Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 12-13 Meridian City Council Meetina December 13. 2005 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:05 P.M., Tuesday, December 13,2005, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor, Tammy de Weerd, Shaun Wardle, Keith Bird, and Charlie Rountree. Members Absent: Christine Donnell. Others Present: Ted Baird, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Len Grady, Bill Musser, Bill Johnson, Brad Watson, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X Shaun Wardle X Charlie Rountree X X Christine Donnell X Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and call the regular City Council meeting to order. It is Tuesday, December 13th. It's 7:00 p.m. and I'd like to welcome you here this evening. We will start with roll call attendance. Mr. Berg. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: De Weerd: Thank you. Item No.2 is our pledge of allegiance. Tonight we will be led by Lauren Winter. If you will, please, rise. (Pledge of allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Gordon Slyter with Treasure Valley Worship Center: De Weerd: Lauren, I will gave you a City of Meridian pin and thank you for being here tonight. Okay. Item No.3 is our community invocation. We afe led tonight by Pastor Gordon Slyter. If you will join us in the community invocation Of take this as an opportunity for a moment of silence. Thank you. Slyter: Almighty God, in the midst of our schedule and responsibilities we pause fight now to thank you for your peace, for your hope, your encouragement, and your guidance. Help us each to walk in your light, to honor one another, and to treat each other with the same respect and kindness we ourselves would hope to receive. We ask that tonight you would give this Council your wisdom and guidance and that you would continue to watch over the affairs of our city and our citizens, gfanting protection and Meridian City Council December 13. 2005 Page 2 of 43 peace and continued prosperity. And for these gifts we give you thanks through Christ our Lord, amen. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: Thank you, Pastor Slyter and Merry Christmas. Item No.4 is adoption of the agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: First of all, on the Consent our resolution number is 05-495. Also we had Item No. P needs to be deleted from the Consent Agenda. In our department reports, Planning and Zoning, Anna, would like to have a second item, reorganization. And on the regular agenda, Item 12 has been asked to be continued or tabled for two weeks. And also Item No. 18, which is an ordinance, is number 05-1207. And with that I move we approve the revised revised agenda. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: It's just revised once, although you just revised it. Bird: I revised it a second time. De Weerd: The motion is to accept the agenda as amended. Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell; absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of November 151 2005 City Council Regular Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of November 221 2005 City Council Regular Meeting: C. Resolution No. Declarina the Intent of the City of Meridian to Offer for Exchanae Certain Real Property Located at 55 East Broadwav Avenue in the City of Meridian Legally Described as Lot 20 of Block 1 of the Meridian Townsite; Instructing the City Clerk to Establish and Notice a Hearing to Review the Proposed Exchange: Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 3 of 43 D. Approve Adult Business License Renewal for Paul McLeod I Valle-y Video at 433 N. Main Street: E. Approve Pawnbroker's License Renewal for Terry Stewart I Benny's Pawn at 451 N. Main Street: F. Approve Pawnbroker's License Renewal for Paul Watson I Meridian Coin & Pawn at 1550 N. Main Street: G. Well No. 20 B Power Easement for Idaho Power Company: H. Streetliaht Aareement for Settlement BridQe No.3 by Capital Development: I. ChanQe Order No. 1 for the WWTP StandbY Power System Procurement with Western States Equipment Corporation: J. Hook-up to City Services Aareement for Edward and Loretta Sweet - Outside City Limits (2640 North Meridian Road): K. Aareement for Professional Services for Meridian Wastewater Treatment Plant MCC 4 Replacement with DC Engineering, Inc.: L. Development Agreement: AZ 05-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 15.32 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road: M. ChanQe Order No. 1 for Ustick Road Widening with W.H. Moore Company: N. Chanae Order No. 1 for WWTP Standby Power Buildina with Challenger Companies: O. Approve City Custodial Services Aareement with Western Buildina Maintenance: De Weerd: Thank you. That was a little unusual, wasn't it. Okay. Item 5 is the Consent Agenda. Mr. Bird. Bird: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve the Consent Agenda with the resolution number 05-495 and we will delete Item No. P and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers. Rountree: Second. Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 4 of 43 De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda with removal of P. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell; absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Department Reports: A. Planning Department - Anna Canning 1. Application Fee Refund for Durango Springs Subdivision: De Weerd: Item 6-A, Department Reports. We will start with Anna, Item NO.1. Canning: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we had a large project that has withdrawn their application. They submitted $16,384.68 for that application. We committed to them that we would ask for a reimbursement of a portion of that. What I have done -- you have a memo from Josh Wilson addressed to myself detailing how we came up with a suitable reimbursement and what we did is we figured out how many hours we had spent on the project and multiplied it by the rate that's listed in the fee structure and we added in any hard costs associated with the noticing from the clerk's office. So, we are asking that they be reimbursed for $13,972.68. De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have any questions regarding the memo in front of you? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: With the staffs approval, I would move that we approve refund of $13,972.68 to Durango Springs Subdivision North and South. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve the request of staff. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell; absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 2. Organizational Chart. Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 5 of 43 De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Berg. Item NO.2 is the Organizational Chart. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think I have been talking about this to most of you for a little while, but I wanted to get it before you formally. I would like to request that I be able to add some structure to my department. Right now there is no hierarchy, it's just me and, then) everybody else. What I would like to do is have two divisions. One would be a comprehensive planning division and one would be a current planning division. Craig Hood would take over as the supervisor of the current planning. He would be the manager. And so under him would be the associate city planners and the assistant city planners. And, then) Steve Siddoway would take over the comprehensive planning and this would include the transportation aspects that we currently -- that Steve currently addresses as part of his work program. And, then, I have promoted Craig into the position that Brad would have formally had and, then, we would hire a new assistant -- a new associate city planner. So) it doesn't represent anymore principal city planners or associates than what I have currently been budgeted for, this is just restructuring and, then, promoting Craig to a higher position. De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Madam Mayor, question for Anna. Your org chart would indicate lines of supervision or just lines of folks that are going to be in those divisions? Canning: Of supervision. Rountree: So, we have city assistants supervising assistants and associates supervising associates? Canning: No. I'm sorry, sir. You're right. That's just -- Craig would be supervising these folks. I have drawn that line incorrectly. I didn't catch that. Rountree: Okay. Canning: So, I'm not sure how to show that line, actually, now that you say it. De Weerd: You show it to each column. Canning: Okay. I'll figure that out. I'll get that corrected, but -- Rountree: Just curious. Canning: And) then, Steve would be supervising this person. Rountree: Okay. Canning: And, then, I would still be supervising Steve, Craig, and Barb. Meridian City Council December 13. 2005 Page 6 of 43 Rountree: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: And, Council, as Anna has noted, it falls within the same structure as the budget. It's just a reorganization of direct reports and offers certainly less evaluations on her part. I do not need a motion to approve. I would appreciate, if you have any comments -- Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, thank you. Anna has certainly brought this before me. It's something we have discussed, oh, I think since I have been the liaison and I feel that she's had both the time and, really, kind of the impetus with a staff change to be able to do this and in my opinion it allows for one of the things that I think is important and that is a menta ring program and the addition of leadership and management skills within the department. So, certainly, I think it's a good change and will help them function both more efficiently and provide room for opportunity. Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: Item 8: MI 05-014 Request to terminate a Development Agreement for Casper Manaaement by Casper Management, LLC - 7.32 acres south of Overland Road and west of Meridian Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you, Anna. If there is no further discussion, we will move onto Item No. 8 is MI 05-014. I will start this item with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a proposal by Casper Management to remove approximately 7.32 acres, as shown here, from being subject to the recorded development agreement for Meridian Storage Development. That development agreement was the result of an application that went through in the year 2001 and the development agreement specifically states that the site will be used for construction and development of a storage facility. The applicant has another use in mind that would be a principally permitted use under the Unified Development Code, so they would like to just eliminate the development agreement and allow the standard uses of the C-G, General Commercial District, that they be allowed to be processed just as -- as a normal application. It would be a certificate of zoning compliance in this instance. Staff agrees with the applicant that the UDC will provide enough review of this project to bring it into the current City of Meridian standards and so we are supporting the request for the -- to terminate the development agreement. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here this evening? Would you like to make any comment or do you agree with staff's comments? Okay. The applicant agrees with the comments, unless Council has any questions for the applicant. Bird: I have none. Rountree: None. Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 7 of 43 Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: If there are no questions, I'd make a motion. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve Item No. 8 to terminate the development agreement for the Casper Management -- requested by Casper Management, LLC. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve Item NO.8. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell; absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 9: FP 05-070 Request for a Final Plat approval of 47 building lots and 5 common area lots on 10.29 acres in a R-8 zone for Larkspur Subdivision No.2 by Larkspur, LLC - 200 and 205 East Rosalyn Court: De Weerd: Thank you. Item No.9 is FP 05-070. I will start this item with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, this is Larkspur Development. It is a final plat, located on the east side of Meridian Road, south of Calderwood. There is one -- there is two issues to address -- or three. I'm sorry. And so we have asked you to actually consider this tonight. The Public Works has two issues to address. Those regard right of way vacation and a question on an easement. The third issue is just a clarification to condition number 22 as listed in the staff report. The applicant has asked us to clarify that the stem wall that is required is only on the northeast corner. It would be the uppermost three lots of the development and Planning is -- went back and checked the notes and to our recollection that is the only place that it was required, not along the entire east boundary. So, we agree with that clarification. And I will give it over to Mr. Grady. Grady: Just two quick changes to the site specific requirements. There is a little bit of a conflict on the cul-de-sac. There is a little bit of a conflict right here between the cul-de- sac and the lots there. So, basically, at the end of site specific comment number ten, we either want them to vacate the right of way and the cul-de-sac or revise the lot line adjustments there. Comment number 16 in the site specific comments is regard to an Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 8 of 43 easement for irrigation and, basically, at the end of that first sentence in that site specific we just want to give them the option to reroute the pressure irrigation system. Those two comments are all we have. And I believe the applicant is okay with that. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant okay with staff comments? Okay. Council, do you have any questions for staff? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain a motion. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we approve Item No.9, FP 05-070, with the noted staff changes and applicant approval. Bird: Second. De Weerd: What were those noted changes? No. I'm sorry. You will have to look at the record. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell; absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 10: FP 05-072 Request for Final Plat approval for 4 single-family residential building lots and 1 common area lot on 1.05 acres in a R-15 zone for Sommersby Cove Subdivision by Liberty Partners, Inc. - northeast corner of West Pine and North Ten Mile Road: Item 11: FP 05-071 Request for Final Plat approval for 5 single-family residential building lots and 1 common area lot on .93 acre in a R-15 zone for Sommersbv Subdivision No.1 by Liberty Partners, Inc. - northeast corner of West Pine and North Ten Mile Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 10. FP 05-072. Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, actually, the next two applications deal with the -- the only outstanding issue is the same for both of them. On this one this was approved with townhouses and as part of the conditions of approval the applicant was required to provide front and rear elevation of the proposed townhouses for review and approval by the City Council. And that's the only outstanding issue on these. All the plat issues are -- the applicant has submitted a letter stating they are in agreement with the conditions of approval. I have those elevations for you. These are the front Meridian City Council December 13. 2005 Page 9 of 43 elevations and, then, this is the rear elevations. On some of these townhouses sometimes they are just two attached and sometimes there is three attached. Staff is particularly concerned with the three attached, as you get a very long, unarticulated wall that -- that we were concerned that this was not the type of development that City Council was looking for on these lots. So, we have brought them to you for your consideration. So, tonight regarding just the elevations, there would appear to be two possible options. One is to continue the item and direct the applicant to provide different elevations or give staff some very specific and, hopefully, some detail direction as to changes in the bulk or the materials that you would like to see or the general appearance of those units. One possible option might be to provide some different materials along the back. Right now there is just the siding. Another option might be to offset each unit by four feet. I don't know whether they still fit on the lots. It's something the applicant might have to check, but those are just a couple ones to get you started or -- I can maybe come up with more once I hear your concerns or if you have no concerns. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Canning: Thank you. De Weerd: The applicant is -- or the same item on 11. Do you want to -- Canning: Yes. And it's the only issue on Item No. 11 also. De Weerd: Okay. So, I will consider testimony on that one as well. Okay. Is the applicant here for Items 10 and 11? If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Stiles: Sheri Stiles. 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. De Weerd: Thank you. Do you have any comments on staff's recommendation? Stiles: Actually, the site plan that was shown as Sommersby No.1, that's Sommersby Cove. And the other one is Sommersby Subdivision. De Weerd: Oh. Okay. Stiles: Okay. Yeah. I thought the other one showed -- okay. Had the other one circled there. Okay. I guess I could see a concern with the elevations if it were like the office lots that are proposed on Pine and Ten Mile, you would want a little better streetscape in that area, so it looked like you weren't looking at the back of buildings, but these are just like single family homes. They happen to be attached. I think -- you know, I do believe that on at least the Sommersby Subdivision No. 1 they could take better advantage of some views there, but I think that, you know, they are willing to do more, but they don't want to promise that it's going to be a certain thing and, then, have to go through a problem trying to change it. This is very similar to what the other homes in Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 1 0 of 43 the neighborhood look like and, you know, they are very deep lots. It's a development -- these pictures were taken of a development in Eagle. It's a gated community. The gates are always open, but it is more of a senior type feel to the subdivision. I don't know if there are any restrictions on it, but this is just what we are proposing. I think the front's very nice. I think it's got a good street appeal and, you know, they will have landscaping and fencing behind it. It was difficult for me to get a shot of this, because I was taking it next to a neighbor watch sign, over the top of the fence. So, the perspective there is not fantastic, but -- do you have any other comments? De Weerd: Council, any questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council, any further information needed or any additional comment? Canning: I need to know if Council wants to approve these elevations. De Weerd: Okay. Council? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, you want to know if we want to approve the elevations? We are, actually, approving the final plat; right? Canning: This is -- Bird: So, if we -- so, we either approve the final plat with the elevations or we don't approve it; is that not right? We can't break it out, can we? I'm asking a question. I have never done it before. Canning: This was a separate condition of approval in the preliminary plat. However, this doesn't really relate to plat issues per se. So, it needed to be reviewed and approved by the City Council. Bird: Did that -- excuse me, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Uh-huh. Bird; Was that the conditions of our preliminary plat that this had to be brought before us and approved? Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 11 of 43 Canning: Yes, sir. Bird: Before final plat? Canning: It just says it needs to be reviewed and approved by City Council. Bird: And that was part of our preliminary plat approval? Canning: Yes, sir. I will double-check on the exact language, but-- Bird: Well, let me ask a question, Anna. How can we -- then, if we set that as a stipulation, shouldn't that be -. shouldn't we have that -- how can I say this? Should-- Rountree: Just go ahead and say it. Bird: I do and I get my foot in my mouth and I'm not as limber as I used to be, so it's hard to -- we should have approved this before we be approving the final plat. We should have had -- we should have had an application here or some kind of a deal here that would -- that would say, you know, before the final plat comes forward you have -. Council, you have to approve these elevations. Am I not right? Canning: It wasn't tied to the final plat. However, it does say that those need to be reviewed and approved by Council, so -- Bird: Well, what are we approving tonight, Anna? Canning: There are two requests before you tonight. Staff would like some resolution on this issue. Since the plat is before you tonight, it would seem an opportune time to have you review and approve the elevations as well. Baird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Baird. Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think I can help with the linkage here. On the site specific requirements for final plat, item number one talks about applicant meeting all terms of the preliminary plat. If, indeed, showing and approving the elevations was a condition of the preliminary plat, that's what links it up to your approval of the final plat. So, it's merely one more item to clear before you approve the final plat. Bird: That's what I thought. They are two separate items. Baird: Well, it's a precursor to your approval of the final plat. I think we are saying the same thing. De Weerd: Okay. Meridian City Council December 13. 2005 Page 12 of 43 Stiles: Mayor de Weerd and Council members, this -- the front elevations were submitted to the City Council. You know Becky McKay and how thorough she is and she typically has brand new plans back to all of you prior to you even meeting again. It came up as a last minute item. The date on the pictures is when I discovered that we did have to make sure we had side and rear elevations, even though they had been -- the front elevations had been submitted in an earlier City Council meeting as part of the Conditional Use Permit, the annexation and zoning, and the preliminary plat. It is a little unusual to get a design review requirement at the last minute when you're asking just for a final plat approval. Canning: Madam Mayor, can I clarify for a moment? This makes it sound like staff has added this as a condition of approval. It was added at the preliminary plat stage, so -- Bird: And nobody's questioned, Anna, just -- I'm just wondering how we go about -- you know, we got to make a motion to approve the elevations. That takes care of the preliminary plat, as I understand it. Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I would separate them into two motions. You decide how you want to deal with this one issue and, then, with that resolved you can move onto consideration of the final plat. I believe that's what Anna has been trying to say, but if it helps to say it a different way, then, there you go. De Weerd: Thank you. It's always helpful to hear it another way. Okay. So, Council, I guess the first consideration is the elevations and, Anna, these elevations are both for Items 10 and 11 or just Item 10? Canning: Both-- De Weerd: Okay. Canning: -- 10 and 11, ma'am. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Can we ask the applicant -- these are pictures from another subdivision. Are we guaranteed this is what's going to be built out there? De Weerd: If you approve these elevations that will be what is put out there. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- De Weerd: The elevations relate to the plat. Meridian City Council December 13. 2005 Page 13 of 43 Canning: -- generally what I do is if you approve a specific elevation with a development -- a lot of times with the planned unit developments you approve a specific look. I look to make sure that when those come in that it has, basically, the same number of roof lines, same number of materials -- basically, the same kind of slope of -- or pitch to the roof. There are certainly minor variations that could occur that the use of brick or rock instead of brick -- I generally just assume that that would be kind of an extension of that or if the column size changes, that's -- I'm more looking for those kind of the same number of architectural elements or the same general architectural style. I don't tie them to that in every detail. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, what if a single person wanted to put a single family home on one of these lots, instead of a duplex, triplex, for whatever? How do you -- how do you go about that if we approve these elevations? Canning: They were approved for attached units and town homes. I don't believe they meet the single family lot size requirements. This was part of a planned development, so that would be an issue of concern if someone came in with just a single family home on these lots. De Weerd: Okay. Any comments? Bird: I have no more. De Weerd: Do I have a motion? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Anna, did I hear that staff's concern was with the specific length of siding on -- was it the triplex? Canning: There are -- let me back up just a little bit. There are four lots here. I believe there is two attached houses here. There are three here and two here. And the applicant may correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the concern particularly with the three attached units is that they are facing a major arterial roadway and that would be a large undifferentiated wall in a very visible location. These four units do back out onto other subdivisions, one that's currently here and, then, that's proposed here. So, yes, it was that -- the length of the distance on those elevations that was of concern. Here you can see two of them and, then, I believe that's the garage attaching them. There seems to be maybe a third back there. But that's just two -- or one and a half of them here. So, it's a long distance with just one wall plane. Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 14 of 43 Wardle: On an arterial. - Canning: On an arterial. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I have a question of the applicant. Hi, Shari. Thank you. Hearing staff's explanation and I think their concern is simply the three units facing Ten Mile, if I understand that. Do you have any suggestions on how to break that long wall up? Is there an additional material that could be added or would modulation be a better solution? Stiles: Mayor de Weerd, Councilman Wardle, there is going to be a berm there on Ten Mile Road and, then, there will be a fence. I'm not sure if it's 25, 30 feet that we will have landscaping and trees. I guess -- I guess what I'm asking is for you to approve the elevations as they are submitted and let somebody have the opportunity to personalize their own lot, their own house. They may want to build a patio out back or add on a covered area back there. I don't know. It seems like the more specific you get about any requirement; the harder it is if you vary from that in any way. I mean I guess I'd prefer to see landscaping take care of it than actually dictate the design features of a single family home that happens to be attached. De Weerd: I think a former director of ours was very into the esthetic look of some of these -- Stiles: I believe that I have a different hat on now. De Weerd: I just thought I'd remind you of that former hat. Stiles: You don't have to remind me. I still have nightmares. De Weerd: I'm not going to comment back on that. Okay. Council. She opened the door. No. I'm sorry. Any other questions for the applicant at this time? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you, Shari. Bird: Anna, your concern is the continuation of the houses together? Canning: Yes, sir. It will be 130 feet long. Meridian City Council December 13. 2005 Page 15 of 43 De Weerd: And, Mr. Bird, I guess, you know, Council has expressed concern about some of our other -- or sh-ared lot lines, duplexes, and if you look at the elevation it kind of has a front garage look on at least one. I like the setback of the other, it kind of breaks up the garage, but that has been a concern of Council and, certainly, that's why it's in front of you tonight. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Anna, I guess after hearing testimony that, really, we are talking about landscaping, we are talking about fencing that will cover the lower portion of these, it would seem that the addition of building materials, such as rock or brick on what I would assume would be the lower portion, would not really satisfy that issue that you're talking about. So, I think my preference would be some sort of modulation, even though very slight. How would you terminologize that? A break of plane or -- Canning: You could talk about an offset between the units of a certain amount of feet or a certain range that you would like to see. I think we are just talking about this one with the three attached units and you could say that the center unit will either be brought forward or recessed four feet or whatever number you might choose. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I guess that's my question, Anna. What's a reasonable number? Canning: Well -- and maybe somebody else can correct me, but, generally, I believe that buildings are generally designed in modules of four or eight, because it's half the width of a sheet of plywood, I believe. So, it would -- probably four feet or eight feet would be a good distance to modulate, but -- De Weerd: I guess, Mr. Wardle, you can either ask comment from the applicant or ask for something to be brought back. I'd hate to impose a standard that is not standard and, then, add unnecessary cost to the unit. So, at this point, Shari, do you feel more comfortable as guessing or would you like to bring something back next week? Stiles: Mayor de Weerd, I guess I really didn't anticipate getting into a discussion this lengthy about this item, but offsetting the units might help a little bit, but it's not going to really do anything. It's still going to be, you know, continued vinyl siding as is shown and add considerably to the cost of the units, you know, all for a little variation in the backyard that nobody is going to care about once they make it their home. Hopefully, they -- someone will come in and make each unit their home. But we just don't want to have to come back and continue coming back, because something has changed a little bit or -- you know, I guess if you say -- I'm not sure -- I haven't been in the units, I can't Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 16 of 43 tell you what is up on the top there as far as where there is no windows or anything, but -- and I'm also not a great-proponent of having to work things out with staff after the fact, because a lot of times it doesn't work. De Weerd: Well, I think what can be done is we can add you on our agenda next week and you can show a variation that is more cost effective than if we choose something arbitrarily. Stiles: How about we -- I don't know. They could put some features around the windows, some kind of window boxes, maybe, to -- you know, I just hate to get too specific and, then, have to come back before you for minor modifications that could be handled elsewhere. De Weerd: Well, if you don't have any suggestions, Council, what would you like to do? Bird: Get it off the docket. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Before I make a motion I will -- and I'll see where the motion goes -- probably die for lack of second, but I will make a statement that I agree with staff on the long -- you know, having 130 feet or something like that, but we have been approving a lot of R-8s that face the road and on three and four thousand square foot lots that -- and I don't have a very long wing span, but I could stand and touch each house. So, I would make a motion on Item No. 10, FP 05-072, that we approve the elevations as shown on the major -- I think face up to Ten Mile or -- is it Ten Mile or Under? Ten Mile. The ones on the Ten Mile on the ones in the back was no problem with the staff anyway, were they? Canning: Madam Mayor, those are only two units, so it's a much less mass, but it's still the same issue, but not as much. Bird: Okay. That's my motion, that we accept the elevations as shown. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second? Rountree: I will second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve the elevations as submitted. Is there discussion? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I think this is kind of a unique item and I'm at a loss at why we have even gotten here, because we have been trying in recent past to deny these kinds of projects at the annexation prior to preliminary plat, because of these reasons, not to bring them to the point of fruition of the final plat to resolve design details. So, though I'm not particularly keen on what I see, I think that we might have dropped the ball on this one and I don't -- I read within the application fairly extensive effort in terms Meridian City Council December 13. 2005 Page 17 of 43 of berming and landscaping that may well take care of a lot of this issue and probably won't be seen anyway. And, for the record, though, I'm not particularly keen on what I see, I think at this point I probably would vote in favor to move this on. De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further discussion? This has been a fun project. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Donnell; absent. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: I think this has come back to haunt us for years now, so-- Stiles: It already has. [will relay your concerns to the developer and ask him to reconsider a least those lots backing up to Ten Mile, but I appreciate your help. Thanks. De Weerd: Thank you, Sheri. I know, you started from day one on this one. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve FP 05-072, final plat for Sommersby Cove Subdivision. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Do you also approve FP 05-071? Bird: No, because I got to do the elevations first on that, too, don't I? De Weerd: Oh. Okay. Okay. The motion was to approve Item No. 10. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell; absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Bird, Item 11. Bird: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve the elevations for Sommersby Subdivision Number 1 as shown. Rountree: Second. Meridian Cily Council December 13, 2005 Page 18 of 43 De Weerd: Okay. Motion is to approve the elevations for Item 11. Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Donnell; absent. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Item 11. FP 05-071. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve FP 05-071 for Sommersby Subdivision NO.1. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 11. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell; absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 12: FP 05-073 Request for Final Plat approval for 11 residential building lots and 4 common area lots on 5.36 acres in a R-3 zone for EI Gato Subdivision by Conger Management Group - 701 Slack Cat Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 12 has been requested to continue. Do I have a motion to continue Item 12? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we continue FP 05-073 to first of January 3rd, 2006, meeting. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: To the first of January 3rd? Bird: To the first of the items, so the old Council can do it. De Weerd: Okay. Under old business it's been moved to table or continue Item 12 until January 3rd, 2006. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian City Council Decem ber 13. 2005 Page 19 of 43 Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 05-043 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.7 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Sunstone Subdivision by Benchmark Construction - 1155 and 1123 North Black Cat Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 05-045 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 23 single-family residential building lots and 3 common area lots on 11.17 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Sunstone Subdivision by Benchmark Construction - 1155 and 1123 North Black Cat Road: Item 15: Public Hearing: VAR 05-019 Request for a Variance for cul-de-sac length to exceed the maximum length of 450 feet to the proposed 630 feet for Sunstone Subdivision by Benchmark Construction - 1155 and 1123 North Black Cat Road: De Weerd: Okay. Items 13, 14, and 15 are public hearings on AZ 05-043, PP 05-045, and VAR 05-019. I will open these three items with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Sunstone project. It's located on the west side of Black Cat Road and south of Cherry Lane. They are proposing -- you can see there is two existing homes on the property. One and two. They are proposing 23 building lots and three common lots on 11.70 acres in a proposed R-4 zone. The applicant has also requested a variance for the cul-de-sac length of 630 feet. That would be this distance here. And that exceeds the 400 foot maximum allowed under the old code and this is under the old code, by the way. The gross residential density -- I think Council will be happy to hear -- is 1.97 units per acre. The Commission has recommended approval at their November 3rd hearing. Clayn Sonderegger of -- I'm sorry in advance. These people are probably here. And Jason Dunsmoor spoke -- and David Bowman all spoke in favor of the applicant. Kathy Farrera, Tom Knoll, and John Hansen, Paul Sherritt and Scott Frederickson spoke in opposition and, then, commenting were Christie Campbell and Tom Campbell. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the compatibility of the lot sizes with adjacent properties. And as you notice, this is the first -- one of the first subdivisions to go in in an area that has fairly large lots platted around it. The one immediately north has annexed, but this is kind of the first subdivision to go in. The key Commission changes to the staff report -- the Planning Commission asked that the larger lots be zoned R-2 to -- not R-2 to -- R-2 in order to better reflect the lot sizes that are being proposed on those lots. The remainder of the property would stay at the R-4 designation. As soon as you come into the site there are approximately quarter acre lots and, then, as you go toward the west they do get to be around half acre lots. They also deleted a condition regard ing -- it was cond ition 1.13. That was regarding the extra foot that -- is a condition of approval from the fire department. This might be a good time to address this issue, since it was brought up during this application. ACHD typically measures the width of the street from the back of the curb to the back of the curb. One of the standard conditions of the fire department asked that that width be measured from the face of the curb to the face of the curb. Therefore, we, essentially, have a different street standard in Meridian than is required elsewhere in the county. Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 20 of 43 So, they did remove that condition from this particular project. The outstanding issues before City Council, as noted in the staff report, was that we had not received the revised legal descriptions for the R-2 zoning prior to -- ten days prior to the hearing. We did receive those today and I believe you had those on your desk when you came in. So, we just received them this afternoon. They do appear to be adequate and address the lots that were of concern. The Planning and Zoning did not make a recommendation on the variance, as is typical. Staff is in support of the variance request. It's really more of a long stub street, as you note here. Because the design of the project puts the smaller Jots at the front, the stub streets made more sense toward the front of the property. Also as you look at the surrounding properties, the width of __ in particular the property to the south is really toward the east end of the property, doesn't have much useful effect stubbing toward the west end. For those reasons staff was supportive of the longer stub street length, knowing that that probably will get extended at sometime in the future and staff anticipates future development to be similar to this. This is listed as low density residential in the Comprehensive Plan and given the size and configuration of the surrounding lots, they probably won't be further subdivided to the extent that you see elsewhere in the city. These probably will remain fairly large lots. So, you do have findings for approval with both the R-2 and the R-4 district. With that I will answer any questions you may have. Oops. Sorry. Went too far. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Council, any questions for staff? Is the applicant here? Would you like to comment? If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Sonderegger: Okay. Mayor and Council, Clayn Sonderegger. 1155 North Black Cat Road in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Sonderegger: With our attempt, when we decided to develop this with our neighbors the Berts, one, we had to wait for that Black Cat sewer to be installed and that's now been done and the lift station is almost done. We wanted to be able to blend from the Castlebrook Subdivision and having that potential at Black Cat being a five lane road, you know, whether that's five years from now or ten years from now, to have a buffer and also transition from Castlebrook, which is a much tighter density in there, and that's why we went the quarter acre lots up front and moved to the back. I think with the general plan we could have put an additional 11 lots on there and still been in compliance, but we decided to stay under, because, one, me and my family want to continue to live there and so that's the reason that we needed to do that longer cul-de- sac is so we didn't have to put kind of a loop in to -- and, then, we'd just be breaking more lots up and, you know, we felt the desire for half acre lots in Meridian was a good thing. So, that's why we are actually lower than what we could have put in there and I have been advised that we are losing money and so be it. This is how we prefer to do it. Thank you. Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 21 of 43 De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. I would open it to public testimony. Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? Come on forward. And if you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Hansen: My name is John Hansen. I live at 6220 EI Gato Lane. That's the far end of EI Gato Lane. The same section that this subdivision is planned to be in. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, John. Hansen: We agree that the -- and we very much appreciate the fact that all the lots -- or some of the lots on the west side of this development are being put in at half acre. We appreciate the willingness to go in with R-2 and we agree with -- most of the neighborhood agrees with most of the other changes that are going in. However, we would like to see all of the lots going in under the R-2 requirements, not -- we don't believe that there is any -- especially with Black Cat being expanded to five lanes at sometime in the future, we don't believe that the quarter acre lots is a serious blending from these smaller lots on the other side of the street. As you can see -- as you have seen from the previous slides, the -- all the other lots that are up there on EI Gato are three to five acres and the other lots that are available are running much much larger, anywhere ten to -- some of them up ten and 20 acres. We would like to -- if we are going to have this in there, we'd like to leave it at -- leave all the lots with R-2. We had a long discussion before. This area right here, this five acres, this was originally going to be developed under the R-4 with small lots. We worked as a neighborhood with the developers and those -- all of those houses there are being put in under, essentially, R- 2 -- R-2 conditions and we'd like to maintain that for all of this area, because of the impact it's going to have on the whole quarter section. And the fact that these -- those are going to be the smallest lots on that -- in the area surrounded by Black Cat, which is here, Cherry Lane, and at the other end here, which you can't see, of course, McDermott and the railroad tracks, which are down in here. We'd just like to have -- we'd like to maintain the consistency of R-2 lots and we'd like to keep that there. We know, talking to the people that did the subdivision down here, when they went to R-2 they said that all those lots were still going to be profitable, so we don't believe that this is going to be damaging the profitability of the houses that are going to be going in. Anyway, we'd just like to see this all -- all of the lots up to the -- up to the R-2 standards, that half of them -- and Planning and Zoning has already agreed to. When Planning and Zoning did their -- went through and listened to all the testimony, they didn't even come out with a complete agreement, they were a four-to-one vote. So, even the Planning and Zoning was split. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, sir. Any questions for the-- Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, John. Okay. Any other testimony? Okay. Seeing none, is there any final comments from the applicant? If you will just restate your name. Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 22 of 43 Sonderegger: Clayn SonBeregger. 1155 North Black Cat Road in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Sonderegger: I would just like to point out that we have tried very hard to do better than what the general plan has required and, as I understand it, we are 11 lots less than what we could potentially put in there and so I think the buffering that we are doing is a good thing for the City of Meridian. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Any questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Any questions for staff? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: If, Anna, one more time you would explain the definition and how it's articulated in the Findings as it relates R-4 and R-2. Canning: The Findings are written with -- assuming that the R-2 and the R-4 designation are both there, even though staff didn't have those different legal descriptions. I just wanted to make it clear that it did assume that we had two legal descriptions and we do now. So, I believe the Findings are accurate as prepared. Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I can direct you to site specific 1.19 and it does specifically set forth the lots that are to be in the R-4 and the lots that are to be in the R-2. Rountree: Okay. Canning: Did that answer your question, sir? Rountree: Yes. Thank you. Canning: Okay. Rountree: Madam Mayor, if there is no further questions, I move that we close the public hearings on Items 13, 14, and 15. Wardle: Second. Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 23 of 43 De Weerd: Okay. Motion to close the public hearings on Items 13 through 15. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Item 13. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the request for annexation for Item 13, AZ 05-043. Bird: Second. Rountree: Including staff comments. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 13. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell; absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Thank you. Item 14. Canning: Madam Mayor, I believe Item 15, if you're moving toward approval of 14, you need to do 15 first. Rountree: Fifteen first. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Okay. Do I have a motion on Item 15? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the request for a variance for Item 15, VAR 05-019, for reasons as stated by staff, that this is -- essentially, will be a continuation or a potential continuation of a corridor into this section at some future date. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 24 of 43 De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 15. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg. - Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell; absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Item 14. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the preliminary plat request for Item 14, PP 05-045, within indication in the Findings and Facts and Conclusion of Law that this is both an R- 2 and an R-4 zoning as specified in the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 14 with the distinction of the zoning. Anna, do we need a revised plat to show that or -- Canning: No, ma'am. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell; absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 16: Public Hearing: AZ 05-048 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 14.81 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for McGee Property by Martin Artis - 3086 South Mesa Way and 1252 East Victory Road: Item 17: Pubic Hearing: AZ 05-049 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.15 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Carrinaton Property by Mark & Karen Carrington - 2955 South Locust Grove Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 16 is Public Hearing AZ 05-048. I will open Item 16 with staff comments. Baird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Baird. Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 25 of 43 Baird: Before we open Item No. 16, I would like to make a suggestion that -- we are going to suggest that you -try something new here -- that you're going to see in the future when you have two projects that appear unrelated, but have a common factual nexus, we are going to recommend that you hear them together. So, what we are recommending is that you open up the hearing for both Items 16 and 17. When you have heard all the testimony, to close the Public Hearing and, then, consider these items separately. It's -- the reason we are proposing that is for efficiency. Today the facts are relatively short and sweet, but we thought we would get used to this -- this new procedure, because we are going to have some more complex ones coming along that you will be hearing together -- or we'd suggest that you hear together. De Weerd: So, is it common that we are going to start getting these without plats? Baird: That's a separate issue, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, and you might want to address that question to the planning director. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor. Mr. Baird, did you say factual nexus? Rountree: That's a legal term. Baird: Let me put that in -- they are right next to each other. Wardle: Okay. Bird: I was going to say, Joe isn't sitting there yet. De Weerd: Maybe he will interpret for us. Baird: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, I hope that Mr. Borton kicks me if I say that again up here, so -- De Weerd: We will expect that. Mrs. Canning. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the two projects have in common not only their physical location, but a concept plan, and that's part of why we are asking you to hear it tonight -- together tonight. Sorry. This is the McGee property and it's approximately 14.81 acres. It's part of Kachina Estates Subdivision. This is the Carrington property and it's 5.15 acres and it is, again, a lot in the Kachina Estates Subdivision. As you can see, there has been -- these are the first lots in Kachina Estates to be further subdivided, but everything around them has subdivided. There is an existing home that faces Locust Grove on the Carrington property. There are two homes, actually, one and two, on the McGee property. They have submitted a conceptual plan. I'll go through that a little bit. It's a little hard to see. These are the remaining lots in Kachina Estates. This is the entry road. Mesa Drive. So, they come Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 26 of 43 and they follow the Ten Mile and with lots around it. There is an existing home lot. Some of the lots take direct access from Mesa Way. Here is another existing home lot. They have one connection to Victory Road. It, then, moves up north. You have two small cul-de-sac lots. You have the third existing home lot, which, as proposed, still takes access off Victory Road. There is a development agreement proposed by staff to go along with this application and I'll highlight some of that and, then, that was a topic of -- you'll see that these were a topic of discussion by the Planning and Zoning Commission as well. In the DA we proposed that prior to any building permit for new development being released on this site that the subject property, whether it's the McGee property by itself or the Carrington property by itself, but that it come in for a preliminary plat approval prior to any new construction. And that the existing homes all be located within that subdivision, that they can't exclude those existing homes from the proposed subdivisions. In the case of the Carrington property, there was a great deal of discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission as to whether or not the existing home should have to take access from within the street or -- within the subdivision or whether they could continue to take access from Locust Grove. The planning commission decided that they couldn't agree on anything that night and that they would decide that with the preliminary plat application. So, they removed the requirement that that home take access from within the proposed subdivision. The Planning and Zoning Commission -- at this point I'm going to -- that was the discussion that covered both -- both applications. At this point I'm going to switch to individual discussions, because I'm getting confused. Sorry. So, I'm going to go with the McGee property as shown here. The development agreement also talks about providing a ten foot wide multi-use pathway from Victory Road to Mesa Way. So, there is Victory Road to Mesa Way. Along the Ten Mile Creek. That development would not commence until either FEMA approves a map revision and the flood designation has been revised for the Ten Mile Creek or until they modify the concept plan to accommodate that -- the existing flood plane. When the preliminary plat is submitted it would have all 14.81 acres and that when the preliminary plat is submitted they would have one public street access and no driveways to Victory Road as shown here. The existing home that currently faces Victory Road would have access along a public street. They also, in the development agreement, want to include a provision that this would be public streets and not private streets. And, then, the general discussion of where appropriate stub streets would be within the property. Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval at the November 17th hearing. Eric Cronin, Martin Artis, Aaron McGee all spoke in favor. nike, maybe, Binford and Richard Yarrington spoke in opposition. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the existing and future access to Victory Road. Requiring all 14.81 acres to be part of a future subdivision. Whether the R-4 zoning and density transition from -- was appropriate to transition from five acre lots. And that the -- holding a neighborhood meeting prior to submitting preliminary plat application to the city. They did not make any substantive changes to staff's initial recommendation. The outstanding issues were not ones that were discussed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. It is the larger question as mentioned by the Mayor prior to the hearing, is is it appropriate to annex this property at this time without a preliminary plat application. And is the R-4 zoning appropriate. The neighbors have called since the initial -- or since the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing asking more about the R-2 zoning, Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 27 of 43 whether that would be more appropriate. So, that would appear to be an outstanding issue. You do have Findings for approval with -- and I do want to mention that these are individual development agreements. The two are not currently linked to one another as written. So, that means that as the development agreement and Findings are written, this one could come in for a preliminary plat application without necessarily bringing this one in and vice-versa. Although, the way the concept plan is shown, the Carrington property would certainly appear to depend upon the McGee property coming at least first, if not concurrently. Moving now to the Carrington property. De Weerd: Anna? Canning: Yes, ma'am. De Weerd: Before you move on, it would appear, too, that they would be utilizing the open requirement with the other development. Canning: Madam Mayor, I don't know that they have -- oh, I see what you mean. This is the only open space lot in the concept plan, so this is an existing home lot. They would have to came -- if they came in separately, they would have to meet the requirements for a subdivision, the five percent open space as required. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Canning: The development agreement for the Carrington property had fewer site specific provisions. One was prior to issuance of any building permit the subject property would be subdivided, as mentioned before, and that it bring in the full 5.15 acres. And, again, the one that -- public road and not private streets shall be constructed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval at their November 17th hearing. Eric Cronin spoke in favor and Vince Sullivan and Richard Yarrington spoke in opposition. The key issues of discussion were the existing and future access to Victory Road. Requiring all 5.15 acres to be part of the future subdivision. Landscaping along Locust Grove Road. Irrigation water and delivery -- or water delivery. The key Commission changes were to amend bullet number eight in the proposed development agreement regarding landscaping along Locust Grove Road. To allow for some alternative compliance, the existing home would be in the required buffered area, so they would need some alternative compliance regarding that issue. And to remove bullet number ten in the proposed development agreement, which that was the one that prohibited direct lot access to Locust Grove Road. And as I mentioned before, the Commission decided to revisit that issue when the plat was submitted in the future. The outstanding issues are the same. Is it appropriate to annex now without a preliminary plat. We have seen this on commercial applications, but to my knowledge this is the first residential application that we have seen this type of request on. And very different issues. And, then, is the R-4 zoning appropriate in this location. Again, you have Findings for approval and I do have -- if the Commission chooses -- I'm sorry. If the Council chooses to approve these applications, staff does ask that one of the development agreement conditions be slightly modified and that's that first one that I Meridian City Council December 13. 2005 Page 28 of 43 have already -- that I have spoken or referenced that prior to issuance of any building permit we would ask that that be clarified to be any bUilding permit for new construction, not to prohibit them from getting an electrical permit on an existing home to address a safety issue or a small addition to the house or anything like that. It was, really, for new construction. And with that I'll answer any questions that you may have. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, would you go back to the overall view where we got -- it shows the other subs around it. What are the -- how would -- Carringtons would have to come in first to make McGee contiguous to the city. Canning: Oh, as far as -- you have an annexation path on the south. Bird: Okay. Yeah. Okay. I just -- what are those subs around there? Aren't they R- 4s? Because that one over there is an R-8, I believe. Canning: I think this might be R-8 and, then, these are R-4s. So, to the south -- I'm sorry. For the record, to the south R-8 and a small portion of the subs to the east is R- 8, but by and large everything is R-4. Bird: Thank you. Thanks. Canning: The Comprehensive Plan does have a different designation on this portion, though. This is shown as low density residential. Whereas, the other properties are shown as medium density residential. Bird: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and address. Cronin: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Eric Cronin, working with Roylance and Associates representing both clients, Marty Artis and Mark Carrington this evening. De Weerd: If you will state your address. Cronin: Oh. 391 West State Street, Eagle, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Cronin: We have submitted for annexation and rezone to an R-4 designation and at this time the concept plat that we have -- or concept sketch for illustration of what we would like to do with the R-4 zone and it's not tied down in any -- a hundred percent fashion Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 29 of 43 and we just want to take it one step at a time here in front of you guys to get the zoning designation and get it annexed into the city. But as you have seen, the areas all around this future proposed development would be -- are either R-8 or R-4 and to continue with that within the City of Meridian, there is -- the only chunk that's without higher density and so I believe it would be a good blend with what is going along in the area out there around Locust Grove and Victory. And as we move further into a preliminary plat development we will discuss further issues with, you know, open space and whether both come together as one at preliminary plat or not. But at this time we are asking for annexation and rezone to R-4 designation and, as Anna indicated, there has been -- a development agreement has indicated -- or will be revisited about allowing direct lot access at the Carrington property along Victory Road -- or, excuse me, Locust Grove and as well as do some sort of alternate compliance in the future regarding the buffer width. So, I'll entertain any questions you have at this time. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I ask this question out of curiosity. It seems to me that this is kind of a trial balloon to get a sense from the city whether or not this is a conversion that would be acceptable to the city and I just -- is that the sense that the applicant wants? Is this something that's going to be acceptable? I have a difficult time looking at a subdivision and annexation and all the things that follow without something a little more concrete than a concept. Cronin: Well, Councilmember Rountree -- Rountree: Well, it's jingle bells. Here you go. Cronin: Our concept plan shows an R-4 and this is our applicant and this is what they would like to see be completed out there, so it's not necessarily a trial run, but we were just working out a few issues with -- you know, what could be done with access along Locust Grove and figured get the annexation and rezoning to R-4 designation, which this concept plan shows and, then, move forward with that once -- I mean we are not going to go ahead and crumple this up and start from scratch by any means. We'd like to follow what you guys see here into a preliminary plat stage to be further introduced to you guys. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions? Cronin: Did that answer your question? Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 30 of 43 Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Thank you. Canning: Madam Mayor, Councilmember Rountree, I should explain one thing. The development agreement did not -- or does not currently recommend tying the development to this concept plan, because, quite honestly, staff had a number of concerns with the concept plan and that's why you see the number of conditions there are regarding connections to the street, regarding public versus private streets. We wanted to take the concepts that are shown in the concept plan that we agreed with, but there were quite a few things that we weren't as comfortable with in the concept plan. Cronin: May I add at the point we did -- we asked for annexation and rezone and kind of come through the process since something before October and, then, it seems like we were to -- if you were to ask us to come back with a preliminary plat with this platted, then, at that time after annexation and rezone it just seems like we took all this effort to, you know, introduce what we were doing and, you know, what I feel is a pretty good manner showing you what we would like to do and, yet, things could be worked out in the future with staff to make sure that the preliminary plat meets your guys' expectations, but to push us back -- all the way back and say, okay, start from scratch and bring it all to us, seems like, you know, all this work was done for nothing to -- when we weren't trying to, you know, sneak around anything, just bring it up to you guys and -- De Weerd: Well, I'm sure Council -- or I'm sure staff must have told you that Council does like to see a preliminary plat with annexation, so -- Cronin: And at that time I asked would a concept sketch work and they said yes and they didn't say, no, you're going to have to put it on paper and ask for preliminary plat at that time. They said submitting a concept sketch would do for annexation and rezone. De Weerd: I guess we have had a nightmare with a concept plan before, so -- Canning: And if I might represent my own self on that issue, staff made it very clear that you were used to seeing preliminary plats, there is nothing in code that prohibits them from only requesting annexation, but I did explain that it was a risky proposition, that it mayor may not work. So, staff has been clear that at a minimum we required the concept plan to move forward, but that it wasn't the preferred alternative. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Cronin: Thanks. De Weerd: Okay. Is there further testimony? I do have several people signed up, in addition to Mr. Artis. Aaron McGee is signed up for. If when I read your name if you'd like to come up, certainly, you are welcome. Okay. Mrs. Binford. Is that Anike? Meridian Cily Council December 13. 2005 Page 31 of 43 Binford: It's Anike. De Weerd: Anike. Thank you. Signed up against. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Binford: Okay. My name is Anike Binford and I reside with my husband and children at 3101 South Mesa Way. De Weerd: Thank you. Binford: That's the street running the farthest over here on the left. De Weerd: There is a pointer in front of you. Binford: I'll use that in just a minute, probably. De Weerd: Okay. Binford: We bought our property not only because of the five acre lot size, but because all the homes within this subdivision also had large lots, which created an open space feeling. We also purchased, because of the limited number of homes sites and traffic on this dead end street. We understood that growth was inevitable and that the surrounding farmland would eventually become subdivisions with standard size lots and all the houses to go with them. However, we never expected that such a subdivision would be built within our own fully established neighborhood. We are opposed to the zoning change at the land located at 3086 Mesa Way to R-4. R-4 is not consistent with the density of the established subdivision of Kachina Estates located on Mesa Way. Kachina Estates consists of 13 home sites on five to seven acre lots, all running on Mesa Way. Splitting the land at 3086 Mesa Way and building homes that close together will create a conflict of density and will not be compatible with the existing esthetics and feel of Kachina Estates Subdivision. This will result in a negative impact on the value of our homes in our neighborhood. I have consulted with experienced realtors concerning this issue and all agree that R-4 development on Mesa Way would drop the value of the homes within Kachina Estates. If we were to put our house on the market as it stands today, our listing would read as home and five acres on dead end street within large acreage subdivision. If the land at 3086 Mesa Way is developed as R-4, potential buyers would question why there is a small lot subdivision located within the large acreage subdivision they are considering. The selling point of being a quiet, dead end street, with only 13 home sites would be taken away because of the proposed access road on Mesa Way. We request that the land located on and directly facing Mesa Way be considered for R-2 or less, rather than R-4. R-2 would be more consistent with the current density of the existing neighborhood. Due to the fact that the land located at 3086 Mesa Way is enclosed within an established large acre subdivision, we would request that this ground be designated as the largest lots proposed within this development. This would help to ease the transition from RUT. Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 32 of 43 Zoning the land on Mesa Way as R-2 versus R~4 would maintain Kachina Estates as a larger lot subdivision and;-therefore, help to protect our homes and the lifestyle that we are used to on our larger acre lots. We would also request that any homes built on Mesa Way have the same setback as the existing home at 3086 Mesa Way. And I don't know if I can even see -- my husband might be better with his -- this is Mesa and as you can see, these are all large lot homes in here. This is our lot right here. This is the area on Mesa Way -- they are calling it the McGee property. It, actually, is this five acre parcel and, then, these along here. Our biggest concern is with what they put in right here. We just -- we feel like, you know, we have large acre homes we bought in a subdivision that was already fully developed and it just seems a little bit silly for someone to pull in and drive through this sub that, you know, it's all just larger acreages and, then, have little tiny houses on one of the lots within the sub just doesn't make any sense to us. So, we are a little concerned about, you know, the value of our home and just the whole open space feel of it. If we wanted to, you know, buy a house in a neighborhood that had tiny little houses or even just houses packed together, you know, like you said earlier where you could touch one ~- you know, stand at one and touch the other, that's where we would have bought. We have bought in an area that we thought would be protected from that, so -- and earlier the gentleman spoke about how -- if you switch to one of the other -- yes. He was talking about how everything else around the McGee property is all developed, you know, he's talking about all the other subdivisions are now R-4 or R-B, he's forgetting this is a subdivision and we are not R-4 or R-B, nor do we want to be. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions, Council? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Also signed up is Matt Binford signed up against. M. Binford: I don't know if I can top that. Rountree: You can try. De Weerd: He said ditto on his wife's testimony. Binford: As well he should. De Weerd: Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony? M.Binford: Matt Binford, 3101 Mesa Way. The other concern I had, too, is where this road goes in. Ten Mile is a creek. It's, actually, not an irrigation canal. And it looks like you're putting a road right next to a canal. I don't know if the developer has actually met with the Corps of Engineers or referenced those individuals to see if runoff from the road -- if the appropriate setback is set from that road. So, it's more of a question than a -- Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 33 of 43 De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you, sir. Is there any further testimony? If there is not, would the applicant like to have the opportunity to respond? If you will restate your name for the record. Cronin: Eric Cronin, Roylance and Associates, 391 West State Street, Eagle, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Cronin: I feel their concerns and I -- when we went to the drawing board, you look at the Camp Plan and it was my understanding it was low to medium density within -- once it was annexed into the city that's the Camp Plan that we were to be designing off of and that's what generated our Camp Plan -- or, excuse me, our sketch plat here. As we have indicated, it is a sketch plat. Things can change of opinion, something you look at as well as we do, and we believe the low to medium residential R-4 meets the area outside the box a little bit better than an R-2 zoning. And I guess that's all I have got to say. Any other questions for myself? De Weerd: Did you have a response to Mr. Binford's question as far as the road along side the drainage creek? Cronin: As far as drainage, we would, obviously, not drain right into Ten Mile Creek. At time of preliminary plat application what -- we would consult -- or the -- I would assume that the Corps of Engineers, different irrigation districts, et cetera, would require anything to be -- any requirements that they do have be addressed at that time. So, yeah, those things will be looked into and there is no skating around that at all. De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Madam Mayor. There was testimony to the effect that in order to -- and these are my words ~- buffer between the large lots, low density subdivision, and this transition piece, to have an intermediate zoning on Mesa Drive, which would be an R-2, which would be half acre plus lots, is that something the applicant is agreeable to? I mean these are the kinds of things we deal with with preliminary plats, so I'll take you back to that point. Cronin: Exactly. Yeah. And I understand that and I mean we are going to do, obviously, what the Council informs us to do on that matter, but I guess right now we are trying to get an R~4 zoning and -- but we would take consideration if a buffer zone is required, a portion, kind of like we saw on the last application, to moving east in that manner in an R-4. Something to be looked at, yes. Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: Any other questions? Bird: Madam Mayor, I do -- Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 34 of 43 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: -- have a follow up to Mr. Rountree's. I also agree -- it looks like -- I don't know what the existing lot -- what size that would be, but we are talking about five lots along there. In my feeble thinking, if we make this as an R-4 designation, then, when the preliminary plat comes through we are going to have a hard time making those existing five lots R-2s, if we have already zoned it as R-4s for their preliminary plat. I would like an answer right now if they would be willing to go with this annexation of having anything that faces Mesa an R-2 lot. Cronin: I looked at the applicants and it appears that they would rather see it as proposed to an R-4. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions from Council? Bird: Just a statement. If they are going to insist on it, I can't support it as a complete R-4. I could support part of it as an R-4, but I can't support it all. Cronin: May I ask Mr. Bird how can we do something at this point so that we are not getting pushed back? I mean I'm just asking. Bird: How we can do it, in my -- this guy will have to tell us yes or no, but my way of thinking is we could make this annexation stipulation that anything that faces Mesa has to be an R-2, the rest of it can be R-4s. And I have no problem with that. But this buffer thing is a real -- and I will tell you probably there is going to be people on Mesa Drive with their five acre deals coming in wanting R-4 zoning there, too. But right now, to make a buffer, I think as a Council we have the obligation to make it as easy a transformation as there is and I think by going just with those lots that face Mesa to the R-2 designation makes it feel a lot better to everybody and look a lot nicer. I have no problem with the R-4 the rest of the place. I'm very happy that you come in with an R-4. But we are just talking about five lots, plus the existing lot as what I'm seeing up there. But if we -- as I understand it, if we give you an R-4 designation, then, when you come back with a preliminary plat, we can't require you to make those R-2s. Baird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Baird. Baird: Members of the Council, this points out the difficulty of trying to consider an annexation and zoning without the preliminary plat. What you had early tonight at the -- on another matter, it was easy to identify specific lots that were going to be one zone and specific lots that were going to be another and, then, the applicant was directed to bring you a specific legal description to separate those two zones. Here you have a concept plan and if you're just going to say, for example, that the lots along Mesa Drive would be one zoning and you don't know how big those lots are going to be, so they Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 35 of 43 don't have -- they won't have proper direction to bring you that legal description to separate between R-2 and R-4. So, unless planning has some other ideas to come up with, I can't see how you can do that with what's before you. Canning; And Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, no, [ don't and I would like to take the opportunity to make one statement and that is I recognize that as a planner in Idaho I don't have many tools to give you when you make a decision. And I do want to remind you that your biggest tool is your decision on whether or not to annex a piece of property, because, then, we can address a lot of the issues or concerns you have with the particular development. In this case they are asking for the annexation and zoning without bringing you that particular development and we have struggled with this on the commercial properties. This is the first time someone has asked this of a residential property, but given the concerns of the neighbors, I think it may be even more of a struggle when we actually try and bring in a preliminary plat to meet your -- to meet the city's needs. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor. Anna, I guess I'm a little confused. Is staff recommending approval of annexation or does staff comment on -- Canning: Given the concerns expressed tonight at this point I would say that it would appear that we are going to be struggling with this if we annex this without a preliminary plat. Wardle: But at the Planning and Zoning hearing staff was comfortable with a concept plan; is that correct? Canning: We had never particularly been comfortable with the concept plan. Yes. And the -- Wardle: It was recommending approval of -- Canning: Yes. And part of it is this is -- at the Planning and Zoning Commission level they tend to deal more with what the ordinance allows and what the ordinance doesn't allow. This is more of a political issue on whether or not annexation is appropriate and we weren't able to guide the Planning and Zoning Commission on what your answer would be. So, I just -- I guess I want to remind you that it's a key outstanding issue on whether this is even appropriate to bring forward to you. And given what I have heard you all say -- or at least Councilmember Rountree and Councilmember Bird say tonight, that I just wanted to remind you that that was an issue still. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 36 of 43 Wardle: Follow-up question. Anna, were we to accept recommendation for approval and approve the annex-ation, what would be the process and the level for the preliminary plat, if there need be, a Conditional Use Permit, where would those be approved at? Canning: The Council would approve the plat. Wardle: Okay. Canning: The -- if there were -- Wardle: A development agreement. Canning: Yes. And you would approve the development agreement. If there were a Conditional Use Permit, it would depend on whether it was tied to the request as to whether or not you would approve it. But you would approve the plat. Wardle: Thank you. De Weerd: Now, Anna, as a break-in point, there is three pieces -- three parcels, it looks like, in this annexation request. Well, four if you count the second application. But can you break it at the one -- at the one parcel and designate that as an R-2 and the other -- the two to the east of it as an R-4? Is that a logical break? Canning: Well, it's logical for the purposes of preparing a legal description, but it may not be logical for purposes of a plat that they propose. The lot -- the annexation -- or, I'm sorry, the zone boundary or district boundary needs to follow either the center line or the lot lines of a yet undefined preliminary plat. De Weerd: Okay. So, I guess there is a couple of choices here. We can annex it and zone it R-4 in its entirety. You can annexation it and zone it R-2 in it's entirety. Or you can deny it. Is there one other option there, Mr. Baird? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Can I ask just real quick -- and maybe Mr. Baird might not know, but has the Council historically been able to down grade a zoning without the applicant's permission or request, I guess, is a question from me. Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Wardle, I was thinking of that exact question. You have got a specific request and the applicant has given you indications that they are inflexible in anything other than that request. So, it would probably make the most sense to go either up or down specific to that request, because that's what's before you. Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 37 of 43 De Weerd: I guess I wou~d ask in the Comp Plan it is designated low density, but we do allow a one step up. You know, if you annexation it according to its Comprehensive Plan designation, you're still abiding by your own plan, even though they didn't request it. Baird: Madam Mayor, that's correct. I mean it's technically, yes, it's correct. You are creating a situatlon where you have given somebody something that they are not really asking for. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: And Charlie can either confirm or deny, but I don't believe that we have ever -- or would we ever want to change the application for the applicant, unless they are agreeable to it, and as I see it -- that's why I asked the applicant jf he would be agreeable to R-2 along there, because as far as I'm concerned, the application is either annexed and zoned as an R-4, which they have requested, unless they would agree publicly to change some lots, I believe, then, we are obligated to either annex it as R-4 or deny it as R-4. De Weerd: Mr. Bird, I guess I said it was difficult to do, since there is no obvious line, because there is no plat. There is no -- Bird: That's what I mean. What I was thinking when I asked the gentleman here was anything that was facing Mesa Way, could that be -- you know, would they agree to R-2 on that. And that don't really put a line, other than anything that's touching Mesa Way. De Weerd: Mr. Rountree, did you have a question? Rountree: Well, I guess I just had a comment to that, that -- I'm going to ask the question. I don't know -- no answer or an answer to the affirmative in either case probably wouldn't change my mind much about how I feel about this application and these applications, without something more specific than a concept, given our history with concepts and the difficulty they create, not only for the city, but for the applicant, quite frankly. So, we can talk about this all night where we want to go. We can go around in circles trying to get to yes and if we are through talking about it, I would make a motion at this point, just for further comment, so if there is no more questions for the applicant, I would move to close the Public Hearing. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: If the applicant don't have anymore -- Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 38 of 43 Cronin: I don't believe so. I just -- I didn't know the Council didn't enjoy -- not enjoy, but didn't -- have such a hard-feeling about no no on the concept. If that was the feel that I would have come here today and potentially been denied, we might have rethought it at the first point, but we didn't want to go out and beyond what the -- put a whole bunch of work into something that would be denied anyway. Obviously, that's why we are here. And talking to staff it sounded as though what we had submitted was -- would suffice for what needed to be done for annexation and a rezone and I'm getting the feeling that maybe that was never okay by you guys and was kind of false led coming this far just to be kind of say, well, we don't like that and -- De Weerd: I think that staff, though, did give you that proceed at your own risk. Cronin: Not with flashing lights, I don't think so. And maybe -- I mean that's loose, but _ De Weerd: So, I guess subtlety is not accepted, you have to hit them over the head with it. Canning: Yes. I'm known for being so subtle. De Weerd: I know. I'm surprised. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: It's not that we never have approved an annexation without a preliminary plat, but we certainly do encourage preliminary plats -- or at least this is one Councilman who does. De Weerd: And I think we have learned from that and especially in the residential end. Commercial is a little bit different. But when you have a residential component and it's up against residences, the only time, really, you have an opportunity is to do it with the plat, so the neighbors have an opportunity for meaningful testimony. Cronin: Yeah. I mean I guess it just should be stated for residential subdivisions to be considered for annexation and rezone that a preliminary plat be provided with and not just a concept plan. Baird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Baird. Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think your action on this tonight, no matter how it comes out, will give clear direction to staff and to the planning commission Meridian City Council December 13. 2005 Page 39 of 43 on how you would prefer to see these matters in the future. So, I would encourage you to take that opportunity to-provide that direction tonight. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Baird. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I call the question. De Weerd: Okay. I didn't have a second. There is a motion to close the Public Hearing. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Baird: And, Madam Mayor, to make it clear, we are closing both public hearings? De Weerd: Yes, I am. We are -- the motion has already been said. All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Motion on Item 16. Do I have a motion on Item 16? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I got a statement for the applicant. And this is just a statement. We have in the past had a lot of R-8s that come in around R-4s and the applicants have been very good, which I think Anna can attest to, of making the lots that butt up to the R-4s, making them large like an R-4 within the R-8 and that's, basically, what we are asking of the applicant on this, just to make the Mesa ones something different. De Weerd: I guess I would take it one step further. I think what is being done on the east side of Mesa does set a precedent as to what's going to happen down the road and those are nice homes. It does risk a great investment and, you know, it is an urban area, but who would think that those nice large lots would be developed at those densities. It is nice to have the transition and that's what Council has been -- had a dedication to, seeing how we can transition particular situations like this and we will start getting that as we reach out into some of the developed county areas as well. So, with that said I -- Rountree: Madam Mayor, I guess I'd make a comment -- Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 40 of 43 De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: -- on some of the learning that we might have done here this evening, both the applicants, residents, and Planning and Zoning staff, is that we are concerned about access to major facilities. I would have concern with this if it advances that properties that would remain with current access continue to have access on major arterials or minor arterials or collectors, for that matter. So, I would like to see those lots would access via the subdivision, as opposed to -- in this case Locust Grove or Victory. That we are consistent with the idea that the Council receives something more than a concept in terms of a development and that the concept at the preliminary plat is developed to the degree that it's been vented with the neighbors and an opportunity for the neighbors to have input, even though this neighborhood is not part of the city, nor will a portion of it be part of the city in the future. That we maintain our policy that talks about buffering development and I see no difference here than what Councilman Bird just talked about, that we have been consistent talking about buffering, whether it's R- 15, R-8, R-4, whatever, that's -- and that is a policy of the city. So, that's the kind of learning we can do here. Is this a particularly bad proposition for the city? Without something concrete I can tell you our experience without concrete proposals, it's bad for the city and it's bad for the applicant. We get into these continuous dialogues about, well, you did this six months ago and I assumed that this is what you meant and there is an expectation on the part of the applicant, there is an expectation on the part of the city, and there is an expectation on the part of the public that either came to support or oppose the project. And we have nothing concrete to support any of those expectations without a preliminary plat. So, having said that's what I learned tonight and, hopefully, everybody else takes away a little nugget out of this thing and we go forward. I don't know what we are going to do with this application, but I just had to say that. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Rountree. Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, I'll expunge my nugget of wisdom that I took out of this. De Weerd: Expunge. Wardle: First off, I agree with a certain portion of the comments made about viabillty of the application and the ability to have a concrete plat in place. However, I disagree with the specific suggestion that R-4 is not an appropriate zoning for this piece of property. I disagree with some of the comments from the public that R-4 zoning designation indicates little tiny houses. That does not, in my experience, happen in the City of Meridian, and so I think I know where the applicant is going, but I'm not voting in the negative, because I -- for the single purpose that I feel that an R-4 designation would be appropriate at this location. De Weerd: Thank you. Now, you have heard the gamut. Do I have a motion? Meridian City Council December 13, 2005 Page 41 of 43 Rountree: Madam Mayor, I will move to get discussion. I move that we deny the request for annexation for-.ltem 16, AZ 05-048 and Item 17, AZ 05-049. Canning: And direct staff to prepare new Findings? Rountree: And direct staff to prepare appropriate Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Bird: I will second that. De Weerd: Okay. The motion -- the motion is to deny Items 16 and 17 and instruct staff to prepared the appropriate Findings. Is there any discussion? Mr. Bird, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Donnell; absent. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Item 18: Ordinance No. 05w1207 AZ 05-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 15.32 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Hollvbrook Subdivision by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item No. 18 is Ordinance No. 05-1207. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read this ordinance by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 05-1207, an Ordinance for annexation of property located in the southwest quarter of Section 31, Township 4 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territory situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said lands from R-1 to R-8 in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of the ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, the Idaho State Tax Commission as required by law and providing a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date. De Weerd: Okay. You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety? Hearing none, I would accept a motion on this item. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Meridian City Council December 13. 2005 Page 42 of 43 Wardle: I move that we approve Item 18, Ordinance No. 05-1207, with suspension of rules. De Weerd: Do I have a second? Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a second on approving Item 18. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell; absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 19: Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345 (1) (f): De Weerd: Okay. Item 19 is an Executive Session. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1 )(f). Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Invited participants would be Mrs. Canning, Mr. Brady, Mr. Watson, Mr. Baird, and Council Elect Borton. And Mr. Berg. One big party. Bird: One big party. De Weerd: So, Mr. Berg, will you, please call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell; absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. EXECUTIVE SESSION: De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session. Bird: So moved. Rountree: Second. Meridian City Council December 13. 2005 Page 43 of 43 De Weerd: Okay, all those in favor say aye. THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MOTION CARRIED. De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Bird: So moved. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor? THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:06 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR T ( / 3 / //6 DATE APPROVED ATTESTE : ~ ' '-. ,.;,., :.1 .!.."