe, actually, Mr. Bailey can -- Wardle: Mr. Bailey, state your name again. Bailey: David Bailey, again, with Bailey Engineering. The requirement -- and when we normally do submit elevations we do on quite a few projects is when we have a planned development or we have lots that are not consistent with your ordinance. It's a presumption, I guess, that standard R-8 or standard R-4 zone that a builder can build a house on those that meet the dimensional requirements and we don't need to show you Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 50 of 71 what the house is going to look like, because it will fit on the lot, it will work on that lot. It's a standard building lot. And so all of them are standard building lots within the subdivision. That's the reason we didn't provide elevations, because we could build any house you can build in any other R-B subdivision on the lot. Maybe that helps answer it a little better. I don't know. Borton: It does. Canning: Mr. President? Wardle: Mrs. Canning. Canning: Councilmember Borton, generally, we don't warn the applicant that -- for single family houses that you may want to see the elevations, although we always do on attached -- any attached unit and multi-family units, so we did not prompt the applicant to provide those elevations. I apologize for that. We can start doing that or -- in this instance, because of the flag lots, some -- I think that you're more comfortable seeing how it lays out on these lots and maybe that may have been more appropriate to ask for on this one, just understanding how those flag lots work. But if you would like staff to do something in the future, please, let me know. Borton: That's always helpful, especially in this particular type of situation, with this type of lot and just trying to get a better picture of how they would be configured and the driveways and how it would be shared is helpful. I understand it's not a requirement. Wardle: Council, additional information needed? Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: Hearing nobody jumping, I'd ask to close the public hearings on AZ 06-019 and PP 06-018. Wardle: Do I have a second? Rountree: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Items 24 and 25. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Well, Mr. President, comment or discussion. This is an annexation request and there is not enough people in the audience for me to sing my song, but my song is I'm not in this big of hurry to provide the City of Meridian with this kind of a situation. I Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 51 of 71 agree it meets our code and also agree that our code has certain things in it to accommodate unusual circumstances and we can get a subdivision of 20, 30, 40, 60, 360 acres and three or four or five flag lots and here we have a subdivision that's almost half flag lots. I know it's a tough site, but I'm not able to vote in the affirmative to approve this particular annexation. Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: I share the concerns -- or put it differently. Councilman Rountree shares the concerns that I have got. Rountree: Well, thank you, Joe. Borton: Councilman Rountree agrees with me with this particular project and the lot configuration and it doesn't appear to be the best plan for the City of Meridian to accept and I'm not a fan Of the majority of flag lots that's been presented here and I think Councilman Bird's comments and concerns are shared by me as well as far as how these properties and driveways are going to be shared and attached to what could be a general sea of concrete and if I'm wrong and -- Canning: Mr. Borton, can you speak up, please. Borton: I'll move my microphone. I apologize. How these houses are configured. So, I share those concerns. Canning: Mr. President, given the way the tide seems to be going, if I might share one thing. When I first saw these flag lots -- not on this particular project, but the concept of flag lots in general, I thought they were the worst thing I had ever seen. I went out and did a survey of several of them. When used appropriately they can be very effective and quite attractive. I would ask -- because I think that it would be additional information and help for Council for future decisions if you could reopen the public hearings and continue this to give the applicant some -- and staff some time to work up some pictures to give you a visual image of how these look, how they can layout on the ground and how they can function, I would appreciate that. I'm not necessarily doing it for the applicant, I'm requesting that for the city as a whole, so that you can see how these function a little more appropriately. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, I would agree with you, but I think one of the biggest things, too, is I think we need to widen the -- those drive -- supposedly driveways to 24 feet. And I know it's in our code, they have stayed right within the code and if they feel it within themselves Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 52 of 71 to go to something besides an R-8 district, I would welcome that with open arms, so -- but I would have no problem if you would like to reopen the public hearings and continue them, if you have a chance, though. It's going to have to be a lot of changes to change my mind. Rountree: You moved to close, if you want to move to reopen. Wardle: Council, with that I would float of motion for discussion. I would move that we reopen the public hearings on Items 24 and 25. Bird: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to reopen the Public Hearing on Item 24 and 25. All affirmative? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wardle: Motion carries unanimously. We have two additional public hearings now open. Planning staff has recommend that we continue these items. Anna, do you have a specific date and do you additionally have specific recommendations as to information that would be brought forward that could help us make an additional -- or make a decision? Canning: Mr. President, the first hearing in August would give some time to get some photos and some dimensions to you just of how this would work. What staff proposes to do is to bring you some -- some constructive examples of how these look on the ground and we can get some from other builders and from this particular builder, I think he's got a couple out there, too. You can determine if there are portions of those that you think would make this work. I have -- I was not proposing any changes to the plat as Mr. Bird had recommended. I think you will need to talk to the applicant about that issue. I was just proposing additional information on common drives in courtyards. Wardle: Council, if we are going to make a motion to consider it, before I hear anything specific from the applicant, I would additionally -- the information that I would like to consider in addition to the elevation would be specific setback requirements, fencing requirements between those common -- between the houses that front those common lots, some examples of how that would be situated in relation to where the homes are, entrances, those sorts of specific examples. Would you like to hear from the applicant for additional comments and possible continuance or would -- Rountree: See if the applicant's in agreement with a continuance. Wardle: If you would come forward and, please, give your name for the record, please. Beck: Richard Beck. 839 East Winding Creek Drive, Eagle, Idaho. Mr. President, Councilmembers, we definitely would be interested in pursuing the continuance and we Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 53 of 71 will take the information -- the comments that you have made and gather some information, so you can be more informed and make an informed decision on the project. Wardle: The earliest date staff has recommended is August 8th. Is that a date that would be -- Beck: Yeah. I believe so. Wardle: Okay. Thank you. Beck: Thanks. Wardle: Council, we have two open public hearings. Do I hear a motion to continue? Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we continue Public Hearing AZ 06-019 and PP 06-019 to August 8th, 2006. Rountree: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to continue these public hearings to August 8th. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Baird: Mr. Chair, just for clarification for the record, the motion was for PP 06-018. It may have been misstated, but I think the record, in general, would be clear. Wardle: Thank you very much, Mr. Baird. Rountree: It's getting late. Wardle: Items 24 and 25. Bird: I couldn't read right. Item 26: Public Hearing: AZ 06-021 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 77.66 acres from Ada County RUT to C-G General Commercial and R-15 Medium-High Density Residential zones for Kenai Subdivision by Kenai Partners, LLC - south of East Overland Road and west of South Eagle Road: Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 54 of 71 Item 27: Public Hearing: PP 06-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 101 single-family residential and multi-family residential lots with 6 common lots in a R-15 zone and 32 commercial lots with 19 common lots in a C-G zone for Kenai Subdivision by Kenai Partners, LLC - south of East Overland Road and west of South Eagle Road: Wardle: I will open the Public Hearing on Items 26 and 27, AZ 06-021 and PP 06-019. Open with staff comments. Canning: Mr. President, Members of the Council, this is Kenai application. It extends from the EI Dorado Subdivision all the way over to the Millennium Subdivision. So, it brings in that whole RUT property that currently exists between the high school, basically, and EI Dorado. The application includes annexation and zoning and preliminary plat approval. The preliminary plat and annexation would allow a mix of retail, restaurant, and office uses, as well as a mix of attached, detached, and townhouse residences on approximately 77.66 acres. On the residential portion, which is on the south side of the property, they would have a total of 220 residential units. There would be 24 attached alley access properties, four detached alley access properties, 64 quads on common drives or on flag lots, as discussed previously, and, then, nine condo lots with approximately 128 units and this would be in an R-15 zone. For the commercial portion on the northern half of the property, there would be a total of 32 commercial lots in a C-C zone and that is approximately 45.8 acres. The gross residential density is 6.92 units per acre. The net residential density is 8.61 unit per acre. There are over -- or approximately 500,000 square feet of commercial square footage proposed and that would be 32 buildings, accounting for modifications as time goes by. Due to the complexity of this project, staff does believe a development agreement is necessary. The key portions of that development agreement would be some specific timing regarding the provisions of amenities. Staff has recommended that all the landscaping along the southern and northern property boundaries be done to the points of connection with adjoining properties, so that those landscape connections are done at the earliest part of the project. Regard to nonresidential structures, the applicant has not requested a maximum square footage of retail, restaurant, or office spaces, so we would normally revert to what is allowed in the zone. Because it is the C- C zone normally we would allow a structure to go up to 200,000 square feet and 65 feet in height before design review is required. Because there are adjoining residential properties to the south, we are recommending that that limit be brought back through the development agreement to 60,000 square feet in area or a maximum height of 40 feet. With regard to residential structures, the applicant has shown several elevations for both alley accessed and townhouses and detached single family. Staff supports those elevations, but wanted a little better clarification through the development agreement on the specific height, bulk, types of materials, and locations proposed for each type to address the concerns of the adjoining property owners and, then, to include that within the development agreement. Regarding pathways, there is currently a condition that the pathway be brought along the western property boundary. That was part of -- was included as part of the development agreement that they needed to accommodate that. There was some discussion, either during the hearing or since the Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 55 of 71 Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, that the applicant would prefer to bring that through the property, but we have not seen that yet. So, that pathway location would be a component of the development agreement as well. Finally, the applicant is proposing an addition to the park site, the Kiwanis Park, and that's in this southwest corner of the property. The development agreement includes a provision that they transfer by dedication the 2.035 acres addition to Kiwanis Park and that the applicant would be responsible for all costs of dedication, construction, landscaping, and pathway construction as agreed upon. We have several elevations. This is the overall site plan. The gray is the residential area. The darker green is the parks and open space. And, then, the lighter green is the commercial areas or nonresidential areas. You can see the connections from EI Dorado and from Millennium Subdivision coming into the central spine. These are details of the landscape plan. And these are elevations -- these are the residential precedence and there is a number of key features pointed out there. I think the applicant has included this in their presentation as well. I will let them go over those key features. More residential images. Then, these are the commercial precedence. You may recognize some of these buildings. They are from largely Boise city, but they are local examples. The Commission recommended approval at their May 4th hearing. Becky McKay spoke in favor, as did Dave Koga and Andy Erstad. In opposition were Ralph Ingle, Stan Curtis, and Gloria Fern. No one commented. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were a lot of discussion about the alley-loaded product and the need for a variance, but they have not submitted for that variance, so I don't think that's an outstanding issue right now. And, then, also clarification of the south boundary elevations on auto court units and those are -- that auto court is similar to the concept we saw in the last presentation. But I think that this one they will have some more specifics on how those lots work. They are much smaller lots, so the need to design those in great detail was there, because they are a lot smaller lots. There were no key Commission changes to staff's initial recommendation. To our knowledge, there are no outstanding issues before Council. I think, again, that there may be some concern about a private street requirement in the commercial area. I will respond to that issue if needed to. It was just for addressing purposes. So, aside from that, I will answer any questions that Council may have. Wardle: Thank you, Anna. Staff -- questions for Anna? Rountree: Not at this time. Wardle: Anna, you made mention of questions regarding the park. I see Director Strong here. Is there additional staff comment that you might wish to provide, Mr. Strong? Strong: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. As you may recall, we brought to you over a month ago a proposal for the addition of this little over two acres to the park site and entering into a development agreement with Kenai Development. We have sent a drafted of that development agreement that they are responding to. We have not received that back yet. Just a couple of items. We are meeting on Thursday of this week to attempt to finalize that draft and work out any issues that might still be Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 56 of 71 pending, so that we can finalize a development agreement and bring it forward. We currently have the Kiwanis Park project out to bid and those bids close tomorrow and the developer with this project has agreed early on to work with us in development of Kiwanis prior to actually this plat going through for a final plat. So, that's where we are with the project right now. It seems to be moving ahead as we anticipated in our earlier discussions, so -- Wardle: Thank you. Council, questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: None. Wardle: Would the applicant please come forward. State your name and address for the record. McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, in Eagle. I'm representing the applicants in this particular application. I'd like to kind of give the Council an overview of the project and, then, turn the pOdium over to Andy Erstad, the architect, who we have been working with over the past probably about ten months I think on this particular project. As Anna indicated, the 76 acres -- or 77 acres that you're looking at is an enclave. The city limits are wrapping all the way around it, with Mountain View High School located here, Resolution Park, which is primarily an office complex that I did for Gary Voigt quite a few years ago. We have EI Dorado to the east. We have C-G I think that's owned by Ron Van Auker. And, then, Thousand Springs, which is R-4, up here that I did years ago for Farwest Development. This particular property is designated as mixed use regional, so we put together a pretty extensive team of Erstad Architects, the Land Group, my firm, and, then, representatives from the staff of Mr. Groves and Mr. Johnson's office and we worked to come up with a good mixed use plan that was pedestrian friendly, provided good vehicular circulation, where we could transition from one particular use to another and it would not be cumbersome. Mr. Erstad came up with a concept that the band along Overland Road would be primarily of a retail type component, obviously, capturing the traffic there on that major arterial that's all improved with five lanes. There is a signal here that was planned when they did the Overland Road rebuild and it's roughed in, the arms are in, the wiring is in, so we will be working with Ada County Highway District at whatever point we reach that that signal is warranted, that it will have to be installed. We did request two right-in, right-out accesses to Overland. There were three access points to this subject property historically. The district staff and us got together after going to the commission, we ended up that this approach will be a right-in only. We will have a separate decellane, so we will tear out the curb, gutter, and sidewalk, add additional right of way, additional decel, rebuild the curb, gutter, and sidewalk up to this approach. This will be right-out only. Based on the analysis from our traffic engineers -- WGI performed our traffic study -- it was indicated that with those approaches in that fashion that we would not cause any delays to the traffic. Obviously, the primary entrance here is at the signal with this nice spine street coming down leading to this particular area. We have about a Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 57 of71 60-40 mix with about 40 percent R-15, 60 percent C-G. The band through here we anticipate being more office type component. Those buildings could be, you know, three, four, even five stories in height. Mr. Erstad has some diagrams that show that elevation. One nice thing about this particular piece of property, there is 16 feet of fall from north -- or from south to north on this property. The Ridenbaugh Canal here separates the subject property from Thousand Springs. So, it's a little bit low right in here along Overland Road. We anticipate taking the elevation down and, then, bringing this up to match more with the crown and elevation of Overland Road. I have met with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, they own and maintain the pressure irrigation system at EI Dorado. We will be working with them to go in and upgrade that to a regional system. They have also indicated that they would like to see Ridenbaugh Canal lined, concrete lined. Mr. Johnson has indicated that we will provide the materials if Nampa- Meridian will provide the labor. Mr. Anderson indicated that they will definitely get that in their fall schedule. We think we have got a good mix of product. As we get back into this residential area, we have got a nice greenscape here. This will be -- have islands along it with stamped pavers, so it does have a calming effect. Detached sidewalks. You will have landscaping here to kind of create a transition from the commercial office component into the residential. We have about 29 percent of this quad product. I have seen it in the flesh. They do a lot of it in Hawaii and they do it with four and up to six units. They use this common courtyard driveway. As Anna indicated, it can be done very very well if the design of the buildings are such that it, basically, utilizes that space as friendly -- friendly space. I have seen them where they have stamped pavers in there that it's very inviting and it works very well. In fact, I stayed in one that was a six unit attached type product, not detached like this quad is and they are two car garages. Maneuvering the average medium size car into the space was not difficult. I don't anticipate someone with a big Suburban living in that, because the garages were not that big and the courtyard is not that big. But we will be glad to, you know, the new type product and we would like to, obviously, set the example that the Council can hold up to other developers. As far as the alley-load type product, some attached, some detached, we have got about 12 percent and, then, we are proposing some condominium-type product or Brownstones right in this particular area here and here. Anna's asked in the staff report that we come back for a Conditional Use Permit for this multi-family product, because it is still being designed as far as meeting parking, landscaping, and getting the setbacks worked out. We have reviewed the staff report. Everything appears to be in order. The only thing that we did question on the Kiwanis Park, as was indicated by Doug, just to refresh your memory, Mr. Voigt I think donated four acres here, Los Alamitos was 2.3 and I think we -- Thousand Springs we did 2.9. This is one area that the city had designated for a neighborhood park. It was the first time that the Council asked for a component of a donation from each developer as all these parcels developed. They have been working with the parks department, Mr. Atalla, my client, staff, they have gone before the parks commission, this is approximately I think two acres. Obviously, to balance that out they are agreeing to help pay for the greening up of the rest of that Kiwanis Park and up to a specific dollar figure that they are trying to work out. We will have a pathway along the Ridenbaugh and, then, staff has asked for another pathway connection, we show a separate lot with a pathway coming down here and, then, when we were bringing it inside the project Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 58 of 71 here. I think the condition in the staff report is 5.5 h 5.5 states that we will continue this multi-use pathway along this western perimeter here. It was our desire and we did state at the Commission and I don't know if it got lost in translation or the Commission's motion, we had hoped to build this pathway in a separate lot, pull it into the project, obviously, pulling people internally in the project. We didn't see the benefit of running it down the periphery. And based on the information I received from Mr. Atalla, I don't believe the parks commission demanded that it be down the western boundary all the way to Overland, they just asked that this pathway continue and make its way down to Overland. So, we'd like to have it along the collector. Other than that, I believe the staff report appears to be in order and can I answer any questions and I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Erstad to show you some of the elevations. Bird: I have none. McKay: Thank you. Erstad: Thank you, Mr. President and Members of the Council. I'm Andy Erstad, 420 Main Street, Boise, Idaho. We have got quite a few slides, so I'm going to clip through them pretty quickly and get to I think the heart of the issue and that's the quad product, which there is quite a bit of concern and we have got some imagery and I think it may help you understand it. There is a few things that Becky talked about that in the scale of this project I think it's important for everyone to realize this is a 40 foot wide pedestrian access park land and this is ten feet. Both of those are components of this two plus acres that are being dedicated. We also, because of the separation between the residential and the commercial, we have a 25 foot greenspace buffer along here, which would be a great facility or a great opportunity to carry the pedestrian path in and, then, up through here. The concern that we have with the client and us as planners is that you put a path up along here and you're basically taking your eyes off the path and we think from a practical standpoint and just the utilization standpoint, that you put the path where it interacts with the buildings and the people who are going to charge the space. So, again, as Becky indicated, we would like Council to recognize that and allow us to come back with -- with a final detail on that. Anna, if you could hit the next page. This area right here is Overland and this brings us in on the main spine. As Becky indicated, there is a right-in here and right-out there and the idea is that we vary all of the parking, single level, we are considering some two story retail ground floor with office on top in this general area and, then, as you get into the heart of the space these would be three, four and five story professional office buildings. On the outside we are looking at one and possibly two story buildings again, to fill the mix of uses and the parking in between. We are trying to apply a lot of the new urbanism models. It's difficult when you don't have a critical mass of four or five hundred acres where you can really generate that, but the fact of the matter is to bury the parking in the back and pull it off the street and put your buildings at the street and really give a fun way to get in and out of the buildings is our approach. This is the residential area back in here, so your pedestrian line comes along and, then, down here. The lower image is, really, kind of the imagery that we are trying to achieve with your main entry here, heading back, and, then, kind of some nice architecture that will be -- I like to consider it timeless, so that it doesn't look Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 59 of 71 like it's a fad architecture or some, you know, way out there stuff, but it also -- we also have to address the market and deal with that. Anna, the next slide, please. These images are carrying us just a little bit further in. On the upper image we are now just off of Overland and we are heading south. The item -- or the image on the bottom would be as we approach the three, four, and five story core and we -- in our plan you saw that there was kind of a courtyard area or big plaza area. Again, the architecture is going to define some of the outdoor spaces, as well as the -- as well as establish the flavor for the project. Thank you. Again, this now is just turning and looking north as if we were looking north back towards the retail area. And, then, we are up above and looking north again from the -- from the residential area. One of the things that -- and the reason we clicked over to the second slide earlier was to show the park space. There is a green park space here. There is a green park space here. There is the park connection and the park along the south Kiwanis Park connection here and, then, up to the north. Next slide, please. I'm going to go through these pretty quickly, but this is the flavor that the client has been -- that we have been working with the client on, the level of quality and product. So, masonry, stucco, GFRC, punched openings, just a real high quality of architecture. Next slide, please. This -- these are two projects, they are built projects, that gives you a sense that we can actually do some fun things. The top is Bound Crossing in Boise and the bottom is, I think, Denver. Next slide. The upper two start to talk about gateways and importance, but, again, we are still trying to keep the quality of material and define a parameter set of guidelines. In fact, we just gave to Mr. Atalla today the kind of revised draft of the design guidelines for the project, which I think is important. It establishes the bar. Lower project is Capital Village in Boise right near Boise State. Very pedestrian, high quality, again, materials, bricks, stucco, masonry, that nature. Again, some more images of the pedestrian, brick, masonry, things of that nature. Next. These start to look at some of the house products. And, again, these are images, these are ideas that we are working on that -- this would be the series of row houses on the top and from the back you would actually have access into the parking with your -- with your living units above. This is a condominium product. This is, actually, some imagery out of Portland or out of Orenco Station where, again, the condominiums are -- there is a lot of variety in them, they still have a pedestrian, but a residential feel, and yet in that upper building I think there were 14 or 15 units. It's a fairly lengthy project. Wardle: Mr. Erstad? Erstad: Yes. Wardle: I assume you're summarizing. Erstad: Close. Yes, I will. If you will go -- this is the product that we wanted you to see, then. This is the -- this is actual built quad products. This -- from the image here, which is hard to see and we will be providing the same disk to staff, is, actually, a six-plex. These are built products off of that. If you will go to the next slide. This is how the imagery appears in the residence. Now, this is at the very south, so we are, actually, lowering the southern portion to balance it out with the northern portion. And this lower Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 60 of 71 image is an image that would -- what the people to the south would look at if they look across -- across the Ridenbaugh Canal. However, these would be between four and six feet lower. So, that just lowers the whole roof. But the space between the units and whatnot is really what you're going to start to see on this quad product. Next. The rest of the imagery you have -- these are from our earlier presentation and it's the landscaping. So, I'd stand for questions. Wardle: Council? Bird: I have none. Wardle: Don't have anyone signed up for testimony. Is there anyone who would like to give additional public testimony on this application? If you would like to summarize. Ask additional questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: Mr. President, I have a process question, I guess, for the applicant. You heard our discussion on the previous application that -- I can't compare the two products, because you actually gave us something to see. But I guess on behalf of the staff, if they are going to go to the effort to help educate us on the product and possibly utilize your product and some other things that they might bring to us, is it a significant hardship if we were to keep this thing open until we got staff's education on the 8th of August? I know that's asking a lot, but this is new stuff for us. Atalla: I understand. Joe Atalla, Kenai Partners, 6223 North Discovery Way, Boise, Idaho. My concern with tabling this -- you know, we would like the opportunity to help tonight to sell the quad product. You know, we -- this is a commercial -- there are large commercial pieces to this project and we are currently in negotiations with certain people and talking about delivering the site on time and it would definitely be a hardship for us if we had to table it with that item. So, we would like to be given the opportunity to answer any questions or, you know, discuss that further if that is still a concern. Bird: Mr. -- could I interject my thought? Wardle: Sure. Bird: I was one of the negative. We are talking -- we are talking about a ten acre product that had -- the biggest percent of their project in those type of things, where this one is -- this is a very small part of the project and it's commercial and stuff. I don't -- while I don't think it's -- maybe isn't the best way to do things, but I -- with a project like this, I have -- I don't have the concern that I had in just a residential project, so -- that would be my one concern and I don't have a problem with going forward. Rountree: Mr. President, I don't make those comments because I have an issue with the project, I think it's a grand portrayal of what you can bring to Meridian, I just have Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 61 of 71 some concerns about the workability and, obviously, they do. Not either living near them or having commuted through them, if you have got -- you have shown us some schematic elevations. Do you have some planned views that show the operability of driveways, et cetera, in the repertoire this evening that you could show us? Erstad: Mr. President, Council member Rountree, Andy Erstad. Do you need my address? One of the images that we had -- and, Anna, I think if you go back one, it doesn't clearly show it, but it gives you an indication that that -- that the quad creates kind of a motor court. Rountree: Just walk us through, if you would. Excuse me, Mr. President. Erstad: In this image here -- this is actually a fixed unit here, but it's one unit. two, three, four, five, six -- so this is a little bit larger than the quad, but it's the same principle, when you have your entry in between the two fronting the street and, then, you have -- in the quad product you would go into one or the other and it also enters the parking from behind, so the courtyard is the motor court and you don't typically enter the parking by the street. And these images of a built product actually show that relationship of the courtyard, the motor court actually accesses each of those garages and, then, you have an entry portion. Rountree: Could you give me an idea of the scale, the dimensions? Erstad: The dimensions of the drive on the flag lot are -- the drive per lot is ten feet, but because they share -- they share a common flag, the drive actually is 20 feet into the motor court. Then, the lots are between 50 to -- the frontage lots -- and we have a piece of paper if I could hand it to you that shows -- may I approach, Mr. President? Wardle: Sure. Or we can put it on the overhead would probably be better. Erstad: Mr. President, this is the -- this is the quad product to the south of the project This is the Ridenbaugh Canal. Our ten foot parkway. So, from the property line we give up ten feet and, then, we have 65 foot wide by 75 foot, the lots in the back. These are ten foot -- these are the ten foot drives per each lot. And, then, you have 55 by 77 feet. So, you have a 20 foot drive that brings you into the court and, then, you access each of the garages in this direction. And, then, the lots -- the units on the image that we had up earlier, have a separation from building -- separation to building. So, you're not building a solid wall. And I know that was a concern in the minutes and the comments from our Planning and Zoning hearing was that the neighbors -- and understandably so, because they -- they hadn't seen some of the imagery that you're seeing now and I think that's one of the things we learned was to provide that. You will have a house structure, a gap, and we are putting one and two story product back here, so, again, it will have variation in height. It's down six -- between four and six feet and the property actually right up in here is actually two feet above the Ridenbaugh Canal. So, we are really trying to be sensitive and work with them. The configuration of the quad product we think is -- I mean this is a -- is a proven product type. It's been used, you know, all over Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 62 of 71 the country and -- so, from that standpoint I don't know if that's -- if, Councilmember Rountree, if we have answered your question or not. Rountree: Give me a sense of the general dimensions of the product you're going to provide, square footage, price ranges. Erstad: Joe, do you want to address that or -- I mean we are looking at product that ranges in the 1,700 to 2,500 square foot range. So, we have -- you know, we have the mix. And, then, in the -- in price range it's really market dependent at this point. I think that you're going to be looking in the -- probably the low 200s to upper 300,000 dollar range. Now, I'm looking to our client to kick me here, because -- and that's what we have been talking about consistently throughout the development of this and kind of looking at this product. Rountree: And your imagery depicts the type and quality that you would anticipate with the product? Erstad: Yes. Rountree: Okay. Erstad: The imagery gives you a sense of the broadness of the style and the design and what -- as I indicated earlier, we are doing a -- we do have design guidelines that will cover that, not the commercial and the office, but also the residential. And it will -- it talks about roof style, windows, materials, finishes, porches, overhangs, things of that nature. So, this is -- this is an image of how that product might -- might look with the drive off the street, parking, and access into the garages. So, it's relatively concealed from the street drive by. And it's certainly concealed from the neighbors. Rountree: Well, your depiction of the courtyard effect is not unfamiliar to me, given Louisiana and Europe, but it's a little bit foreign for Meridian. Erstad: On the cutting edge, as they say. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. Erstad, on this -- how many of the houses face the street? See, you take away -- you take away the guest parking that was one of my big concerns on the last project, on the previous project, because you have got a street out here to park on. Everybody's not going to be parking back in the courtyard. So, is the entryways on those four in the back all face the courtyard and, then, the two on the exterior face the road? Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 63 of 71 Erstad: Mr. President and Mr. Bird, Council member Bird, the way that they are set up is that the -- half of the -- half of the product faces the street, because it commands those lots and the front door and the addressing of the street is -- is by those two units and, then, the -- the motor portion or the motor court and the parking is actually brought into the -- into the courtyard and either -- as in this case on the side -- if I can find my button -- and in the other two unit cases something like that. So, you have a -- you have a strong street presence. You also have adequate area that you can bring a car or two into the court and park it up against the garage. But the street -- now that you're bringing all of the cars in and parking them in garages, the street becomes much more available -- much more available to park guests in that event. Bird: Thank you. Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: Mr. President, I have got a question -- Anna, can you put up the portion that shows the Kiwanis Park area, the southwest corner? Rountree: You could if she could remember what slide it was. Bird: I think it was number one. Borton: Number two. Bird: Two? Yeah, there you go. Borton: Andy or Becky, either of you who want to answer it. Is there -- do you anticipate all these individuals -- I know you want them all to walk, but do you expect folks to -- around here to drive over or to utilize Kiwanis Park? Atalla: I guess I will field this question. Joe Atalla. We have not provided parking as part of the park. In discussions with, you know, various people leading up to this point, it was decided that the parking should be concentrated on the southern side of the park where there is a large parking lot there, instead of providing, you know, a large parking lot and, then, some parking spaces over there, which might always be filled by guests anyway, you know, of the residential area. And we also wanted to promote the residents of our project walking to that site. The -- in the blue there on the corner directly north of the Kiwanis Park site, that is a multi-family lot and so we will be going back in for approval on that site and one of the concerns is from the police department and our plan is to provide a driveway there and potentially some parking spaces within that lot to accommodate not only some overflow parking, but also police department's concerns, so that they can pull in and really see most of the park. So, I hope that answered the question. I don't know. Borton: It does. I'm just curious if whoever lives there is going to come back and yell at us, because there is cars and whatnot. Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 64 of 71 Atalla: I guess there is only so much we can plan against human nature. I don't know. Borton: Okay. Wardle: Thank you, Joe. Council, additional questions? Bird: I have none. McKay: Mr. Chairman, if I could just throw something up, food for thought. When we come back with the -- a final plat application, obviously, we have to come back before the Council. We could -- you could place a condition on us that we submit to staff showing on the quads where that -- the fencing is delineated and allowed, the driveway, how the buildings will be oriented, the setbacks and so forth, so the Council could see that prior to approval of that final plat, along with it when it comes back before you. I know you have us delineate certain things prior to bringing those final plats in, if that is a worry. Just to add -- Canning: President Wardle, Members of the Council, you asked me to remind you when an applicant suggests that they bring back something at a final plat stage, that you did not want that to ever happen again, because it's already been approved and there is nothing you can say, so -- but thank you for trying, Mrs_ McKay. McKay: Never mind. Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: Doug, do you have any other comments or concerns or questions, you know, in light of what you have heard? Strong: Mr. President, Members of the Council, just clarification on the pathway connection. At our parks commission where this was discussed, one of the things that we thought would be useful is to have a pathway connection to Overland Road. I don't recall any specific discussion, as Becky indicated, that it had to go down the back side of the property to Overland Road. I think the connection that's being proposed makes sense. I think from a safe standpoint, if the police wanted to chime in, there is some sense having eyes on a pathway. I think that's probably a much better proposal to have it come down as proposed and, then, connect down through the middle of the project to Overland Road. I wanted to add that one comment. Early on there wasn't any discussion about it going all the way to Overland Road. I think it was proposed to connect through the school site, which didn't seem satisfactory, so this is a much better proposal. Wardle: Mr. Borton. Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 65 of 71 Borton: Are there any obligations -- I know there was a generous gesture and the agreement on behalf of the applicant on completion of Kiwanis Park and whatnot. Are there any questions or concerns or ambiguities that you need clarified concerning any of those obligations? Strong: We are trying to clarify those on Thursday at our meeting, that we can put in a development agreement that we bring back to you for your approval of what the extent of their financial participation in the greening up of the first phase of that phase of the park and, then, if they -- what -- if they do any additional work beyond that agreement, how that would be negotiated in impact fee payout or -- like we have done with other projects, so -- Baird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Baird. Baird: Members of the Council, I'd caution you to separate out consideration of what's going to happen in the park. It's really not pertinent to this application. The only thing you're considering is the corner that they are offering and how that would work. So, the discussion is helpful, but as far as your deliberations and your decision, that should not be a factor tonight. Strong: We will bring that back as a separate development issue. Wardle: Thank you, Doug. Canning: President Wardle, Members of the Council, the applicant has provided just a sketch of how that auto court would work on that four units. I'm going to put it on the overhead projector. You could include that as part of the development agreement if you would like. It's just a conceptual layout of those units. There we go. Now you can see the whole thing. I can tell you what you're looking at. These are the four units. The one and two would be the ones in the front. This would be the shared driveway coming in. The units with the arrows would be the garages. So, you're pulling in -- they do have -- they are not showing a full 20 foot setback to the garage, however, they are showing some distance. It varies. But the general concept is that the units in front, that the garages would come closer to the street than the units in the back, kind of creating that courtyard feel toward the rear units. If I have interpreted this sketch correctly. Maybe the applicant would like to explain. Atalla: Joe Atalla. Just to clarify, the hatched area would be yard space for each individual unit and, obviously, this is a very rough sketch that I just put together tonight, but hopefully it will help to clarify how these units might come together and work off of that courtyard. Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 66 of71 Canning: I'm sorry if I misspoke about the hatched area. I'm meant the arrowed areas would be the garages. Rountree: That's what you said. Canning: Oh. Okay. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, just for the record point out the entryways on each one of those. Canning: This is the entry to the common drive. Bird: No. No. No. Not the driveway. Canning: Oh. Bird: The house. Canning: One and two would have entries that face the street. I believe they said three and four were a little more flexible, that they could face basically the street or they could face more toward this interior space between the two units. Bird: What would -- what would stop them from, then, like three and four having -- having the garages into the -- that's the downward deal and, then, having your entry over there? They could change. I mean they could definitely change. Canning: I believe the more important concept is what happens on one and two in that they would not have garages taking access here and that they would be -- kind of provide that sense of enclosure to the courtyard. I thought that's what I heard earlier. So, that these would -- these would not likely be toward the rear of the property, they would be closer to the common drive. Bird: Okay. Wardle: Council? Rountree: I have no more questions. Wardle: Staff? Canning: No, sir. Thank you. Wardle: All right. Thank you. I still have two open public hearings. Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 67 of 71 Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: If nobody needs anymore public input, I move that we close AZ 06-021 and PP 06-019. Rountree: Second. Canning: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on Items 26 and 27. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we approve AZ 06-021, to include staff and applicant comments. Rountree: I'll second. Wardle: Okay. Rountree: Comment? Discussion? Wardle: Discussion. Rountree: The maker of the motion, on the pathway on the western boundary of the property, would it not be directed the entire length of the property to the west, would it go to the break between the commercial and the residential, go on the landscaped area, and, then, go up to the entryway drive to Overland? Is that-- Borton: Absolutely. As indicated by the applicant. Rountree: Okay. Borton: I think we included that. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: For the maker and the second, that would include a development agreement and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on both of that; right? Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 68 of 71 Borton: Correct. Bird: Is that included in the motion? Rountree: And the second concurs and has a comment for staff and the applicant that it's amazing what a little education and some good visuals will do and I appreciate your patience and your indulgence and, Anna, I still want you guys to go out and help us see what might otherwise come to pass. Canning: I will, sir. They look very different on large lots than they do on small lots also. So, we will try and get both examples. Rountree: Okay. Canning: Mr. President, I missed the motion. I'm sorry. If you could summarize the motion, I would appreciate it. Wardle: If I may. We have a motion on the table to approve Item No. 26, to add specific reference to pathway connection not being required along the western edge of the property, connecting internally, and the development agreement with the applicant. Rountree: And Findings. Wardle: And to prepare Findings for approval. And with that I will call -- I will call roll. Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wardle: Item 27? Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: Move we approve PP 06-019. Rountree: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 27. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 69 of 71 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 29: Ordinance No. 06-1239 : AZ 06-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.65 acres from RUT to a C-G zone for Williams Pipeline by Northwest Pipeline Corporation - 1301 Locust Grove Road: Ordinance No. 06-1240 : AZ 05-045 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 91.085 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reflection Ridae Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC - 4275 South Locust Grove Road: Item 28: Wardle: Items No. 28 and 29 are Ordinance No. 06-1239 and Ordinance No. 06-1240. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read these items by title only. Berg: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. Ordinance 06-1239, an ordinance for annexation of property located in the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 18, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said lands from RUT to C-G in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date. Berg: Ordinance 06-1240, an ordinance for annexation of property located in a portion of Section 30, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said land from RUT to R-4 in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date. Wardle: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. You have heard Items 28 and 29 read by title only. Is there anyone that wishes to hear them read in their entirety? Hearing none -- Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve Ordinances 06-1239 and 06-1240, with suspension of rules. Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 70 of71 Rountree: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Items No. 28 and 29 with suspension of rules. Mr. Clerk. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 30: Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1) (a) to consider hiring a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent; (c) to conduct deliberations concerning the acquisition of an interest in real property not owned by a public agency; and (d) to consider records that are exempt from disclosure as provided in chapter 3, title 9, Idaho Code: Wardle: Item 30 is Executive Session. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1) (a), (1) (c) and (1) (d). Rountree: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to enter into Executive Session per state code. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Wardle: I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session. Bird: So moved. Borton: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to come out of Executive Session. All in favor. Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 71 of 71 ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. Wardle: For the record there were no decisions made in Executive Session. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Rountree: So moved. Bird: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:50 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) :~~~ME';<' '-4. -'""<-f " . ~ ~~'6:-~/;;o:~:.,'.:.:~11v-'<;:_, ..:::- 'I)"~,'~ , "()-~ ~ - = Am~.sl€D' ~ :; 1'"' \. _ ~~ ~", .,~~:. ,~~L;!AM G. BERG J ,?"<J ~"g ~./ ..,,:" -;;<:- //r'~/ 'If rv-::::-~~~.: ..~~ >~,"\~"!" //1 -~J~N'-., \ ,\\'\. 1///:/- ".-' ~:",\.\...'."'. 1 / / / / Of; DATE AP""PRovED