Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 07-11 Meridian City Council Meeting Julv 11. 2006 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:10 P.M., Wednesday, July 11,2006, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Shaun Wardle, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, and Joe Borton. Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Gene Trakel, Ron Anderson, Len Grady, Doug Strong, and Dean Willis. Item 1: RolI~call Attendance: Roll call. X Shaun Wardle X Charlie Rountree X X Joe Borton X Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: I will go ahead and call this meeting to order. It is Tuesday, July 11 tho It is ten minutes after 7:00. Thank you for your patience tonight. We appreciate it. I will start tonight's meeting with roll call attendance. Mr. Berg. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: De Weerd: Thank you. If you will all rise and join us in the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Shawn Ragan, with Church of God Seventh Day: De Weerd: Thank you. Item No.3 is the community invocation. We will be led tonight by Pastor Shawn Ragan with the Church of God Seventh Day. If you will all join us in the invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of silence. Ragan: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thank you for the privilege of being here tonight. Shall we pray. Our most wonderful and Holy Father in Heaven we come before you this evening in thanks. We thank you for the country that we live in, whose birthday we recently celebrated. We thank you for the freedoms that we have and the freedom to assemble here this evening, the freedom to come before you in prayer. Your word says that to whom much is given much is expected. We have been given much in this country. Now, we turn to you to help us to live up to our end. Father, I pray for your blessings here in Meridian. I pray that you might give wisdom and guidance to our city leaders that they may govern according to your will. I pray you might give clear direction to your church in Meridian that we may be a beacon of hope and light. Lord, bless this meeting tonight. Be with our Mayor, our City Council, our Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 2 of 64 police and fire departments and the other departments of our city. Father, I also pray that you would be with the various businesses, community organizations and all of the individual people who work so hard to make Meridian all that it is and all that you want it to be, in the name of your precious son Jesus Christ I pray, amen. Thank you. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: Thank you, pastor. We appreciate what you do personally, as well as what your church does. Okay. Item NO.4 is our adoption of the agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: On the Consent Agenda we need to pull Item H to the regular agenda and make it 7-H and on the regular agenda, Item No. 13, CPA 05-001 and Item 14, AZ 06-008, have been asked to be continued to July 25th, 2006. And with that -- and also Item No. 20, an ordinance for the reading of the impact free ordinance has been asked to be removed from the agenda and with that I move we approve the revised agenda. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the agenda as changed. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of June 22, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of June 27, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06~ 016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.08 acres from RUT to R-4 (Medium-Low Density Residential) zone for Quarterhorse Subdivision by M2 Land LLC - 710 Black Cat Road: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06~ 010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval with 14 single family residential lots and 2 common lots for Quarterhorse Subdivision by M2 Land LLC - 710 Black Cat Road: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 06~008 Request for a Variance to maximum cul-de-sac length Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 3 of 64 requirement for Quarterhorse Subdivision by M2 Land LLC - 710 Black Cat Road: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 06- 002 Request for a Rezone of 0.22 acres from I-L (Light Industrial) to O-T (Old Town) zones for Stan Lantz by Stan Lantz - 608 West 3rd Street: G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06~ 020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 23 commercial lots on 31.37 acres in a C-G zone for Centrepointe Subdivision by Winston H. Moore - northwest corner of Ustick Road and Eagle Road: I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for Approval: AZ 06~018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.01 acres from RUT to R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) for Incline VillaQe Subdivision by Incline Village, LLC - north side of Cherry Lane west of Black Cat Road: J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for Approval: 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 VillaQe Subdivision by Incline Village, LLC - north side of Cherry Lane west of Black Cat Road: K. Water Main Easement Agreement for Sunbelt Rental Buildina by Franklin I Stratford Investments: L. Contract for Installation of Linder Road PRV with Star Construction: M. SHP 06~005 Request for Short Plat Approval of Silverstone SQuare Condominiums Consisting of 22 Condominium Units on 2 Parcels of Ground on 2.32 acres in a C-G zone by Chris Anderson of Sundance Investments Limited Partnership: N. AQreement for Professional Services for a Proarammina Company to Set Up Online Services for Department with Matraex Application Proarammina: De Weerd: Is there anyone in the audience that are here for either of those items, Items 13 and 14? We apologize that -- staff, do they have a reason for their request to continue? Bird: They just got the staff report. Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 4 of 64 De Weerd: So, the request is to continue that to July 25th? Bird: Yes. De Weerd: We apologize for this inconvenience to the citizens who have come. It's hard to give testimony without an application. Again, we apologize. Canning: Madam Mayor, someone provided me with a CD. De Weerd: Is there anyone who is leaving the room that gave staff a CD? Okay. Will will find out. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Bird: With that I'd move that we, on the Consent Agenda, we pull Item H to the regular- - make it 7 -H and the rest of the items that we approve and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all papers. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve the Consent Agenda with the removal of H to seven. Any discussion? Roll call, please. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Department Reports: A. City Council President - Shaun Wardle 1. Discussion and Clarification of Downtown Streetscape Plan: De Weerd: The first item under Department Reports, I will turn this over to Councilman Wardle. Wardle: Thank you, Madam Mayor. We had a presentation yesterday in regard -- in conjunction with the Ada County Highway District in regards to our proposed streetscape plan by the Meridian Development Corporation. I wanted to take just a moment to ask if there are specific questions or comments from the City Council. The Meridian Development Corporation will be gathering information, will be discussing this next Wednesday at their regularly scheduled meeting, which is moved from tomorrow Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 5 of 64 morning. So, if there are comments that I take back today or you can certainly e-mail those to myself or the administrator. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Shaun, I'd just remind them, which you probably already will, about what we heard from parks and what they have recently ordered as far as tree grates and installation to be done in the next couple of months and that corresponds to what MDC is doing and where and when and -- Wardle: Thank you. Madam Mayor, in addition to that, one of the things that the Meridian Development Corporation is considering how to fund those improvements. In partnership with all entities, the highway district, in addition to the landowners that will be redeveloping their properties and who will make payments for those improvements. Those are questions that are yet to be answered, but are important areas of discussion that we'd like to have some input on and will have future discussions on. De Weerd: I would appreciate the answer to who maintains it and I believe yesterday there was a question as to what can be allowed in the public right of way and so I guess I would like to get a schedule of how they are going about it once they collect the public comment on the plan itself, then, what are the next steps and how it goes through ACHD staff and commission, as well as our staff and our Council. Wardle: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I will take those comments back. One of the maintenance issues that's been at least initially discussed and has not really had any flushing out of an idea, but a conglomeration of downtown businesses -- a downtown business association of sorts and how those individuals and businesses together will function to see those improvements happen and maintenance. So those are very preliminary issues of discussion, but I'll take back all those comments. De Weerd: Certainly be a positive step forward with our downtown redevelopment. So, any further discussion from Council? Rountree: I have one. B. Planning Department 1. Discussion of Autumn Faire (Tricia's Crossinal Subdivision Pedestrian Pathway: De Weerd: Okay. Item 6-B. Planning. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, an issue was brought to our attention regarding some pathway lots that were -- the plat -- well, let me back up. You Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 6 of 64 have a memo to you from Sonya Waters and I will go through that briefly, because it's very complicated and if I don't go in the order that she had it I will probably get you more confused. Greg Corey came to us and he was concerned because he wasn't -- because it's a common lot at the rear of his property line, he is required to put a four foot solid or six foot open fence. So, he started doing a little more investigation and asking us about what the common lot was at the rear of his property and what it is is when Autumn Faire preliminary plat -- it was originally -- or it was recorded as Tricia's Crossing through the final plat process, so a 30 foot wide common area was created in this area here. Ten feet of it is on Tricia's Crossing Sub and 20 feet is on the Tricia's Crossing Sub No. 2 and 3. So, the ten feet to kind of the northerly section and, then, 20 feet on the other one. So, that runs along the Sky Pilot Drain, which is all through here and you can see how that feature goes through. This is our park. Season's Park. The development agreement for Autumn Faire Subdivision required the applicant to develop a minimum 30 foot wide pathway lot to be rough graded at the developer's expense. There is a note on the plat effected by the common area that says that these lots shall be dedicated to the City of Meridian for public pathways. They have not been conveyed to the city and they have not been developed as open space. They are, basically, just a weed patch at this point. There is also some other considerations. Part of that is an easement for the Sky Pilot Drain. There is a couple different solutions for this issue and those are detailed. There is -- one would be to allow Mr. Corey and the other property owners affected to construct the six foot tall solid fence adjacent to the common area through the variance process, which would solve their issue, but would not solve the unimproved common area issue. So, we'd still -- we'd just have six foot fences back there and a weed patch that the police department wouldn't be able to have any view of. There would be no view from the surrounding properties, because there would be solid fences. The second alternative is to allow the homeowners association and the individual property owners to apply as a whole for a property boundary adjustment, effectively eliminating that common area lot. The third would be to require the homeowners association to transfer ownership of the common area to the city as originally required and the city would improve the common area and construct a pedestrian pathway as originally intended. So, those are, basically, the options. We don't currently have it. We would have to pursue acquiring the rights to develop that pathway. Originally our understanding from the Parks Department was that they weren't interested in developing a pathway. I think we misunderstood. It's just that they would not be interested taking over ownership and maintenance responsibilities until there was a connection. You can see there is a little easement here in a separate lot. This is the one remaining parcel. You would have this third -- you have a continuous easement all the way up to -- oops -- this property. This is held -- or was held by Hubble for the development and we -- it's logical to extend that along the Sky Pilot Drain. So, you would get a continuous pathway from about the half mile mark on Black Cat up to Ustick and, then, the Borup Park property is located nearby. Now, the Comprehensive Plan map shows a multi-use pathway kind of wiggling north-south through this area. It does not follow a natural feature, whereas this one would follow a natural feature. So, we are looking for some guidance from Council as to what you would like us to do at this point. De Weerd: Anna, that Borup property is off of Cherry. Meridian City Council July 11,2006 Page 7 of 64 Canning: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm off a mile. Forgive me. De Weerd: All right. I thought maybe we were donated another park. Canning: You'd have to loop around a long way. Sorry about that. You're right. De Weerd: So, what is staff's recommendation? Canning: Well, it seems to me that there is not all that much -- this probably will redevelop. Most of these little things do. And we could get the rest of the easement at that time. These paths that follow a natural feature are pretty nice. I'd hate to see us give that up. We would need to make a commitment to go in and improve it, because it's not graded or anything at this point. De Weerd: And who's responsible for maintaining it? The city doesn't have ownership, so who is the responsible party? Canning: Currently the homeowners association owns the property. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: So, they are responsible for maintenance as the property owners. De Weerd: Council, questions for Anna? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: Anna, so is it -- it's a homeowner's association strip of property and the homeowners who are adjacent to the strip that's not being maintained, don't want to have their open fence next to the un-maintained strip? I mean is that what's going on? Canning: They don't want to have their fence next to a -- a not maintained strip. Borton: Okay. Madam Mayor? Can the homeowners association rally around themselves and levy a special assessment to maintain the strip that they own and are supposed to maintain? Canning: That would certainly seem reasonable. There is some question as to whether the city should own it at this point. So, regardless -- if you want the homeowners association to -- if you want it to stay there and you want the homeowners association to maintain it, they likely won't put a pathway in, but they would maintain it, then, the city probably needs to -- will still need to do a plat modification to take off the statement that says this is dedicated to the city, because it hasn't been. Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 8 of 64 De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Canning: So, this -- obviously, we missed this at final plat stage. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess from a different perspective it was probably fortuitous that we missed this at the final plat stage, because no one was going to -- it appears that the homeowners association doesn't have any interest in developing this parcel. So, at this juncture it's not necessarily in the city's best interest for them to dedicate it to us. You can convey property by dedicating it on a final plat. They didn't do that. All they indicated on the final plat was that it was supposed to be dedicated at some point in the future. I'm assuming that at that juncture, which was probably six or seven years ago, they thought they'd develop it. Now, they appear they don't want to. The adjacent property owners don't necessarily want them to either, they would like to simply move their property boundaries ten feet further over and put up a six foot fence. That would be their preference. At this juncture on the possible solutions in Mrs. Waters' memo, number two seems to be in the city's best interest. We currently don't own it, unless -- and I think that's the direction we are asking, if it's not in the interest of the city to develop it, it appears it's not in the homeowners association's desire to develop it and we can't make them development it at this juncture, since it wasn't caught earlier. So, if we don't -- we either take it over and maintain it and develop it, which they probably would be fine with, or we tell them we are no longer interested either and it's their problem to deal with. Number three or four are probably not in the city's interest at this juncture for them to dedicate it to the city and if our interest for the city is to get rid of it, we would have to go through a much more complicated process to get rid of it, whether it's to give it back to the homeowners or whatever, to sell it or auction it or whatever is, certainly, as you all know, way more complicated than we need to right now. It appears the adjacent property owners, in their discussion with their homeowners association there appears to be some movement to want to allow that to be taken over. I think what Mrs. Canning is saying is we are going to lose a pathway opportunity there, but it's been six or seven years and nobody has had an interest to develop it, unless we do it, it's not going to get done anyway. So, I think that's the direction we are asking from you folks is what would you like us to do. De Weerd: Doug, do you have anything you want to add? I know your department and planning are just initiating a master pathway planning process. Would this pathway -- I guess can you answer the question now or do you need to wait until you're into the pathway study to know if this is something that would be an amenity to the city? Strong: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think that probably your latter statement is -- makes the most sense, is to see what our master pathway plan study discovers. As Anna has pointed out, though, it is a natural connection or feature and when the property develops to the west it would give us further pathway connection onto the -- onto the west and northwest. But there is that one property that will sooner or later redevelop and it would allow a natural connection out to Black Cat. We have Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 9 of 64 the portion of the pathway that -- this works? Right -- it goes along the back side of the park. This is all in and maintained currently as part of Season's Park. If we -- if the city was to acquire this section through here, even though it doesn't connect on out at this point and develop it, it wouldn't -- we typically don't accept sections of pathway that don't connect from street to street, but it would -- that's because they are kind of isolated around the different parts of town. This particular one, because of its proximity to Season's Park, would not be that difficult to maintain, because we would just cross the street and take care of it. So, we would be, I guess, bargaining on eventually that that rural piece redeveloping and being able to connect on out to Black Cat. De Weerd: Mr. Nary, I guess my question would be can -- does this decision have to be made today? Can it be made so that it is in conjunction with a master plan? I guess more immediate would be is the homeowners association going to take care of the weeds, because I think that's what initiated this whole issue. Nary: Madam Mayor, certainly there is no obligation to make the decision today. You have one anxious property owner that wants to know whether he needs to build a four foot fence or a six foot fence and that's something that's driving his concern is what's he able to do and not incur the expense of building one fence and, then, tearing it down and building another one. There certainly is no urgency other than that. But I don't think anything else is driving that decision. Yeah, the homeowners association -- I think according to Mrs. Waters' memo from the -- for Mr. Corey, the homeowners didn't realize they owned it, that's why they weren't maintaining the weeds. Now, that they maybe realize they own it, they are obligated to maintain the weeds, so that may not be as significant an issue. But that is a concern to Mr. Corey, it's just that he's building his house, he hasn't been able to occupy it yet, he's almost done with it, he's working on the rear of his yard and he doesn't want to build his fence twice, so -- De Weerd: That's understandable. Okay. Council, what is your direction on this? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I don't hear a lot of interest on the part of the city for this particular area. I think the adjacent property owner's concerns about the fence is going to be further complicated by the fact that there is an irrigation company involved and his troubles have just started. It may say it's a pathway on the plat, but it's not, so I don't know whether our ordinance comes into play or not in this particular situation. It seems to me he could build whatever fence we wanted on his lot and the issue of what's there in terms of weeds and maintenance is an issue between the homeowners association and the irrigation company, who has an easement for probably a good portion of this property. I'm not sure there is a decision we can reach, other than we want to take it on and put it in our master plan for parkways. Beyond that I don't know where the city has any involvement. Canning: That is the -- that's the question we are asking, is do you want us to pursue getting a pathway there or do you want to let the homeowners go forward with property boundary adjustments. They do need -- they are regulated, because -- on their fences, Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 10 of 64 because it is a common lot, regardless -- it's a homeowner's association common lot and that's what the code refers to. Rountree: Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: It seems that the consensus may be to direct the property owners to begin work on a lot line adjustment. The city's not terribly interested in obtaining it and utilizing it as a pathway. De Weerd: I don't know. I guess I heard both Anna and Doug say that it is of interest, possibly. I would like to see how it would fit into a plan, but, you know -- yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, I was just going to agree with Mr. Rountree in that -- to clarify, Anna, are we -- are we just specifically -- Director Strong indicated that the portion to the -- I guess west of the space side was currently maintained, is that correct, as part of the park? Canning: Yes. Wardle: Okay. So, we are really only talking about the portion to the west -- or the east? Canning: Well, there is this -- this section to the north is not maintained as far as I know. Not passed the park boundary. So, it's maintained to this boundary right here. So, this is -- this is not maintained and this section here is not maintained. Wardle: Madam Mayor, just a follow up. I guess my interest would be to let the homeowners solve the situation, not to -- obviously, it wasn't dedicated to the city and wasn't built as a pathway at the current time, so that's my -- Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I would agree with Councilman Wardle a hundred percent. Let them battle it out. I'm like you, I would like to see a pathway out there, but I think we are getting into a can of worms that we might be sort sorry we got into. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Let them get their battle over with. Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 11 of64 De Weerd: All right. I guess it is an opportunity, if this is a desired area for a pathway, and so, staff, if you feel strongly about it, now is the time, otherwise, it sounds like it's not a fight this Council is interested in. Was that an appropriate summary? Strong: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm real mixed on saying that this is something we should pursue, because there is so much uncertainty about when the rural property would be redeveloped and what's going to happen to the west. I think -- the only comment is it is a natural feature that we typically try to have pathways follow along. You can -- in the future, if there was a connection that went on to the west and north, say that there was a school that was built up in that -- that area that's future development and it became a natural corridor to get to school, you could still connect through coming into Season's Park and connect onto the west from Season's Park if we didn't connect this one little piece of pathway from Slack Cat in. So, it wouldn't prevent that potential pathway development onto the north and west in the future, if that -- if that's where the development goes, so -- De Weerd: So, at this point would you at least give up the piece from Black Cat to the park and be interested in pursuing from the park onto the west and the north? Strong: I think so. And I think by that time we will have a master pathway plan update that would clarify -- like Anna said, on the land use map now, the multi-purpose pathway kind of meanders north and south just to the west of here. So, we would need to redefine, probably, where that multi-use pathway is going to be. De Weerd: Mr. Nary, I guess if Council would consider that as an option, can you split that and work with the homeowners association to say just from whatever that one street is -- Dawson? To the west, that that piece would be of interest as a pathway. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, since it's noted on the -- even though it's just a note on the plat currently, we could certainly contact the homeowners association and indicate where the city's interest lies and that if the city is not interested in the eastern portion of that potential dedication and only the western portion of it, we can certainly indicate that to them and ask that the western portion part be done whenever -- you know, we can deal with it when the pathway plan is completed. I don't see a problem with that. De Weerd: It's just another option to consider, Council. Now, if I have succeeded in making it more complicated, I do apologize. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I still have some questions as it relates to the park and the piece that's in the park. Was that ever deeded to the city? Is that a separate common lot from Dayside to the west? Canning: From this map it appears to be one. I didn't bring all the final plats with me. We can check that, but I believe the park is just -- their ownership goes here. And I Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 12 of 64 think they had -- my memory of the transfer of ownership of this was that it didn't go all that easily. I don't know if it was done as a lot and a block in a recorded sub or not, so I'm not sure who -- my understanding was the homeowners association still maintained ownership of this strip from the park to the north. Rountree: Madam Mayor, might I suggest that we ask staff to clarify the issue as this parcel relates to the park and the lot descriptions and bring it back for action and if, in fact, there is a desire to utilize that portion to the west, that they at least include some concepts of how that might fit in with the master plan. Bird: Is that a motion? Rountree: And I will make that a motion. Bird: I will second it. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second requesting information -- at what time? Rountree: Tomorrow. Tomorrow morning. The 25th or-- Canning: Okay. But the portion of how to incorporate it into the master plan -- I don't think the master plan is going to be done until December or January. Rountree: The motion was not to include it in the master plan, but a concept of how it might fit with the master plan. Canning: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 06~013 Request for Variance to UDC 11-3B-7C2 to count 15 feet of existing right-of-way for Eagle Road towards the landscape street buffer in the C-G zone for CentreDointe Subdivision by Winston H. Moore - northwest corner of Ustick Road and Eagle Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item H was pulled from the Consent Agenda. And Anna -- I'm sorry seven. Item 7-H. Bird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 13 of 64 De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: This was asked to be pulled, so that we could vote on it individually, because of Councilman Rountree would prefer to not vote on this because of the location. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Which he had abstained from the others. That's the reason it was asked to be pulled from the Consent. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Bird. Do I have a motion? Bird: I would make a motion that we approve PP 06-020. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item H, 7-H. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, abstain; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. Item 8: ReQuest bv Larry and Judv Kellev to Waive Fees for a Conditional Use Permit - 403 E. 2nd Street: De Weerd: Okay. Item 8 is a request to waive fees. Mr. Nary or Mrs. Canning -- or do we just give it to the applicant? Nary: Madam Mayor -- Kelley: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council, and staff. This is my husband Larry, I'm Judy Kelley and we live at 403 2nd Street in Meridian. He's passing out some information to you about where we live, the pictures of our small canvas garage, and the paper that was given to us by the board of council at the city hall -- the building. We live at 403 2nd Street in old town Meridian and several years ago we decided to put up a canvas garage at our house to house our '57 Chevy. At that time I asked the building department if we needed a building permit and I was told that we did not need one for a small canvas building. We were told, however, that it should be back behind any sidewalk allowance in case sidewalks were put into our area. We made sure -- Canning: Madam Mayor -- ma'am, I'm sorry, but -- Madam Mayor, Council -- or Counselor Nary this sounds like testimony for a Public Hearing. Nary: Madam Mayor -- thank you, Mrs. Canning. All that you're being requested -- and I tried to interject before Mrs. Kelley started. If Mrs. Canning can give you just a brief Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 14 of 64 statement as to why they need -- what they are asking for and, then, all we can hear tonight is a request to waive the fee. Kelley: Okay. Nary: Not the reasons for what the CUP might be needed or not needed or the background. Kelley: Okay. Nary: But I just wanted Mrs. Canning to just give you just a little bit of why they are even here and, then, the discussion is only over the fee -- Kelley: Oh. Okay. Nary: -- and whether or not to pay that. Canning: And, I'm sorry, I tried to communicate that to you before and I know it's difficult to separate that out, so I apologize. This is a -- this is a result of code enforcement -- a complaint by a neighbor and, then, code enforcement follow up. So, we -- the structure in question requires conditional use approval, because it can't meet the design guidelines. So, they are asking for a waiver of that fee. The structure has been in place for a number of years. Kelley: And we did follow everything that we were given when we applied at the zoning and you will notice on the last page, we do not have to have a building permit, because it does not exceed 200 feet -- square feet -- Nary: Okay, ma'am, that's way more information than we need. Sorry. A Conditional Use Permit is required, because, as Mrs. Canning stated, it is in Old Town, requires a Conditional Use Permit. The fee is almost 1,100 dollars, which certainly fits more in a commercial setting or a different -- a larger setting. This is, really, for a canvas structure to house a vehicle. Kelley: Right. Nary: This isn't for the underlying reason of whether to allow it, just on whether or not the fee is -- can be waived in relation to these applicants. Kelley: Also, when we got our planning development application for the little Conditional Use Permit, it seems to be more for a new construction than an existing construction, so we weren't sure how to even fill that out. De Weerd: That's the next step in this process. The first step is if Council would consider waiving the fee -- Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 15 of 64 Kelley: Okay. De Weerd: -- and I think with that introduction from Mrs. Canning, do you have anything you would like to add as to why Council should consider the fee waiver? Kelley: Well, I think a 1,100 dollar fee for a 190 dollar garage that's made out of canvas that has no floor is a little bit outlandish. And we, as basically almost retired, and it's been there several years and we have been on the property since 1972, I can't see that that's a reasonable fee for a small little canvas garage. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, do you have. any questions for the applicant? Do you need additional information? Rountree: I don't. Bird: I don't either. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: When I went to the Planning and Zoning, I was told to go downstairs and get a building permit and, then, when I went downstairs they said I didn't need one, to go back upstairs and tell them I didn't need one, so he walked me back upstairs and we had about an hour discussion and they said, well, I really don't think you need one, but since you were tagged, we need to go through the proper procedures. De Weerd: We always find it first. Kelley: Exactly. De Weerd: For you, too. Okay. Council, this is for your consideration. What would you like to do? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: From my perspective, in light of Mrs. Kelley's comments and the hardship of the fee imposed upon her and her explanation of what's taken place, I, for one, don't have a problem with granting her request -- Mrs. Kelley's request to waive the fee for the Conditional Use Permit. Bird: Is that a motion? Borton: That's -- so moved. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 16 of 64 De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to waive the fee as requested. Is there any discussion? I'm sorry. If there is no -- Rountree: Madam Mayor, just to point out, that the fee is not punitive, the fee is the cost to get this to a hearing for a Conditional Use Permit. So, staff time, official notices in newspapers, which are not cheap and those sorts of things. So, just so folks know what the fees are all about. Kelley: My little canvas garage has to have a Public Hearing? Oh, my word. Rountree: Unfortunately, yes. So, anyway, I just wanted folks to know that it's not a punitive thing, it's the cost of doing business. De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Kelley: So, what does that mean? De Weerd: Your request is granted. Kelley: Oh, thank you very much. Appreciate that. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item-- Wardle: Madam Mayor, if you can just clarify for the applicant, the only thing that was granted was the waiver. Thank you. Item 9: Tabled from June 27, 2006: 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: De Weerd: Thank you for that. It's always good to clarify; right? Thank you. Okay. Item No.9 is tabled from June 27th on FP 06-027. I will ask staff for comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, the applicant asked to continue this to the 25th. Bird: The final plat? That wasn't one of them. Canning: Yes. Somehow I mistyped it to the 18th on your cheat sheet, but it should be the 25th. Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 17 of 64 De Weerd: On our cheat sheet? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we continue Item 9 to July 25th. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to continue Item NO.9 to July 25th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: FP 06~028 Request for Final Plat approval for 27 single-family residential building lots and 2 common / open lots on 7.92 acres in an R-8 zone for Settlement Sridoe Subdivision No.6 by Capital Development - 2205 E. McMillan Road and 2251 E. McMillan Road: De Weerd: Item 10 is FP 06-028. I will ask for staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, we are -- have a letter from the applicant stating they are agreement with the written conditions of approval and the applicant is not here tonight, but asks that you approve the final plat. There are no outstanding conditions -- or issues. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve FP 06-028, final plat. Wardle: Second. Canning: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 10. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: FP 06~030 Request for Final Plat approval for 88 single-family residential building lots and 9 common lots on 29.7 acres in an R-4 zone for Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 18 of 64 Madelvnn Estates (f.k.a. Basin Creek) by Pacific Landmark Development - 5603 N. Locust Grove Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 11 is FP 06-030. Staff, are there any items on 11 or 12 in regards to those final plats? Canning: Yes, ma'am, there are. De Weerd: Okay. Item 11. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is Madelynn Estates, formerly known as Basin Creek. This layout is not the current layout. Here is the preliminary plat. Let me point out a couple features. There are landscape islands in the middle of these longer street sections to break those up and, also, if you can see this park-like -- park here has a straight line going north-south. We prepared the final plat staff report. One of the conditions is that there not be any trees in these islands and there are -- there are some smaller Islands now, too, in the cul-de-sacs, that there not be any trees in them, that the sewer lines can go under them and water, but you can't have any manholes in them or valves and that if this -- if the pipes do go underneath them, that there can't be trees. So, the applicant's response was that they would take these roundabouts out or these traffic calming islands out to accommodate that condition. That was part of their proposed open space in the preliminary plat. So, we started looking at what kind of numbers they would have to do if Council decided that that was still consistent with the approved preliminary plat, which, to me, those roundabouts create a very different feel on that road than would occur with them not being there. So, we started counting up open space and it wasn't until that time that we realized that they had also shifted the park line and the park is 3,000 square feet less in open space than it should be. We are very strict on these final plats, that they come in with the amount of open space that they showed on the preliminary plat or more, never less. So, it got on the agenda. This issue didn't come up until about an hour ago with this particular lot. We tried to call the applicant, we were unsuccessful. I still haven't seen Mrs. -- oh, you're here to -- okay. We were expecting Ashley. So, I wasn't sure, so -- hadn't had an opportunity to talk to them. So, this Council may just decide to hold this over for a week, so we can work with the applicant, but since it's on the agenda I thought I should inform you of the issues at this point, whether you want to move forward with it tonight or kick it back for a week is your decision. De Weerd: Okay. Since the applicant is here, Council, shall we hear from the applicant? If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Morgan: My name is Ryan Morgan with WRG Design. Our office is located at 453 South Fitness Place, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 19 of 64 Morgan: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it is true that we would like to eliminate those traffic circles, as pointed out, this one and this one, and it is due not only to the fact that there is considerable cost to route -- the sewer lines currently run under them with manholes located in this position and a manhole located in that position. To route around those islands we would have to put a manhole here, a manhole here, a manhole here, and, then, a manhole here to connect the sewer that comes out this way, requiring, then, four manholes, as opposed to one manhole, at a considerable cost to our client and, therefore, we would like to eliminate those, because we are not allowed to have any manholes inside those landscape islands. In addition to that, ACHD has requested considerable revisions to those landscape islands, because it falls under their roundabout, which we, then, have to reduce the lots in the corners. This lot, this lot, and, then, the lots that would appear here, here, and, then, these lots, in addition, because the roundabout that they requested would take up considerable more land or we could reduce those traffic circles even farther, so it no longer becomes a roundabout, therefore, effectively reducing our landscaping, as opposed to just completely eliminating it. The other issue that has come up is part of ACHD requirements. The landscape island here and in the other two cul-de-sacs, have increased in size, therefore, counteracting not all, but some of the landscaping that we have reduced or eliminated. So, due to these issues and, like I said, the comments that we have received from ACHD in regards to these, that is why we are proceeding and would request that we proceed with the final plat and eliminate those traffic calming devices that ACHD considers roundabouts. De Weerd: Was there another issue that you had brought up? The park piece? Morgan: The reason for that is there is an existing home that is located on this property here and they have a fence and a deck that sits here and we did not have a complete topo at the time that the preliminary plat was done and for that reason that fence actually sits -- the existing fence and the deck sit closer to this -- the original property line that we had originally anticipated and in order to not pose any hardships and there is a daylight basement also that is -- comes underneath this deck and to reduce the impact to this existing home, we had to adjust the property line. Otherwise, there would be some considerable drainage from this park that would end up in the private residence and that is something that, typically, is not allowed, that you drain from a public property onto a private property. De Weerd: Well, it appears there is significant discussion that you need to have with staff before Council decides on this plat. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Bird: My opinion is, as one Councilman, is he either goes -- he goes back to staff and gets this rectified or I can vote to deny it right now. There is a significant change from Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 20 of 64 the preliminary plat and I -- then, I think he needs to go in and get this lined out with the staff. De Weerd: Yeah. I don't remember where we have seen a reduction in open space, so -- it looks like there is some work -- if you would just work with staff on that, we can continue this matter and Council can address it at that time. Morgan I would like to point out that we are still quite a bit over the open space requirements as required by the city code, that we have not reduced below that amount. And the overall percentage -- we were proposing 10.8 percent and this has reduced it to 10.6. So, the overall percentage is actually rather minimal. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: I don't disagree with Councilman Bird. I think there is -- it's time to go talk to staff. I don't know at what point after you made the decision to move that lot line on the open space did you contact staff? If mean if they found it an hour ago, was there a communication about where you made known that that change was being made? Morgan: That communication would have come from Ashley Ford of our office and I do not know if that communication was made or not. The issues with the traffic circles we did not come about until last week and I do know that that communication was made as of Friday. De Weerd: Okay. Anna, what is the appropriate time to bring this back? Canning: We could just set it over for a week for now and, usually, these issues are fairly easy to resolve. I'm a little bit at a quandary, because, to me, removing the traffic circles, I would normally not call that consistent with the preliminary plat. So, I will proceed that way unless you tell me otherwise. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I agree. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Bird: I do, too. Rountree: Madam Mayor and Anna, it would seem to me that each one of those traffic circles impacts a minimum four lots, that the lot lines are going to have to be redrawn Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 21 of 64 and legal descriptions rerun. This is a final plat, so that stuff should be taken care of before we act on it. Canning: Two weeks might be more appropriate. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: With that I move that we table Item No. 11, FP 06-030 until July 25th, 2006. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to continue Item 11 to July 25th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: FP 06~029 Request for Final Plat approval for 62 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 13.1 acres in an R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision No.1 by Dyver Development, LLC - SEC of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard: De Weerd: Item 12 is FP 06-029. I will start this with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, before -- you know, I kept on thinking next week was the 25th. So, on Ambercreek when I said to continue it one week to the 25th, that's what was going on there. The applicant did ask just for the 18th. I think they have all the issues resolved on Ambercreek and I apologize for my blond moment there. De Weerd: Okay. After this item we will ask staff to consider a new motion. Canning: All right. We are on Irvine now. De Weerd: And don't blame it on being blond. Canning: You have told me that before. Okay. I'll try and remember it. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the last final plat on the agenda tonight is for Irvine Subdivision. We do have a letter from the applicant stating they are in agreement with the conditions of approval, so on the -- as far as the city and the applicant are concerned, we are in agreement. We have had communication with one of the neighbors. This isn't a Public Hearing, but Mr. Stevenson is in the audience and I know he would like to speak to some of these issues. We have been communicating with him frequently on the outstanding issues, so I raise that as an item, but our concerns are addressed. Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 22 of 64 De Weerd: Okay. Council, would you like to hear from Mr. Stevenson? Bird: Sure. Rountree: Certainly. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Stevenson: Jerry Stevenson. 6040 North Ten Mile Road, Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Stevenson: Madam Mayor and Council Members, one of my issues primarily is -- that I'm going to address right now is the irrigation, because it's been kind of one of the major issues we have had on this continuance from the Silverleaf Subdivision, but I'm just going to comment, basically -- and I don't know if there is a plan on the -- for the irrigation on the site plan at all -- Canning: Just that. Stevenson: Is that the largest one? Okay. Basically, on my -- I just need to make sure it's documented. I don't know if Kevin Amar -- anybody from his staff is here, but I have -- through this whole process I have been getting some -- a lot of, I guess, promises, but, then, when we -- they get kind of little case of amnesia and things that are forgotten about. So, they have, actually, installed a -- just a one inch line that was just going to be used for the south of my driveway. It's on the very southeastern corner of my property and on these site plans there is no mention of that or there is no documentation or anything of that and I want to make sure that that does stay point -- stay put where it is. So, I just -- for the documentation purposes -- De Weerd: Mr. Stevenson, are you the property to the south and -- yeah, there you go. Okay. Thank you. Rountree: You broke it. De Weerd: Oh, Charlie. Stevenson: On lot number one -- I don't know if you can see on the very bottom left- hand corner, there is -- on number one on the very bottom left-hand corner, that's where the one inch line is right now and they did finally get it installed in on the Silverleaf main line and, you know, I don't have a problem with them moving where they actually ended up bringing it, but I just want to make sure that I still have service at that particular point and that they don't do away with that. And, then, there was -- they did actually put in the irrigation -- a six inch line, actually, at the northwest corner where there has always been previous access. The ongoing issue with this applicant is the fact that when he Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 23 of 64 put in the main line to Silverleaf, which borders the -- on the right-hand side of the map, that borderline on the east side, he did not leave access to irrigation water that I had previously had access to and so that's where the current status is with that particular issue. But as I understand, that's not -- that's, I guess, a civil matter or a misdemeanor on his part. So, anyway, that's an ongoing situation. The other thing I did notice on these last set of plans is that street that is stubbed into the back of my property -- we are back again down to Lot NO.1. It looks to me like that fence stops and there is no fence where that street ends and there is just one of those blockade signs. And because I have livestock on the other side there, I would like to make that a continual fence, so that it's consistent with the rest of that fence and solid and the purpose is to keep any kids and try to discourage anything -- anybody from, you know, poking things through, you know, another fence that's not a solid fence there currently. So, that's my request there. Those are the only things I really see, you know, at this particular point. I could go on for two days if you would let me, but -- but those are the critical issues I see right there. I forgot to bring my notes that I actually sent, but I believe that covers my important items that I have. De Weerd: Anna, are those comments covered in staff comments? Canning: Yes, ma'am, they are. And, Mr. Stevenson, I don't know if you were aware, but we sent a follow-up e-mail at 1 :47. You may not have received it yet and I apologize for that, but Sonya Waters and Mike Cole did address this issue. The landscape plan does currently show a solid six foot fence along there. It doesn't appear to stop at that and we can make that known to Mr. Amar. It's easier and cheaper for them to run it straight across than it will be to do anything else, so I don't think that will be a problem. With regard to the water rights, the reason that staff is indicating that it's not an issue of our concern right now is that that ditch was actually eradicated sometime ago, so we are not sure of the water rights issues and what water rights remain. So, there was not an active one when this -- at this time. And with regard to the one inch irrigation service, that was part of the Silverleaf Subdivision, not part of the Irvine Subdivision, so it really wouldn't be appropriate to put it on this final plat. As far as we know that service is remaining, so we -- there is no reason to think that it wouldn't at this point. The final issue was just a code enforcement and we did notify code enforcement, so -- De Weerd: Thank you. Stevenson: Thank you. De Weerd: Council? It sounds like staff has worked the issues that were brought up into conditions of approval on the final plat where we have some authority to do so and it sounds like the other issues are civil issues. Okay. Council, I would appreciate a motion. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 24 of 64 Wardle: I move we approve Item 12, FP 06-029. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion to approve Item No. 12. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Tabled from June 27, 2006: 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: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 9, I would consider a new motion of continuing to a different date. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: As the maker of that motion, I move that we continue Item 9 to July 18th. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue Item 9 to the 18th of July. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from May 2, 2006: CPA 05-001 Request to Amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan for Approximately 50 acres from Medium and Low Density Residential to Mixed Use-Regional, by the South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance - Land at or near the northeast and southeast corners of South Eagle Road and Victory Road: Public Hearing: AZ 06~008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 23.39 acres from RUT to R-4, C-C and L-O zones for South EaQle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation by the South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance - east side of South Eagle Road on both the north and south sides of Victory Road: Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 25 of 64 De Weerd: Okay. Items 13 and 14 were requested to continue to July 25th. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Have you opened the -- are you opening the public hearings now? De Weerd: These were continued, so-- Bird: The one was. The other isn't. De Weerd: Okay. I will open both Items 13 and 14, both the continued and the new Public Hearing. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we continue the public hearings for CPA 05-001 and AZ 06-008, to July 25th, 2006. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion to continue Items 13 and 14 to July 25th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 15: Public Hearing: AZ 06~015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 182.60 acres to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (168.23 acres), TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood-Residential) (10.42 acres) and C-N (Neighborhood Business) (3.94 acres) for Tanana Vallev Subdivision (f.k.a. - Lookout Ridge Subdivision) by Farwest, LLC - southeast corner of Meridian Road and Victory Road: Item 16: Public Hearing: PP 06~013 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 548 single family residential lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 school lot and 20 common lots on 182.60 acres in a proposed R-8, TN-R and C-N zones for Tanana Vallev Subdivision (f.k.a. - Lookout Ridge Subdivision) by Farwest, LLC - southeast corner of Meridian Road and Victory Road: De Weerd: Items 15 and 16 are public hearings on AZ 06-015 and PP 06-013. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments. Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 26 of 64 Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the -- let's see if I can get it right. I think it's Tanana Valley project. It's not Tanana. That's all I know. It doesn't rhyme with banana. And so the applicant will have to give me the correct pronunciation for that. It is -- it's located -- here we go. At the corner of Meridian and Victory and it includes several parcels, but it also has some -- several -- or a few out parcels. This is one out parcel. This is the second out parcel. And this is -- the grange is kind of the third out parcel. It does incorporate these two. Reflection Ridge Subdivision is just south of there. You may recall. This gives you a little better idea of the platting activity that we have had. This is the Tanana project and, then, this is Reflection Ridge down here. De Weerd: So, Anna, what is your name? Canning: Anna. I figure I need a lot here, so I can have more A's and N's in my address, so -- okay. This is the site plan. Let's see what we have got. We have got an annexation and zoning applicant and preliminary plat. The annexation and zoning is for R-8 for the majority of the project. TN-R for a portion. This is shown on the Comprehensive Plan as a neighborhood center, so this would be the TN-R portion here. And a C-N portion for this commercial lot right there at the entrance. It is 182.6 acres. The preliminary plat approval would be for 548 single family residential lots. The one commercial lot. One school lot. And 20 common lots on 177.94 acres. And as far as the R-8 zone goes, there is 178 acres. The TN-R there is 10.42 acres. And the C-N -- oh, I have got 10.42 again. Probably one of those is wrong. I apologize for that. Can't do the math in my head. The gross residential density is 3.09 units per acre. So, that leaves an average lot size in the development of 8,750 square feet. There are about 24 acres of the site being set aside for open space and that would be 13.5 percent. So, let me give you a brief tour of the property. You have a collector road coming in off of Victory that comes and crosses the Ridenbaugh and to the southern portion of the property -- this does start to get some slope in here. You have the existing home. We do -- we did require them to stub the cul-de-sac to the existing home, so that it could eventually not take access from Meridian Road. You have an entry street, a collector street, coming in at the half mile from Meridian Road and it's in the same location as Rumple Lane. We did require that the -- or we did ask the developer to go out and get - - purchase the property that Rumple Lane sits on, so that we can take care of the issue of, basically, making Rumple Lane go away and he's solved that problem. And, then, the road now would come in and it would T. This southern portion would go into Reflection Ridge and, then, the other portion would come into this project. And you have two -- two entrances to the project from there. You have a large central park -- oh, no, that's not a park. There is a house on it still. Someone -- it's a very large house on that lot right now. And, then, you have the alley-loaded portion here. The school would take access basically in this area. The applicant has made almost all the modifications requested of staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission and that's represented in this site plan that you see tonight. There were some things that were kind of new. One of the things was a stub to this street, to this out parcel, and they reconfigured this corner here. They had -- let's see if I have a better one than that one. If this street continues along, it would come into the school site there, but we are a little concerned Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 27 of 64 that this corner that's left for the school may not be very usable back here. The former layout kind of stopped the lots, really, in this area. So, they have kind of bumped out this one lot. I usually don't go into that detail, but this did happen after the Planning and Zoning Commission, so I wanted to bring it up. Okay. Moving on. There is no details yet on the 3.94 acres of the commercial. That will come at a latter time. There are provisions that it needs to comply with the C-N zoning. We do require a landscape buffer adjoining the residential in that area and there was also a pathway connection. You know, 1 went through and fixed these and, then, somebody burned the wrong copy onto this thumb drive, so -- now I can't find the commercial one. That's not commercial. There it is. Thank you. This is rotated. So, this is Victory Road. This is Meridian Road. So, there is a -- there is a pathway connection there now. It's right there. They also added an emergency access out to Victory Road for the fire department in that location. So, again, they have addressed most of the concerns. There are a lot of kind of site specific provisions in the development agreement. I'll go through them quickly. One was that the C-N area -- all future uses comply with the C-N zoning. That the applicant agrees to construct and provide for the maintenance of the 20 foot wide land use buffer between the C-N and the residential zoning. That the applicant agrees to annex the Rumple Lane property, include it within the boundary of the concurrent subdivision. That except for emergency access as required by the fire department, the applicant agrees to relinquish any interest this property may have in Rumple Lane. That one public street access will be allowed to Meridian Road located one half mile south of Victory Road. Direct lot access to Meridian Road shall be prohibited. That the applicant should construct sidewalk adjacent to the out parcel on Victory Road and adjacent to the out parcel on Meridian Road. I had those backwards. Victory Road and Meridian Road. And, then, a note that if the construction and easement for the pathway is not allowed in writing by the owner of the out parcel, the applicant agrees to bond or provide another city-approved method for providing assurance that the pathway improvements in that area are constructed. I hope that makes sense. So, we have gotten a commitment that they will go talk to those folks and see if they can construct a pathway, so that we can complete those pathways. If they are not able to -- and they have something in writing saying I won't let them build a pathway on my property, then, we will try and find some other way of having that happen in the future. And the applicant agrees to construct a multi-use pathway through the site from the southeast corner to Meridian Road and that the city has accepted the applicant's proposal to construct a pool within this development. And, finally, that a maximum of 548 single family lots shall be platted on the property. The Commission did recommend approval at their June 1st hearing. Justin Martin spoke in favor of the application. Lorelei Smith, Russell Chaney, Mert Logue and Lisa Sullivan spoke in opposition and no one commented. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the dedication of the school lot and improvements being made to that lot within the development. For example, the construction -- or not constructing the street landscape buffer. The construction of the pedestrian path along the out parcel on Meridian Road. The types of housing products proposed. The anticipated uses of the C-N zone lot and the expected build out rate. The key Commission changes -- they did recommend approval of the modified preliminary plat. They granted the applicant's request to delay construction and landscaping around the school lot and the commercial lot until they develOp and they Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 28 of 64 accepted the applicant's proposal to construct a pool and a pathway adjacent to the out parcel on Meridian Road and to maintain a maximum 548 single family lots. As far as outstanding issues, prior to the City Council hearing, the applicant was going to approach the owner of the out parcel on Meridian to see if that owner would allow the construction of the pathway. Staff would recommend that the Council just get an update from the applicant on that. The applicant has provided a response to the staff report. They had some clarifications to the conditions and we had -- we had added a sentence in the wrong spot, so it needed to be shifted. And we -- we agree with all those comments and those -- we can add those comments into the findings if Council so chooses. With that I will answer any questions that you may have. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions at this time? Bird: At this time I do not. Rountree: Not right now. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Martin: Justin Martin. 5606 North Ten Mile Road. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I have just a brief PowerPoint presentation and, then, again, a brief description of some of the points Anna has already spoke about. Bird: Pronounce the subdivision. Martin: Tanana Valley. Bird: Tanana. Martin: Tanana Valley. De Weerd: Who thinks of these names? Martin: That would be Marty. Canning: Better than Saguaro, anyway. De Weerd: Yeah. Remember Saguaro. Saguaro. Saguaro was a good one. Martin: Lochsa is pretty difficult, too, for the people that live there. The project has four distinctive groups of lot sizes. There is a couple of reasons. One for price point differences for marketing and, two, as we think it adds some benefit to the community to have a more diverse community and a more diverse subdivision layout. The projects are getting large enough now that they can definitely stand to have more diversity in them. This is a breakdown of our lot sizes. Two hundred twenty-five is a lot -- or, sorry, Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 29 of 64 228 lots are the 70 and 80 foot wide lots. One hundred thirty-seven of the lots are 60 and 70 feet wide. One hundred five lots are 50 to 60 feet wide. And, then, there is 77 lots in their traditional neighborhood residential areas, there is ten acres in there that are 30 to 40 feet wide. This is a breakdown. Basically, the preliminary plat note sheet that comes on a preliminary plat, Anna did a good job of describing this already. We are asking for R-8 zoning on the majority of the property. It, obviously, allows up to the eight units per acre traditional neighborhood residential and C-N. We went with the C- N, instead of traditional neighborhood commercial, just because of -- we thought maybe there was some viability problems or -- on the intersection down at Victory Road there is commercial and I know there is the neighborhood center proposed there. It seemed a little bit difficult. So, we made it too small to be traditional neighborhood commercial. I think -- I can't remember for sure that maybe the minimum is six acres, if it is less than that, and that's why the staff asked us to go with C-N instead. The minimum lot size is 3,200 square feet. The minimum home size is 1,400 square feet. The average lot size is 8,700 -- you're getting -- Canning: Sorry. Martin: No. You're all right. The open space in the project is -- is, as Anna said, above 13 percent. The usable open space defined by code is 11 percent. Victory Road and Meridian Road both have 60 foot buffers on our plan. I think the city's code requires 35 on Meridian and 25 on Linder Road. Our collector buffers are 45 feet wide and I believe the requirement is 25. There is also some large -- large area east and west. One is in the back of some lots. One is along the Ridenbaugh Canal. We have just been -- in our past projects we have been increasing our landscape buffers in everyone and we definitely find it useful to the presentation of the subdivision and the interest from the community in the project. So, we have been making those larger each time. Borton: In the project we will have several playgrounds -- basically tot lots throughout the project, playground areas for the kids to come and play. We will incorporate a neighborhood pool into the project. Sorry for black and white pictures. And the fencing. This is, basically, just kind of a list of some of the amenities that -- the developer is not allowed to do a bunch of things that add to these projects based on code and design, but we do our best to add things we can. The fencing would be another one. We will definitely use some sort of upgraded fencing as shown here from examples from our project. We won't use the standard lowest cost cedar we can find. We will have something unique about it. The tree lined streets have kind of been -- have kind of followed us since -- well, since before I was with Marty and Farwest anyway. '98, Thousand Springs was the first project I was involved in. And the tree lined streets add a lot. I know the code has changed now to where if we have trees in the planter strip, it's a minimum of six feet wide in that parkway. And if it's six feet, we need to add root barriers. We are more than willing to do that. We feel that it adds a lot from the street view presentation of the home. It also adds a lot for the safety feeling of the people walking on the sidewalk. The pathways and connectivity in the project, a lot of the connectivity between the blocks in the project, the five foot pathways that we have installed, a lot of those were the request of staff and we had no problems with installing Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 30 of 64 those. It just made sense. The Ridenbaugh Canal is the large pathway east-west that's a ten foot pathway on the south side of the canal. Those connect to the pathway by Reflection Ridge and down Meridian Road there is also a ten foot pathway. The rest of the dark marks in there reflect five foot sidewalk that will be the connectivity or on Victory Road. This picture shows an out parcel on Meridian Road. I got a picture of this, because I wanted you to be able to see the topography in this instance. The staff has asked that we put a ten foot pathway around or through this out parcel on Meridian Road. And on Victory Road there was two instances that ACHD asked to put the sidewalk around or through these parcels. We have no problem with doing those things. But this instance is a little bit different. The right of way for ITD goes right to the top of that slope and the out parcel starts with the concrete up at the top. It's definitely difficult to say the best. I did talk with the owner of this parcel and he's willing to look at some design ideas and some plans on how we could bring it across his property. His biggest concern -- two concerns he has. One is mature landscaping up there and how we affect that. And the second is his -- just the general security of the house. He's, obviously, been used to being out there by himself, no activity, no people driving -- or walking by, anyway. Definitely people driving by. And so I understand where his concerns are coming from. I would hope that we could come up with some design ideas along with staff, along with that out parcel owner, that would work for him. In the case that we can't come up with those ideas, I don't want to be forced to build something through the ITD right of way on this sort of a slope. It would be a major undertaking, to say the least, to figure out how to get a retaining wall, how to make that retaining wall safe and, then, build that around there on the slope. I am willing to bond for the pathway across his property in the case that he ever comes in front of the Councilor in front of the staff for some sort of redevelopment on his property. I'm willing to pay for the pathway or put up the money to pay for the pathway in the future. I don't know how else to say it. I think this explains it fairly well. We did ask ITD as well if we could move the pathway into their right of way and as of now they have said no. We did submit a landscape plan originally to ITD, which is definitely premature at this point, but it showed our ten foot pathway down Meridian Road in their right of way through the whole distance and they said back to us, no, that doesn't work for us. And so that's kind of another reason why we went to the right of way. That's pretty much the end of the PowerPoint section of the presentation. So, the -- one of the other issues -- maybe not an issue, but the items in our project is the school site. We have been working with Wendell Bigham to work out the details of the contract on that school site and we do have a contract at this point that his attorney is agreeable with and we are agreeable with. I simply need to get it signed and get it back to him. I met with Wendell yesterday morning. He talked to his attorney on the phone while I was there and they are both in agreement that we have a contract that works. He did request -- and I am requesting that the buffer strip on the school site related to Victory Road be built when the school site builds, that way the landscaping is all done and maintained by one entity, the irrigation is done and maintained by one entity. We have no problems with building the sidewalk across the out parcel to the west of the school site and across the school site and also across the grange, which is on the far east side of our property. But as far as the landscape buffer itself goes, we propose putting that into an easement at this point and when they construct, they would agree to construct that as well. Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 31 of 64 Borton: Justin? Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Martin: Yes. Borton: I don't mean to interrupt, but in this particular I think Anna had pointed to this area here. This doesn't show those. Martin: Yeah. It doesn't -- yeah. The color picture it doesn't show a stub street going to that out parcel west of the school site. Staff had asked us to add a stub street to the out parcel from the -- from the east -- or, sorry, from the west and the police department had also asked that we make some changes in that area. So, we did that. And since, then, there has been two lots added directly south of that out parcel in part of the area that is a school site now that -- this shows it really well. And Anna's concern -- I believe, if I understood it correctly, is that there is kind of a triangle back in there and we have six foot solid fencing in that area, if it's going to be some sort of a hazard, I'm sure the police department isn't going to be interested in that. I'm not sure if that's what Anna was saying, but that's how I was following it. And is what I would suggest is we would go from the northeast corner of that last lot and take that lot line and run it more on an angle up to the out parcel, which would take away the problem of people being able to be in an area that you couldn't see them. We did resubmit this drawing to -- to the school department -- or the school district. They have submitted it to their -- to their designers, their designers redesigned the layout and incorporated a 25 foot landscape easement, incorporated these lots being in that position, and they were fine with that layout. Their school is going to be on the east side of the property. The west side where this triangle or site vision area kind of has a problem there would be open space anyway, but they are not going to have a problem with this changing the dimension, taking that triangle out, basically, by changing the lot lines of those lots. I would hope that we could work with staff to do that at a later date. It seems like a fairly minor -- minor change. Does that answer your question? Borton: It did. Yes. Martin: Okay. Canning: And, Justin, I never mentioned this. Madam Mayor and the Council, this isn't a traditional school site, it is an alternative school site, so it isn't an elementary. Martin: Yeah. Very good point. It's similar to the school site that's on Locust Grove near Chinden. Chinden and Locust Grove. The traffic studies are extremely minimal for these sorts of sites in comparison to any of the other standard school sites. There was - _ anyway, that's probably enough said about that. Some general background would be that traffic signals -- ACHD is going to construct a traffic signal on Victory and Meridian Road this summer. We donated a little bit of ground right there at the corner. If we Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 32 of 64 looked at our landscape area you could see a little bit of a cut out, it was more of just for their room to construct that. The Harrison Meridian Road access to our property, which is half a mile south of Victory Road on Meridian, deserves a traffic signal. ACHD requested that we provide 50 percent of the bond or surety money up front, so they could construct that when other parties came into play, when other developments come forward, that they would get part of those funds from them and ACHD would construct it with those. Also, fairly far removed from this project up at Overland Road in Meridian, ACHD says in 2009 they are going to update that intersection to be able to help some of the backup traffic that's happening down Meridian Road at this point. Quite a bit of back up from -- from people coming in from Kuna in the morning commute. There was some conversation about these issues, because the neighbors had concerns about traffic in general and ACHD did say that that would help out substantially, not that it would solve the problem by any means. A couple other just general things. One would be that -- I would request -- I know that normally the staff has the ability on final plats to -- to allow minor changes and I guess I would just request that we have the ability to make minor changes and adjustments to our open space areas on final plat and in doing so we would agree not to make any changes to the number of lots. We wouldn't add any lots, we would not decrease the open space percentage that we originally had. It's just as we go to final design sometimes there is some changes that become obvious and if staff would agree with those, we would hope that we could make those at final plat. And, then, the last comment is in the center of the project there is a large -- a large property, a single lot and block, it's 6.93 acres roughly -- roughly seven acres in there. It has an existing home on it that was built about 30 years, 20 some years ago. It's a substantial house. It's definitely impressive and we haven't fully decided what we are going to do with that property yet and there is a hill there, it's on a slope, the topography is interesting. There is a lot of reasons why we didn't show this area in lots. And, to be honest, we don't know whether we are going to go forward. We have laid some lots out in there, talked about doing a re-subdivide, but it just needed more time to think about it. So, as of now we have left that as a single lot and block. I just wanted to let you be aware that it's possible that we would come back in for a re-subdivide and, obviously, you will have full chances at helping us to lay that out and design that as well. Just didn't think it would be fair if I didn't mention it at this point, that we don't know for sure which way we are going to go with that lot and block. We may actually submit for a re- subdivide, depending what we come up with. De Weerd: Okay. Your time is up. Martin: The last thing is I would just hope that you would approve our project and take into account the notes in the letter that I had sent out to staff. Hopefully you will have copies of those. I'd stand for any questions. De Weerd: Council, any questions for the applicant at this time? Bird: I have none. Rountree: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 33 of 64 De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: You mentioned a pool. Where would that be? Martin: The pool would be coming in on the main collector way. You can see a picture. There is a -- basically, right after the first -- as you come in the main entryway, the larger area to the right in this picture. Yeah. Thank you. I would use the pointer, but I can't hold it straight. It wouldn't work for me. That's the area that we have done preliminary designs on a pool. I wouldn't want to guarantee it at this point, depending on what we do. It's possible that that seven acre site would incorporate some things like that. I'm more than willing to guarantee that we would have a pool in this project and we will have a community pool in this project. Currently that's the location that we are hoping it to be in. Rountree: Thank you. Martin: Thank you. De Weerd: Now, is this south, then, of where Victory Greens-- Martin: This is south of Victory Greens and between us and Victory Greens would be Observation Point, more directly connected to it. Our main entryway on Victory Road connects to the main entryway of Observation Point. We tried to do that, because -- because ACHD and we believe in those connections for the possibility of future signalization. De Weerd: So, you are across the street yourself of -- Martin: We definitely are. And I realize those are really nice neighborhoods, wonderful homes over there, and the reason our density is closer to them -- our higher density, is because of the way the Comprehensive Plan is drawn. I know that the city spent years designing those and we do our best to try and follow them to what extent we can. De Weerd: Okay. As far as the road goes, will you be doing any widening along the frontage of your development? Martin: I honestly can't answer that fully. I know that we will be having some turn lanes -- some center turn lanes, some right turn lanes into the project. Ben Thomas, our engineer, is here, he could answer that probably better, but we really haven't went to final design, besides right-hand turn lanes, center turn lane requirements based on the traffic report and ACHD's comments. Widening further than that, I don't have a good answer. Ben Thomas would have to -- De Weerd: Okay. Well, we will probably want to hear from them -- I guess my issue is as we looked at the CIP for Ada County Highway District, a lot of these roads are not in Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 34 of 64 the plan for widening or even a minor arterial. So, we are very concerned about the infrastructure down there and I guess my point of view and I certainly -- it's mine personally, is development is going to have to step up and be a part of that transportation solution if they want to develop these kind of densities. Martin: Our company would agree with that -- that theory that you have just stated. We have stated that in several meetings with other developers. If other developers would step up and support that, if agencies would find a way to help us go in those areas or come up with plans that -- that were more evenly spread across the community, instead of just one company stepping up and saying they will do those things, we are more than willing to be involved in that sort of a process. I don't know a fair or equitable situation or solution at this point until some agency -- until one of the agencies helps the developers come to that conclusion as well. De Weerd: Well, I know that the developers are really stepping up in the north Meridian area with the intersection improvements and that is what's going to have to happen down here, at least to help traffic flow. Martin: I agree. I think north Meridian was a good chance for the developers to get together and when I talk about north Meridian, I mean from Ten Mile east to Locust Grove, from Chinden down to Ustick, was a good chance for the developers to get together and do better improvements or more improvements. The amount of developers that were in the area at one time were able to get in a room and talk. There is a lot more that could have been done if they were helped to be nudged in that fashion. I probably -- I'm just rambling on. I should leave that alone. De Weerd: I can ramble, too, so -- well, thank you. And we will ask your engineer up towards -- in your concluding remarks. Martin: Thank you. De Weerd: Or, Council, would you like to hear from him now? Okay. Thank you. I do have several people who have signed up to indicate their for or against. When I call your name if you'd like to provide testimony, please, come forward. Mert Logue. And I will already apologize if I mispronounce your name. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Logue: Mert Logue. Address is 574 East Observation Drive in Observation Point, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. De Weerd: Thank you. Logue: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, appreciate being here tonight. I am in opposition to the subdivision as it's here plotted tonight. A couple issues. One is the density level and we have talked about that with ACHD and our issue is we are dealing with a lot of cut-through traffic right now through Observation Point across Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 35 of 64 Meridian Greens and up to Overland Road and a lot of what's driving that is the congestion that's happening on Meridian Road and the fact that Locust doesn't, you know, go across 1-84 yet. The schedule for fixing the intersection at Overland is out two years, so it's probably going to be three years before anything really happens there and the same with the -- with that Locust Grove project going across the interstate to relieve some of that. And with what's going on in Kuna, the growth that's happening there, as well as what's happening, you know, with Meridian, there is just a tremendous amount of traffic that's happening there and it's -- in the last six months it's changed immensely. And so we have an issue with traffic. At Observation Point there is a blind hill at the top of the Observation Drive at Altros where it turns into and it's blind from both sides and right now there is no signs there or traffic -- a means to slow that traffic down or to help with the speeds going through there in the alignment with two subdivisions, although I agree it makes sense, I think it's basically going to promote more cut-through traffic when people have to, you know, go out and turn out and, then, deal with Meridian Road. It is about a mile and a half cut through, but it's very -- it's a very pleasant drive and it's a whole lot better than sitting through five or six light changes and they can zip right out to Overland and, then, head for Eagle or cut back and hook up onto the freeway there at Meridian Road. And in the morning there is -- there is a commercial property there where a lot of people are already cutting through that just to get around. The other issue I have is with the row housing that they have there is -- is investment property and we are a nice neighbor, Meridian Greens, Observation Point, Glacier Springs, even Tuscany below is really a pretty nice neighborhood. When I went through Tuscany here recently, I was surprised by how many of the properties in there are rental properties, investment properties, and also the difference so far as, you know, homeowner, ownership, versus a renter and a piece of property and how it's maintained and up kept and I'm concerned about the row housing. Those are not going to be retired people going in there, they are two story. Retired people don't want to go up and down stairs. And I'm worried about that and what's going to happen, you know, one, two years down the road. I recently sold some townhouses of my own and they did go to an investor. I was sure that they would be taken care of and recently saw them and they are in horrible shape. So, I'm concerned about that. And I guess, lastly, the neighborhood property there -- there is a bit of inconsistency with what's going on with the point with Meridian -- Victory Greens and, then, on the -- what would be the northwest corner of Meridian there at the intersection of Victory where all the neighborhood commercial properties are pushed right up to Meridian Road and we'd just like to -- if this is going to stay this way, that we maybe take the neighborhood commercial site and push it more up to the corner, as well as this higher density. Although I really am opposed to that. I'd like to see the minimum lot size, you know, more than 6,500 to 8,700 minimum lot size. I know the developers are well within their requirements as far as the density that they are asking for, but I would really -- I would more like to see that it be more -- more affluent to what Observation and the existing subdivisions that are being developed right now. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 36 of 64 De Weerd: I do want to let you know that we have a traffic safety committee and it's offered through our police department. If you'd like to contact them with your concerns about the blind corners, we have citizens, our police officers, and Ada County Highway District that serve on that. They can take a look at it and see if they can bring forth some recommendations on making it a safer place. Logue: Okay. Appreciate that. De Weerd: So, if you can contact our police department on that. Logue: Okay. Thank you. Nary: Madam Mayor, Lieutenant Overton is the chair, so if he wants to contact Lieutenant Overton-- De Weerd: I didn't think Lieutenant Overton was over there. Nary: No. Logue: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Richard Chaney signed up against. If you will, please, state your name and address. Chaney: Yes. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Richard Chaney. live at 448 East Observation Drive in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Chaney: I'm here for myself, but also representing the homeowners association with Observation Point. I don't have any major different comments than what Mr. Logue expressed. I just want to reiterate a few of the points. We do already have a problem in Observation Point. I understand -- I was at the planning and zoning, we discussed the traffic as well. I understand that the applicant has probably driven through a few times and looked at the traffic, but we do deal with it as residents every day and there is probably no better expert and I can tell you without a doubt that we do have traffic issues, the cut-through that Mr. Logue identified. And having the main entrance directly across from ours is just going to facilitate further issues of that. Our -- we only have 87 homes in our division. This is 548 homes. There is going to be a significant portion, especially with this density connected to this major feeder of traffic that's going to be pushed up. I think that -- I'm sure the Council is well aware of what goes on in Meridian Road in the mornings, what the traffic there looks like. It's certainly not unquestionable that we are going to get quite a bit more traffic from the residents of this division. And that is a big concern for safety and we will certainly address it with the police department, traffic, safety -- we have already been working with ACHD to a certain Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 37 of 64 extent on that. So, we are going to continue that. But it is a concern for this division. And also as Mr. Logue pointed out, that the way this is structured, the most dense parts of this division, according to the neighboring divisions, Meridian Greens, Observation Point, and Glacier Springs, the most dense pieces are the ones closest to us. The large lots are the ones that are furthest away. And it's not that our homeowners are against the development. We certainly understand that we live in a growing community and we are all for the growth, we just want to keep some consistency and some feasibility with this and it seems like just crowding all of this higher density against our division seems a little bit backwards to us and also as Mert pointed out, these higher density homes are going to be at the lower price points. Those are the price points that are the most attractive to investment properties right now and we do have a concern, not so much with the density, but this density leads to more investment type of activity and we are very concerned with homeowners of basically putting an investment community right across from us, whereas, you know, this nice natural boundary kind of shows what will happen, we will have an investment community up here and, then, we will have an owner community down here. And, then, I guess the final point is -- is the commercial. I certainly understand the concept of the neighborhood commercial, but it does seem out of place. There is already commercial right here on this corner. There is neighborhood commercial being developed across Meridian Road on the north side of Victory. To hide this commercial back here, it's going to be very unattractive commercial, because you're going to have all these businesses up here, these guys are not going to be able to be seen. It's going to be basically low rent type of businesses, instead of nicer community businesses that you would want. It certainly makes more sense to have these commercial in one of these corners where they don't have access from Meridian Road. We are not advocating breaking the access rules at the mile and half mile, but at least a little visibility from the main thoroughfare to keep that as a more higher end business where they are not having to spend a tremendous amount of money advertising to get people in and they have some visibility and we just don't want this to become a low end commercial either. So, just a little expansion on what Mr. Logue said. No other major points. If anyone has any questions. De Weerd: No, I don't. You know, I have a comment. You know -- and I don't say this in jest, but I know when your development came in front of Council I was on Council at the time and I never imagined I'd hear you say you were getting cut-through traffic from Meridian Greens. Chaney: When I bought that house I would have never dreamt. I would have never dreamt myself. De Weerd: All the cross-through traffic we are going to get from that development, so they are using your roads and that's what we told them they would probably end up doing. Chaney: I have no issue with people using the roads. That's what they are there for. I have issue with people using the roads at excessive speeds on a blind corner and that's what we are working with ACHD on, that's what I will deal with. Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 38 of 64 De Weerd: Yes. Please do. Chaney: Meridian Police on. But it is a blind hill. It's there. Nobody's going to remedy the hill. So, anything that we can do to, you know, keep from exacerbating an existing problem is certainly something that I look forward to. De Weerd: Very good. Thank you. Chaney: Thank you. De Weerd: Christine Tulk. Signed up against. Thank you. Okay. Those are the names that were signed up. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. If there is no further public testimony, I would like to ask first the engineer for the project to address maybe some of the traffic concerns. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Before we do that, if we could have maybe Mr. Inselman just talk a little bit about alignment of roads and how ACHD measures their traffic -- or their warrants for a traffic signal. Does that make sense? Gary? De Weerd: Okay. We will just ask you to give it a try. Inselman: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Gary Inselman, representing ACHD, at 3775 North Adams, Garden City. It is the highway district policy to align or off-set the public street intersections along the arterials. There is a -- with Observation Point there was a concern with their entrance with the proximity of the canal and the hill to the east, that was the one location that we could make that one work and that was some wrangling with the developer at that time to get it in a good spot for the site distance with the hill. To move the entrance for this development would mean to move it further west, which gets us into closer proximity to the Victory-69 intersection, which wouldn't be desirable either. So, the highway district was supportive of this location for the intersection. Would it meet future warrants for a traffic signal I couldn't say and I'm not an expert on the warrants for a signal, but if in the future there was a problem and we looked at it and it meant warrants, it would certainly get on the list for improvements. I would like to clarify those -- well, the Overland-69 intersection is scheduled to go out to bid this year, not in '09. De Weerd: Gary, I guess in our meeting on Monday we understood that there would be a study going on in this area for the streets and/or roads and what can be done. Is this area also included in the study area that was discussed? Meridian City Council July 11,2006 Page 39 of 64 Inselman: Madam Mayor, I can't recall off the top of my head if it was from 69 west or from Eagle Road west and I apologize for that. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Inselman? Thank you. Thomas: Madam Mayor, Council Members, Ben Thomas with Briggs Engineering, 1800 Overland in Boise. 83705. De Weerd: Thank you. Thomas: While there are no plans to improve Victory Road to its full section, the traffic study that was commissioned and ACHD's subsequent approval conditions for the subdivision will require, excuse me, a dedicated left turn lane into the main entrance here, as well as a dedicated right turn in. Also, when the signal is constructed at Victory and Meridian, there will be dedicated left turn lanes there, as well as dedicated right turn lanes. So, I guess what I'm saying is most of the improvements from this intersection going west out to Meridian will be constructed, because -- just because of the turn lanes. As we add turn lanes here we will be widening the pavement almost to its ultimate location. Additionally, they will be constructing a sidewalk, so it won't be fully improved, but it will be nearly there. De Weerd: And did I understand Mr. Martin to say that it's donated right of way? Thomas: Yeah. Actually, I think that Victory has just recently been reclassified as a collector or, excuse me, an arterial, which ACHD will be buying the additional right of way. De Weerd: And what did your study show on 69? Thomas: Well, it showed, obviously, warrants are met for a signal at Victory and 69, which that -- I understand that from ACHD that that project has been fully funded and will be constructed. De Weerd: And is there any need for a right of way on 69? Thomas: As far as I know, no. I believe it's a fully improved five lane arterial right now. De Weerd: And there is no-- Thomas: ITD in their comments didn't make any recommendations to that effect. De Weerd: Okay. Any questions for-- Thomas: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Martin, would you like to wrap this up? Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 40 of 64 Martin: Justin Martin. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the right of way on this project -- in the past we have never actually sold any of the right of way, our additional right of way to ACHD in the past. This project happens to be an example of where we would have the opportunity to sell that because of the classification that Mr. Thomas just pointed out. In the past we have simply cut out those areas into a lot and block and dedicated them to them and when you say in the past, I mean since '98, since I have been working with Farwest. So, this will be the first example of where maybe we will possibly be paid for that right of way. But definitely the full width -- the ability to widen the road to its final potential will be there on any of the lands that we own adjacent to Victory Road. Meridian Road -- we have had no indication from ITD -- again, I submitted to them earlier a right of way request -- a permit request to have the pathway in their right of way. We showed them a landscape plan and the whole layout for the project and we had no feedback, except to say that that was going to be the maximum width and size of that road for some time to come in the way of five lane. Our density was an issue I heard earlier in the traditional neighborhood residential. There is no question that those price points on those homes will be less than the rest of the project. As we all know, prices have been going through the roof investments -- out-of-state investors have been buying like crazy for the past year and a half and the way I see the market is that that has came to a halt, the price point has gotten so high that we will see that slow to a trickle. We will see these sorts of trends -- maybe they are cycles, better than trends happening on and off. We expect the price point on those smaller densities, the ten acre traditional neighborhood residential to be between 270 and 300 thousand, the final price on the home and lot. I don't see that as something a lot of us are going to want to rent when there is -- it's just a lot of -- that's probably enough said. That's what I feel the price point on those lots will be at this time, lot and home in the smaller point will be 270 to 300 thousand dollars at the time of development. Ben talked about the turn lanes in and out. In north Meridian -- I heard you asking Mr. Inselman about if this area was inside the study area for the streets. In north Meridian on Havasu Creek and Saguaro Canyon and Lochsa Falls project we had agreed to be a part of an L-I-D if it came later and I guess, you know, we would be interested in doing that in this area, provided any other projects that come after us have the same sort of requirement. I know you didn't ask, but we have kind of held up that sort of policy in the past and we would like to continue it, if it's needed or required. I'd stand for any questions. Rountree: Madam Mayor. Do you have any examples of the type of product you will be providing, both in the alley loaded as, well as the residential lots and the commercial? Martin: I do not -- I do not have any examples. The commercial -- the commercial area is a guessing game for me to say at best. That area will have a chance, the opportunity to come back in front of you for the view, the elevation, and to make sure that those products look -- look good and fit the area in presentation at the least. We would see things such as dentist's office, other neighborhood friendly uses that we have seen around town, such as Heritage Commons or some neighborhood -- maybe not neighborhood centers, there is some commercial areas on Eagle Road that -- like physical therapy offices. On Lochsa Falls we have some office lots that are going to go Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 41 of 64 in up on Chinden Road that relate to our project out on the frontage in those sorts of areas. Areas that, hopefully, people either use from the community in a subdivision and/or either work at those sorts of areas would be the hope. I'm not a commercial developer. I would be -- I would be misspeaking if I led you any further than that to say that I hope that you'll get to see those lots in the future, the elevations, have a chance to show what they look like and I would imagine anything that goes in is going to be aimed towards commercial, towards the neighborhood feel where it's not on a corner intersection, it's, obviously, not going to draw from miles and miles around. As far as the view of the homes or the elevations and the look of the homes, a good example of some developments in town would be Heritage Commons again of smaller lots. They have commercial out front. They have a park down -- as you go through those commercial there is a park in the center of the project. There is some really narrow lots on either side of the park. The same developer out on the other side of Boise developed some -- some fairly nice examples of those sort of housing. I have seen some bad examples of those kind of housing and we don't plan to be in that group. All of our projects in the past have had strict ACC guidelines. Marty Goldsmith actually goes out to the site and inspects every home as it finishes to make sure they have followed those guidelines. We haven't came up with the final guidelines for this smaller -- this higher density area yet, but we have been starting to work on those sorts of things, looking at what we like, looking at what we don't like, figuring out how to incorporate that into a document to be able to get that sort of product. We also review in house every set of construction plans for the homes on every lot in every subdivision that gets approved. That has been our standard in the past -- the past three years anyway and prior to that we had other people reviewing those plans for us, so -- but we have taken a more active role lately and we would hope to produce -- or we will produce a nice product. We will pick the examples that worked, as opposed to the examples that didn't to try and follow or come up with something new. With that I'd stand for any other questions. De Weerd: I guess I would just add to what Councilman Rountree had said, that we have seen a lot of bad examples and we are not interested in duplicating those mistakes by not asking for elevations and I think it's also something that the neighbors should be able to view as well. I know the quality of your subdivisions. In fact, if -- when you had your neighborhood meeting I would imagine you would have shown some of the examples of your other subdivisions to show that you are a quality developer. But without that it's hard to -- to show the neighbors the kind of quality you do desire. Do you have a theme in mind for this one? Martin: We do. I'd rather not say it out loud. I mean we have several themes and groups of themes and I can't tell you I'm a hundred percent set on any of them. We did call and talk to Anna early on about showing some of that and what percentage of that we would be required to do and our concern was just -- was, one, being required to do that theme, as opposed to changing to a different theme and, yeah, we are trying to improve our projects each time. That's probably alii can say. Sorry. De Weerd: Council, questions? Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 42 of 64 Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Joe -- I mean Mr. Borton. Sorry. Borton: Justin, did you indicate that the community pool area is in this location or am I off on -- Martin: That was right. That -- the fatter area right there, that's the area that we planned for it at this point. Borton: May I -- I'll just tell you why. The reason I asked is it just seems to be an odd location across the street from commercial, as opposed to being within the community. It doesn't seem to be very accessible to anybody, other than maybe these higher density locations. Martin: Right. In the past we have -- we have been locked down at these stages of the hearing to where things go and the timing of when they would come in, so I try and get -- I try and get more flexibility in that if I can. We have done a layout in that area, shown a pool in the layout, and various other features in that area. Along with our projects we usually have fairly large landscaping compared to the standard. We think that we can -- can make that area work really well. With that said, it's not a hundred percent certain that it's going to go there and I know I'm being evasive with this, I'd just like to guarantee that we will have one and -- and beyond that just to say that we can make it work well in that location and without bringing out the designs and the themes, it's hard for me to accomplish that. I would hope that we would just lock me down to having a pool in the project, a community pool, of a decent -- of a sufficient size and, I'm sorry, I'm being evasive, I'm just trying to not talk about the theme possibilities. It's hard for me to say anything further about that without knowing exactly which theme we have. We do have some layouts. I would be happy to show them to staff and have them review those and/or approve them, even at that stage talk about whether it makes sense or it doesn't make sense, we would be open to that sort of feedback or input from staff at a later date. That was probably the worst answer I have ever -- Rountree: It wasn't very good. Martin: No. Definitely not. Borton: I might not -- I don't know. Maybe I'm the only one that didn't understand the super secret nature of some of these decisions. For what it's worth, I don't know -- it doesn't make sense unless there is an explanation. That location under any theme doesn't make sense. And maybe that's being too picky on a small detail, but the location, it going across the street from a dentist office at the entry where you're going to have 350 people utilizing this thoroughfare. It didn't make sense. That's what sort of prompted my question. Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 43 of 64 Martin: Right. And probably the only information I could give is have you seen Saguaro Canyon -- if you have seen some of our other projects -- do you know where the pool site is at Saguaro Canyon? It wouldn't make sense either. It's at the dead end of a collector, a half a mile in. Once the mile fills out every -- every main street in the project is going to be busy. And some other good examples would be projects that aren't mine, like Paramount, it's really close to a main street. It's a beautiful project. When those -- when those mile sections completely develop out, all the main streets in those subdivisions are going to be fairly busy. We would just hope that we put them in a large enough area -- we fence those areas to make them safe, with large enough landscape to keep them secluded. That's probably the best I can do. De Weerd: I think most of the areas I have seen are off of a major collector. Or thereabouts. Any other questions from Council? Does Council need elevations before on the higher density areas before a decision can be made? I don't want to ask if there is no further questions and, then, close it to see that we need some elevations. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Usually this isn't the point I make this statement, but I'm going to make it now anyway, because of the last answer we got. Some of these applications where we don't have sufficient information my comments are -- I'm in not any hurry to annex more property to the City of Meridian. If you're not in any hurry to decide what it is you want to bring to the city, whether it's one or two or three things, I am right now not in any hurry to approve your request. So, that's my position, when and if the hearing closes. So, yes, I would like to see some specifics. Or at least some concepts. De Weerd: Well, I appreciate your consistency, because I could have quoted you first. I thought I'd let you do it. Rountree: And Mr. Martin hasn't heard my speech, so it's your turn. De Weerd: Any other comments? Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, I guess -- certainly I would look to notes we have from planning staff on key issues of discussion by Commission, the type of housing product proposed, anticipated uses in the C-N zone lot, expected build out dates, those are -- well, the expected build out date is not necessarily a question in my mind. In any of the TN-R districts that I remember -- we, as I recall, just recently approved the standards for that, which -- not even three months ago, if I -- maybe three months ago; right, Anna? Canning: You actually passed the ordinance last week. Wardle: So, not a week it looks like. Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 44 of 64 Rountree: Time flies. Wardle: But we haven't -- we have only seen several small applications of the TN-R district and so at this point certainly I agree with Mr. Rountree, at least on that specific density and product type I'd like some additional questions answered. De Weerd: And, again, I think we would go back to -- we have seen some really bad stuff and, unfortunately, we don't see it until it's built and there is absolutely nothing we can do. And even though I know you have a great reputation in your developments, I think that neighbors need to see these things as well. And it allows them an opportunity to comment. Martin: I don't have huge concerns with trying to show examples of the sorts of quality and standards that we would control in different areas of the density out there. I don't think that's a problem. The extent of it would be, obviously, up to you guys' determination. I don't have issues with trying to show that we are going to build something nice, trying to show you standards that relate to that to make sure it follows the sort of theme that we would show you for those certain size of lots and density. We definitely understand the concerns. De Weerd: And we have done that before and using those examples of the kind of quality that is expected in the Findings and so that gives some comfort level. Martin: Well, I think it makes sense. I mean from your point of view especially it would make sense to try and control that to some extent. De Weerd: Additional information that you would like to see come back, Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I would like to see elevations of the type of product -- I'm not going to hold you to the specificity, but the kind of quality of product you're proposing. We do want some more particulars on the TN-R area, because it is new to us, and we do have some existing issues. I would like, again, the type of quality, building material type that you would be proposing for the commercial, and if in that time you can zero in on one or two themes, that would be fine, too, but I'm not going to hold you to that. As long as it isn't a Swiss village. Martin: Right. No. I understand your concern with the themes. The elevations in the traditional neighborhood residential, that should be what I excel the best at on what you have just stated there in the way of being able to show you how we would control those guidelines and what it would look like. And some sort of theme throughout and quality of material. The C-N zone, the commercial area, if I could get a little bit more guidance on that and so, again, we definitely do not do commercial development. I would prefer that the Council had a chance to see this later on some sort of a reapplication when they come in for a building permit and the specific uses that go in there, than me being unqualified in that area to get specific. I guess I'm just stating I don't have the qualifications in that area and I'm not sure it would be helpful. Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 45 of 64 Rountree: Madam Mayor, I will use my criteria. If you can assure me that it won't be the standard Walgreens design -- Martin: Okay. Some sort of design standards that are better? Rountree: Yes. De Weerd: Or a strip mall -- Martin: Sure. De Weerd: -- with lots of lights that will reflect all over the place. Canning: Madam Mayor? I'm sorry. Mr. Wardle. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I guess the thing that I'm looking for is -- there is a commercial development -- I'm not sure if it's -- it's the exact zoning. As you enter Star on State Street on your right-hand side that has a specific theme that I don't necessarily feel would be appropriate here. Martin: Right. De Weerd: And maybe we don't -- and maybe that's your theme. Martin: No. No. Wardle: I'm looking for some reassurance that it will fit in, but that -- some of those themes are not -- out of place in our city. Martin: I think we will be able to accomplish that in some sort of an architectural control standards on the building, that at least assure those -- those minimal things that you have mentioned so far. I don't think that will be a problem for me. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? I think Mr. Borton wants to know where the pool is going and why. Martin: Okay. I can probably do a lot better at answering in the future. I will work on that one as well, if I'm going to come back with these other things. I think that's the intent is I will come back and try and answer these three questions. The elevations of the traditional neighborhood center, the elevations of the commercial, some sort of design standards on both of those, and, then, to talk in general about -- well, talk about the pool location and maybe the theme. Hopefully I understood that right. Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 46 of 64 Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: For the planning director and the applicant, how long would that -- would it be appropriate for those items? Martin: I would probably need two weeks to be able to do a sufficient job, without throwing something together that -- anyway, that would just be pieced together. De Weerd: Is the 25th starting to look pretty crowded? Do you want to try and shoot for the first week in August? Nary: That would be National Night Out. De Weerd: Oh. Nary: So, you're looking at August 8th. Bird: Better do it the 25th. De Weerd: August 8th. Bird: Especially, we are just -- excuse me, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Yes. Bird: We are only asking -- we will continue the Public Hearing. As I understand it, we have asked for some specific items. We don't need to have a -- we have already heard public testimony, so if we get those items, I wouldn't think this Public Hearing would have to be that long. So, I would go with the 25th and, if not, he has to go to the 8th and -- Martin: I'm fine with the 8th. That would give me sufficient time to do a good job of the things you have requested of me. It would be good if we could close all the other concerns and questions, so that that's all I'm trying to prepare for or bring back. I can concentrate on doing a good job on those things. De Weerd: They can -- if all their other questions can be -- have been answered, they can restrict it to accepting that and testimony regarding that. Martin: Okay. De Weerd: I guess my only other piece is if we don't know a dated on when that intersection will be lighted, if you can bring back the trigger -- what would trigger that. Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 47 of 64 Martin: And we are talking about Victory and Meridian Road at this point? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Martin: Okay. I can do that. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further, Council? Okay. I would entertain a motion. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Rountree: I move that we continue the Public Hearing for Item 15, AZ 06-015, until August 8th and at that point Council will take additional testimony as it relates to the questions asked of the applicant this evening. Bird: Second. De Weerd: And would that include PP 06-013? Rountree: That is separate. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. There is a request to continue Item 15 to August 8th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'd move that we continue PP 06-013 until August 8th, 2006, and for the applicant to come back and -- on the preliminary plat and have some elevations and pool location and -- or some ideas of building materials as questions have been asked regarding that tonight. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to continue the Public Hearing on Item 16 to August 8th. Is there any discussion? Oh, I don't -- I don't ask for discussion. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Yes, sir. If you can just come to the microphone. Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 48 of 64 Logue: Mert Logue. 574 Observation Drive, Meridian, Idaho. My question is I heard a comment earlier that we have already heard public testimony, so this isn't a Public Hearing that we -- De Weerd: We would take public testimony on the evidence that the applicant would be bringing forth that night. Logue: Okay. De Weerd: And limited to comments on the designs and those -- the things that he will bring back to us. Logue: Okay. The specifics that we talked about as far as what he's bringing back. De Weerd: Yes. Logue: So, we would be able to review that and comment on what we see as well with the board? De Weerd: That is the expectation, too. Logue: Thank you. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I guess just for the public and the applicant, our comments and questions tonight does not necessarily indicate that it's a done deal. Item 17: Item 18: Item 19: Public Hearing: AZ 06-013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.77 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: Public Hearing: PP 06~011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 122 residential lots (50 4-plex lots and 72 townhouse lots) and 10 common lots on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: Public Hearing: CUP 06~006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a multi-family development consisting of 200 multi-family dwelling units (4-plexes) on 50 lots and 72 townhouse dwelling units on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 49 of 64 De Weerd: Okay. Items 17,18, and 19 are public hearings on AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, and CUP 06-006. I will open these three public hearings with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Canterbury project. It's located on Pine Avenue east of Ten Mile. The applications include annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and conditional use approval for a multi-family development. The applicant is asking for annexation and zoning to R-15 and preliminary plat approval of 122 residential building lots and ten common lots and also Conditional Use Permit approval of a multi-family development and that consists of 50 four-plexes and 72 attached townhouse units on 21.77 acres of property. The average lot size in the proposed development is 4,781 square feet. The gross density is 12.5 dwelling units per acre. Approximately 12.6 of the area -- 12.6 percent of the area is being developed or set aside for open space. On that open space the applicant is proposing to construct a clubhouse and pool, a tot lot, and a pathway system. I did want to bring up a couple things to you. I will let the applicant -- it's a little better view of the development. I'll let him go through it. But, in general, these are -- the four-plex areas are bounded here and, then, you have a number of townhouses on the east side of the property. These are also townhouses. The units aren't shown on that one for some reason. The code is a little unusual in that for multi-family developments with more than a hundred units that the -- and this one has 200 units. The decision-making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the development. As a reference, for the multi- family developments with 75 units, you need to have -- four amenities are required, with at last one from each category and those are quality of life, open space, and recreation. So, the applicant is providing amenities as -- he's got a 3,000 square foot community clubhouse and fitness facility. Those are quality of life. He has a property management office, maintenance storage area, a development map and directory. A pool. And tot lot. Walking trails. Half basketball court. And a picnic area. And, then, just some general green open space. So, staff does recommend that the Council specifically make a determination that the proposed amenities are sufficient for a development of this size. There is some discretion on the part of the Council with regard to the amenities portion of this project. Staff is proposing a DA, primarily for the -- for the purpose of tying this rezone to this development, so that we don't just have property zoned R-15, we wanted to have some development tied to it in case this project doesn't go through, that we have some assurance that we will have some say in the next development. There are no off-site commitments or provisions included within that DA. I do have some elevations. These are the townhouses. These are the four-plexes. More four-plexes. The Commission did recommend approval at their June 1 st hearing. Jeff Wardle, John -- or Joe Reice, Lance Warnick, and Mark Sanders all spoke in favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition or commented. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the -- they had requested some variances. They have withdrawn that request, but that was a discussion topic. The common area calculations, the elevations, particularly the double fronted four-plex elevations and the layout of the project. There were no key changes to staff's initial recommendation. The staff report does note an outstanding issue regarding the police department. The police department has reviewed the -- reviewed the revised site plan and they are not requesting additional changes at this time and I could show you where that is. There is Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 50 of 64 a half basketball court located in this corner. I think the original concern is that there wouldn't be much visibility because of fences, but there won't be any fences in the area, so they will have visibility into that corner of the property. So, that was the main outstanding concerns from the police department. And with that, the applicant has provided a response to the staff report and they were mostly concerned about the police department requirement that I noted previously. And with that I'll answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Anna, isn't that southeast corner, isn't that along the rail? Canning: Southeast-- De Weerd: Where the -- Canning: Yeah. Let me double-check. I'm pretty sure it is. Yes, it is. De Weerd: Okay. So, there is no fence that's going to be there? Canning: No. I just meant there is no interior fences on these -- on these structures here. There is not a -- there is not going to be a fence around that basketball court. There should be a fence -- there will be a perimeter. I can check the landscaping -- or the applicant can speak to that, but -- De Weerd: And what is the fencing material on that? Canning: Oh. And you're going to ask me what the railroad wants, too. I have not had a chance to contact them yet. I have asked one of my staff to do that. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: I will follow up. De Weerd: I think it's Bob Adams that you need to talk to. Okay. Any questions from Council? Okay. Is the applicant here this evening? If you will, please, state your name and address. Reice: Good evening. My name is Joseph Reice of American West Homes. 3959th Street, Boise. I will be making just a small portion of the presentation this evening and turning it over to a much more competent speaker than myself, but I am the president of the company and I'm here to answer any questions. The buck stops with me. I'm more the field man. I'm a nuts and bolts guy with the company. Not a good public speaker, but there is just a few things that I wanted to say about the project before I turn it over to the hired gun that can speak. First of all, we have been working on this project for about a year and a half and really completely revamped it after the meeting that we had with Mayor De Weerd. I don't know if you recall that meeting, but -- Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 51 of 64 De Weerd: I do. Reice: -- it was, you know, through your advice and in terms of what the City of Meridian needed that we completely redid the project and, first of all, made it a -- an all- for-sale project versus a rental project. And, secondly, we designed it to meet the needs of the affordable housing for the critical working mass in the City of Meridian. There really isn't a project that well meets that need here right now, particularly one of the quality that we are offering. We have a density of about 12 and a half units to the acre. We abut industrial and high density apartments on the west and south sides and there is an R-8 zoned property on our east side. We offer -- I think it's a total of 11 public amenities. Originally we had brought in, I believe, five and, then, after the Public Hearing and meeting with staff, we revamped it up to about 11. And that's counting the open space park areas, you know, the picnic area, the basketball courts, the trails, you know, the clubhouse, the -- all of those things that Mr. Wardle will address, but I think there is a total of 11. And our open space area is almost four acres of the 21 acres. So, we really believe that for a project of -- you know, of this size and that the price point we are trying to achieve, that the buyers are getting great value for the dollar in this premium location. We have two main product types, a townhouse project type, which is on the east side of the project, and we have four different building elevations for that. I don't know exactly how to display these. I have got some color drawings. Shall I just kind of prop them up on the chairs here or how do you want me to do that? De Weerd: Do you have them on an eight and a half by 11? Reice: Well, we sent them to -- bye-mail through disk to -- to staff. Canning: Sir, are they the ones I showed previously? Reice: Well, no. There is these. Canning: Oh, the -- Reice: We e-mailed these to Caleb Hood. De Weerd: Is everyone in the audience with you? Reice: No, just -- De Weerd: Okay. So, we will want everyone to be able to see these. Reice: Well, I think everybody is here with me. I don't know if anybody is here about this project, other for me. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle, you may want to put the easel maybe just to the other side of those. Further to the south. Or north. Thank you, Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 52 of 64 Reice: Well, I can pull each and address each one of them or if they don't have the PowerPoint for that, if you want me to do that, I can come and talk about them and all that. De Weerd: Okay. Reice: Do you want me to do that? Okay. This one right here is our four-plex project. These are all condominiums. They are not for rent units, they are all individually for sale units. They are all three bedroom, two bath. There are four different total building elevations and four different color schemes, so you have a total of a blend of eight different total looks for this building. This particular row, which is along this row right here, has very heavy landscaping. We, actually, probably left out some of the landscaping, just for the ability to view the buildings more. But we are the -- this is kind of the buffer street between the townhouses and the four-plexes. So, we have eight different looks and, then, we also have setbacks, so the buildings are in a staggered design, so it doesn't have a barracks-type look, but, you know, it has a very quaint, nice residential feel to it. You can -- this is a pretty good depiction of the different colors and building types. You can really see it. It doesn't have a very monotonous look, but it's got a very interesting village-type look to it. On the right side is our clubhouse building, which is this right here. It's about a 3,000 foot clubhouse and we have got a pool behind it and a tot lot near by and, of course, open space and barbecue areas and so forth, centrally located within the project. And, then, you know, finally, this is just a typical example of the townhouse units. The townhouse units are pretty low density and they are meant to, you know, give a -- more of a single family feel than anything else. They abut the R-8, so we felt that this was a very good transition product type to put up against the existing older subdivision to -- you know, to our east. And, then, we transition to a higher density as we go -- as we go west. So, that's pretty much all I had to say. I'm available for questions at the end of the presentation. I'll answer any questions I can about, you know, fencing or police department or whatever, but Mr. Wardle would like to go ahead and continue on the presentation. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. J. Wardle: Madam Mayor, Jeffrey Wardle, Hawley Troxell. My address is 877 Main, Boise. Anna, could you go back to the preliminary plat. Just to clarify a couple things. I think it's important to note that we really appreciate the work that staff has done on this project with us, that this has certainly been a lot of effort on the part of Caleb Hood, who has been very responsive and very helpful, and based upon Caleb's comments, as well as the comments and feedback we got from the Planning and Zoning Commission, significant revisions were made to this site plan. Just to walk you through those, the reason that we don't have product here is this is not the site plan that was in the preliminary plat. This is -- this is the prior version. You have a current version that shows those units there, but this is where the variance was requested and a modification was made to the site plan as depicted, so that -- thank you. So, that we would not have to request a variance on these lots. We respect the hard work that your staff and you all did on the UDC and recognize that, you know, less than a year into this Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 53 of 64 process is not the time to be asking you all for variances on these. So, as a result, some units were removed and those units are located here. These lots are fully conforming. Additionally, the staff had raised concern with respect to connectivity of the pathway system and in the preliminary plat that you have in the packet, it shows this change where this actually connects back out here. Additionally, staff and the Commission had raised the issue of additional amenities needing to be on the site. And so to improve and enhance the existing Eight Mile Lateral, which is right there, and the Ten Mile Drain, which is back here, we did add amenities to feature that, namely, these pathways here and a pathway here. That path is now connected through this point and there is an additional open space and picnic area here. An additional tot lot was added here as part of this revision to this -- this section. Now, I have discussed and appreciate the feedback and the cooperation of your police department, because the original staff report, based upon the original preliminary plat, expressed some -- some concerns and we have some concerns of those -- the comments of the police department had not changed since the original plat. If you will note, the comments that I make in response - - and particularly, originally, there was a unit located up here and the police department expressed some concern about that location. That unit was removed. Additionally, the police department expressed some concern about the lack of connectivity of the pathways. We have addressed that with the connection here, as depicted on the current version in your packet. And, additionally, as I spoke with Lieutenant Stowe today, just to conform that everything was -- was satisfactory, he did raise the issue here of the half basketball court. That was a request of the Planning and Zoning Commission. He felt comfortable that in light of the fact that there is not going to be fencing along these homes here, that that was an appropriate use and an appropriate location and addressed the police concern. Certainly, as noted in the staff report, we are going to comply with your fencing requirements under the UDC and there will be fencing here along the drain and along that right of way. When we look at the staff report, our biggest concern with this project is how do we address the concerns that we have already heard you raise here tonight and I'm pleased that I have a client that is so committed to design issues at this point, because frequently we don't have clients that are this committed to design. As we have talked through this process, my client has really attempted to come forward with a diversity of housing type, with a diversity of elevations and with a commitment that we have discussed with staff as to design, type, and to address the concerns that you have expressed in the past, as well as expressed tonight about what are these going to look like. We are committed to the plan that's been set forward here. Now, one last concern which I think we need to address, because Anna raised it, is staff did express some concern about what -- the double- fronted nature of these units. Now, it's important to note that under the UDC you provide that multi-family, including multi-family condominiums as we have proposed here -- are appropriate to front on private streets. This is all intended here to be a private street system. It provides your access, it provides the -- the access to parking, the types of things that you see in these. The concerns we have, though, is that, of course, the UDC also prohibits townhouses from being located on private streets. Thus, we have a public street as access here. This site is, obviously, unique, due to the location of the drains. With the Ten Mile Drain here and with the Eight Mile Lateral there, you have some site design considerations that you have to deal with, due to the Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 54 of 64 fact that we have it coming to a point. In dealing with that, we also have to deal with the fact that we have this entry here aligning with the road across the street per ACHD's direction. In doing that, we feel that we have come up with a design which works, that we have enhanced the landscaping along here, that we have also committed to the elevations that you have seen -- and let me go back to the elevation that is on the podium -- on the easel. This elevation here is looking, essentially, from this spot right here -- and I don't know if you can see that, but it's looking -- it's looking from this spot here back across these townhouses to this pOint. As you can see, we have made a significant attempt to address the look of these by insuring diversity of design. Also by insuring that there are adequate numbers of windows to really break up those facades and also to assure that there is additional landscaping. As Joe pointed out, in order to depict this, we did remove some landscaping here, but that landscaping is depicted on the site plan and it's depicted on the landscape plan that we have attached and submitted. We have attempted to be sensitive to the zoning you currently have in the area. This is R-8 over here. This is R-40 over here. As designated on the Comprehensive Plan, right down here this is appropriate for the R-15 or a higher zone. We have not requested that. We believe that we can do this with an R-15 zone and provide adequate open space and additional amenities. Based upon staff's comments we tried to make the connectivity through this project rather complete, so that all members of the community can utilize the various spaces and areas that are intended to address their needs. With that I'll stand for any questions. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: On this row of -- what are you calling these? J. Wardle: Well, they are the multi-family. The four-plex. Rountree: Multi-family that have a private drive behind them and a public street in front of them or a pUblic street behind them and a private drive in front of them? J. Wardle: That is correct. This is the private drive, Madam Mayor, Council, and this is the public street. Rountree: Okay. Now where do they front? J. Wardle: They front here. These are the entrances here on the private street. Rountree: On the private street. Okay. And what's the status of this row of lots on the private street? I mean the public street? Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 55 of 64 R. Wardle: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, these are a slightly wider version of the townhouses and I don't know why they don't show up on this site plan, because the site plan that was submitted two weeks ago to staff shows those. It is an alternative design, because in order to make -- this is where the variance had been initially requested. We reduced -- removed some units, so that we could get wider lots and comply with the 2,400 square foot requirements. So, these are townhouses, same here, that are slightly wider and, yet, again, another footprint and a different elevation. These are the elevations that are proposed for this lot and block right there. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. J. Wardle: You're welcome. De Weerd: I like that elevation better. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Jeff, can you -- Joe mentioned something that maybe you can hit on. How can you restrict the particular properties to be for sale and not for rent? Legally, if push comes to shove, how can you really prevent anyone from renting it? J. Wardle: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, those can be handled through your restrictive covenants. I mean it is -- nothing mandates that you have to make units for -- available for rent. You can do it through restrictive covenants. You can do it through limitations on the number of rental units. To the extent that that's an important issue to you, as Anna pointed out, you know, there is a development agreement on the table and we support the development agreement proposed. The goal here is to -- this is not being designed as a four-plex apartment complex and is not going to be marketed as such. I guess at the end of the day, you know, councilman, if somebody -- this is America and if somebody wants to rent their property out, they very well may, but there are steps that we can take and that we are committed to taking to insure that it is a development that's intended to be owner occupied. Borton: Madam Mayor? And I don't disagree with you, I was just curious, because I heard that remark made and other than a covenant that I guess -- I don't know if you levy an assessment against the owner if he rents it out and -- what's the ultimate hammer you ever have against a property owner if they want to rent it out? You're technically stuck, aren't you? J. Wardle: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, I mean, yes. Borton: Okay. Meridian City Council July 11,2006 Page 56 of 64 J. Wardle: If the president wanted to rent out the White House, that could happen. I mean this is America and there are ways to do that. There are steps that we are committed to taking to insure that that doesn't happen. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any other questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: No further questions? J. Wardle: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. J. Wardle: All right. Thank you, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: If you're all with the applicant, I guess I don't need to know if there is any additional public testimony. Although, I would ask Mr. Reice is there any further information you would like to provide? Bird: There is someone there. De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry, sir. Well, please come forward. If you will, please, state your name and address. Pond: Gilbert Pond. 5507 West EI Gato Lane in Meridian. I just came tonight to listen to -- because I was concerned about a piece going on over on Franklin Road and -- between Ten Mile and Black Cat. But there is a number of things I just -- why are we putting four-plexes in an application where we are going to sell lots -- or to sell the homes? It would seem to me that somebody is going to buy that whole piece and he's going to rent it out. You're setting yourself up for failure in my book if you're looking for a zero lot line application of where people can buy a lot -- or buy a home, then, they need to make it a duplex application where they are going to buy half the building. My other concern is I'm a plumbing contractor. If you buy a four-plex for half of a -- or a quarter of a four-plex, who is going to stand the cost if somebody gets wet down below downstairs. There is other problems that you're creating here by allowing a four-plex application to become private property. My recommendation, just from a local citizen, had no business putting a four-plex for an individual buyer, because there is not an actual physical separation. There is two physical separations, you got the center and, then, the floor and you have problems with up and down. And so my recommendations is that you just allow a duplex applicant and let them divide it as a zero line house here in this application. I'm familiar with this area and that would concern me, because it's going to turn into an apartment complex. There is nothing you can do to stop it -- excuse me -- there is nothing the city can stop, because that's what's going to happen. You know, there is just -- down the road you just know what's going to have to take place. Thank you. Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 57 of 64 De Weerd: Thank you. Yes, sir. Come forward. I'm sorry, that's what I get for assuming. If you will, please, state your name and address. Arnke: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council and staff. My name is Michael Arnke and I'm a property owner at 2070 West Pine. And I think in response to the gentleman prior to me inquiries about a four-plex, I also have the same inquiries, but I think by addressing the applicant's, they perhaps can answer my questions as I would perceive them and I would assume that because it is a homeowners association that the exterior portions of all the ground and the buildings will be maintained in common and the homeowner's responsibility really is within the four walls inside the complex. I would assume that to be correct or -- or if the homeowners can maintain their own __ Rountree: We will ask the applicant. De Weerd: Yeah. We will certainly ask. Arnke: And, of course, that would be the issue. And, then, the other issue, as I perceive it from the developer, is that the condominiums, of course, will be smaller in square footage, which, obviously, would have an impact on the ultimate price and I really have no problem with that, because, let's face it, the price of housing has just gone through the roof and so, therefore, I, in one sense, would support the four-plex, because, as designated, he classified those as condominiums, not townhouses, and by statute a townhouse would generally represent a larger square footage home versus a condominium. So, he has a -- what I perceive as a nice even mix, allowing affordability on both ends of the spectrum, provided that the exterior portions of the buildings and the grounds are tenants in common and maintained, so that if there is a renter there, that the only impact they have is on the interior and not the exterior and the CC&Rs would be structured, so that the tenants are not going to cause harm or damage to the areas in common and, in conclusion, that's alii have to say. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. I'm sorry, Jeff, there was someone behind you that raised their hand. Please state your name and address. Warnick: For the record, my name is Lance Warnick, I'm a professional engineer, representing also the client tonight. My address is 1204 6th Street North, Nampa, Idaho. 83687. De Weerd: Thank you. Warnick: I was just going to make myself available if there was any technical questions that may relate to engineering, but also I can just provide a clarification in general on what can be done on developments as addressed by the gentlemen -- two that spoke. Whether a project is multi-family or a condominium, there are mechanisms in place to allow maintenance to occur. For example, if you do have a four-plex in a project, typically, the building owner is responsible for maintenance. The tenants in there take Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 58 of 64 care of their -- their personal property, because the building itself is maintained by the owner. Once a project is converted to condominium, technically, you own from the paint inside and the structure itself is held in common and so, in reality, you also have a common ownership that can come in and maintain the structure, whether it's some type of plumbing leak or something else. So, the type of structure -- use and structure I don't think should be a discussion tonight, because there are mechanisms in place that can address that, whether it's a townhouse, condominium, et cetera. And with that I'd answer any questions. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. If there is no further public testimony, we will accept closing remarks. J. Wardle: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, to address the comments that we have heard here publicly, it is our intention that these units will be condominiumized and as Mr. Warnick pointed out, technically, a condominium, you own everything from the paint in, that the plumbing, the exterior, the grass is all common area and that will be maintained in common and the individual unit owners are assessed for that. It's a structure that's well recognized under Idaho law. It certainly is a structure that we are starting to see now in this type of product due to the very things that you have seen tonight. When you see traditional neighborhood designs on very small lots coming in projected at 300,000 dollars a unit, we have to recognize that land prices are making housing even less affordable, even when you build smaller houses. And so the condominiumization of these units addresses that need. As set forth in the application, it is our intention and our commitment that there will be two homeowners associations. There will be a master homeowners association for everything, for which the townhouse owners will be allocated and the individual unit owners over here will be allocated for the maintenance of those common amenities, the things that they all use. With the condominiumization of these units over here, there will be an owners association which is responsible for the true common elements. The allocation of that is something which is just worked on in the master declaration. If it requires a master declaration to create a condominium, we will do that. Condominiums are very common. Condominiums have been used in many markets to address this type of thing. And condominiums as a four-plex, yes, might be unique in Boise, Idaho, but that doesn't raise any issues that we are too concerned about, that we can do it, it's not a problem. Additionally, with respect to the other comments that were made about housing affordability, that has been the driving force in our clients proposal on this site, that for the better part of the year he has worked to come forward with a project and a product which meets your concerns about design and meets your concerns about community development, while also insuring that there is truly affordable housing that's provided at this site. It's important to recognize that the property here to the west is much more dense and is the property that I believe is referred to fondly as the barracks. And that we certainly recognize that Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 59 of 64 we have industrial property here to the south and we are attempting to transition from the R-8 zdne here to the R-40 zone here. De Weerd: That is what I said, don't do that. J. Wardle: Madam Mayor, we are committed not to doing barracks and that's why we have come forward with the schematics that we have and the elevations that we have submitted. And with that we would request your approval of the applications that are before you tonight and if you have any further questions, I would be more than happy to answer them. De Weerd: Council, questions? Bird: I have none. Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Anna. Canning: I'm sorry, I don't usually like to ask questions of the applicant, but I'm a little -- he didn't address one question that I still don't understand. If they are going to be condominiumized, I don't understand the need for the lots on this plat for each four-plex and maybe the applicant can explain the need for those. J. Wardle: Madam Chairman -- Madam Mayor, Anna, I think -- I believe the concern here is that it's written in the UDC and, again, you know, with an ordinance that's relatively new, there are issues that we are working through for the first time, but it's my understanding, as I read the condominium provision of the UDC, that the condominiumization can come back through and happen via a short plat process when the building is completed or during construction and if that's the case, what we don't want to find ourselves in is a situation where if this were all an entire single lot -- I know you have had some issues in the past with when can certificates of occupancy be issued on a single lot when you have multiple buildings. At least that's my understanding of the concern. And, again, I was not involved in the early discussions about this. It was our determination, in working with our engineers and with our architects, that it was best to come in, plat these as individual lots, and, then, deal with the condominium issue as they were constructed. and Joe can -- Joe is in a better position to answer that, because he was involved in those discussions early on. Reice: Joe Reice, American West Homes. The real main focus of why they are broken down into lots like that has much to do -- almost everything to do, in addition to what Mr. Wardle said, with the insurability of this project during construction. There has been a big change in the insurance industry over the past few years in building condominiums. It's become very difficult to insure the construction of condominiums because of all the national lawsuits that have occurred through homeowners groups, you know, suing developers after the fact. So, insurance companies have become very wary about Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 60 of 64 insuring this kind of project, thus, making it very difficult to bring about an affordable project to a community, because if a developer has to pay astronomical insurance costs, he needs to be able to pass those on. This was a way for us to side step that issue. By having a site plan like this it kind of cut through some red tape for us in terms of being able to gain insurance that is more standard insurance and allow us to bring forth a more affordable house to the end user. The other issues, apartments versus condominiums, you know, the master plan -- the Comprehensive Plan, really, in this area would call for apartments to be an appropriate use for this project. We weren't trying to disguise condominiums versus apartments. If our intent was to bring apartments here, we would have brought apartments here and, in fact, in dealing with Caleb Hood, he said, you know, we could support an R-40 zoning here and we could probably support 800 units here, all in a, you know, big four story building with under- building parking and that's just not what we were trying to accomplish here. We are trying to create a statement coming into this community with a project that can be a quality project at an affordable price and -- and we think that through the efforts that we have gone through here with staff, that we have that project. Condominiums are a common construction type all throughout the United States and there are CC&Rs that govern how plumbing issues are dealt with, as Mr. Wardle stated, but we think that the way we have presented this it allows us overall to bring a more affordable project, you know, to the end user. Can people rent them out after they buy them, sure they can. Just like if they bought an R-8 house, they could rent them out. It happens all the time. But we are selling them as condominiums. You know, what happens after that, they have to meet the guidelines of our CC&Rs, so any other questions? De Weerd: Council, any other questions? Bird: I have none. Reice: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, if you have no further questions, I certainly would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, CUP 06-006. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the public hearings on Items 17 through 19. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council July 11,2006 Page 61 of 64 De Weerd: Discussion? Don't all jump at once. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I guess if I don't want to sit here all night, I move that we approve AZ 06-013 and incorporate staff, applicant, and public testimony. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the application on Item 17. Is there anything discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, nay. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. De Weerd: Okay. Item 18. Canning: Madam Mayor, can I get a clarification on that? Did you want to include the condominium commitment in the development agreement? Bird: I believe so. I believe that was part of the public testimony from the applicant. Canning: Okay. Just wanted to clarify. Bird: Yeah, I did, Anna. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Item 18. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve PP 06-011, preliminary plat for Canterbury Commons Subdivision and to include all staff, applicant, and public testimony. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion to approve Item 18. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, nay. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 62 of 64 De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird, Item 19. Bird: Madam Mayor, I move we approve CUP 06-006 for Canterbury Commons and to include all staff, applicant, and public testimony. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 19. Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, nay. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 20: Ordinance No. Ordinance: Request to Be Removed First Reading of Impact Fee De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Item 20. I understand was requested to be continued. Bird: Just removed. Yeah. De Weerd: Or removed. Okay. Item 21: Ordinance No. 05~1186 A Amendment to Ordinance No. 05~1186: AZ 05~018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.18 acres to R-4, R-8 & R-15 zones for Westborouah Sauare Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. - SEC of Jericho Road and Chinden Boulevard: De Weerd: And so Item 21. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read this ordinance 05-1186-A by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance 05-1186-A, amended ordinance for annexation of property located in the northeast quarter of Section 30, Township 4 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 classifications of said lands from RUT to R-2, R-4, R-15 and L-O 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. Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 63 of 64 De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Berg. Is there anyone who would like to hear this ordinance read in its entirety? Seeing none. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve ordinance 05-1186-A with suspension of rules. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 21. Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 22: Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67~2345 (1)(a) (to consider hiring a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, not to include. This paragraph does not apply to filling a vacancy in an elective office) (c) (to conduct deliberations concerning labor negotiations or to acquire an interest in real property, which is not owned by a publiC agency) and (f) (to consider and advise its legal representatives in pending litigation): De Weerd: We are at the end of our agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per 67-2345 (1) (a), (1) (c) and (1) (f). Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to adjourn into Executive Session. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. EXECUTIVE SESSION: De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session. Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 64 of 64 Rountree: So moved. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion to come out of Executive Session. All those in favor. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. Bird: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that coming out of Executive Session that we add to the agenda a contract with Lombard Conrad Architects and the City of Meridian for the design of Meridian City Hall. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay, I have a motion to approve the contract with LCA. Any discussion? Bird: Madame Mayor that was as the attorney said just to add it to the agenda and then I will make the motion. De Weerd: Oh, sorry. Berg: Professional Service Agreement. Add that. Rountree: Professional Service Agreement. Add that. De Weerd: That is - Clerk (inaudible) for the record what he just said. All those in favor say aye. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. Bird: Now, Madame Mayor if I may I would move that we approve the contract with Lombard Conrad Architects for the design of the new City Hall with the City and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay, I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Okay, Mr. Berg. Roll Call Vote: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Borton, aye; Wardle, aye. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. Meridian City Council July 11, 2006 Page 65 of 64 Rountree: I guess, Madame Mayor for the record should we have in that motion the amount - not to exceed amount? De Weerd: Yeah, there is a percentage listed in the contract. Rountree: Seven percent was it not? Nary: Yes. Bird: Yes, seven percent. Is that what it is Will? Berg: I am looking. (Inaudible discussion) Bird: Yeah, the contract speaks for itself, don't it? Rountree: Just so we knew what we were voting on. I think we all knew, I just wanted to make sure. De Weerd: Okay, we need the Clerk (inaudible) roll call. Berg: I already did the roll call. De Weerd: Oh, you did? Can I have a motion to adjourn? Wardle: So moved. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:45 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) ~ MAYOR Y DE WEERD g / 8 / I/b DATE APPROVED