Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 05-16 Meridian City Council Meetinq May 16. 2006 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, May 16, 2006, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, Shaun Wardle, and Joe Borton. Others Present Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Bob Stowe, Kenny Bowers, Len Grady, Stacy Kilchenmann, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X Shaun Wardle X Charlie Rountree X X Joe Borton X Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and call this meeting to order. Good evening. It is Tuesday, May 16th. It is 7:30. We apologize for the late start. I will begin with roll call attendance. Mr. Berg. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: De Weerd: Item 2 is the pledge of allegiance. Tonight we will be led by Sidney Edwards. If you will all rise. (Pledge of allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Fred Thompson, with Meridian Assembly of God: De Weerd: Sidney, I'd like to present you with a pin for the City of Meridian for leading us tonight. Thank you. Okay. Item NO.3 is the community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Pastor Fred Thompson. He is with the Meridian Assembly of God Church. Welcome. If you will all join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of silence. Thompson: Heavenly Father, we ask that you grant the leaders of our growing city the wisdom and courage to process the business before them in a way that glorifies your name. Give each Council Member a sense of the right way to vote on issues. On difficult decisions grant your special insight and wisdom. We are aware that in the Christian Bible James wrote if any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God who gives generously to all without finding fault and it will be given to him. On simpler decisions, Lord, grant your peace. Thank you, Lord, for wisdom that comes from heaven, which Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 2 of 57 is, first of all, pure, then, peace loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. These things we ask in Jesus' name, amen. De Weerd: Pastor, I'd like to thank you for joining us and I have a pin for you, too. Thank you. I don't know, I guess I should ask Council if they had a little bit longer in prayer, because nothing is simple. Bird: We can always use all we can get. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: I know. We appreciate your invocation and, again, welcome. Council, No. 4 is adoption of the agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: j move that we approve the agenda as published and that would include Item 20, which is Ordinance No. 06-1232. Approve the adoption of it. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Councilmember Bird, we did have a request to pull G from the Consent Agenda, so 5-G. Bird: Yeah. De Weerd: Mr. Bird, do you want that noted in your motion or do you want it under Consent? Bird: [was just going to do it when I did the Consent Agenda. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve the adoption of the agenda as presented. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of April 18, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: B. Sewer Reimbursement Aqreement with Strada Bellissima, LLC: Meridian City Council May 16,2006 Page 3 of 57 C. Aqreement for Installation of Electrical and Controls for WWTP Entrance Gate by Custom Electric: D. Development Agreement: RZ 04-011 Request for a Rezone of 9.16 acres from R-8 to C-C zone for Cairns Crossinq Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. - south of West Cherry Lane and east of Under Road: E. SHP 05-001: Request for Short Plat Approval of ConQlomerate Consisting of 4 Commercial Building Lots on 4.276 Acres in a C-G zone by Afton Pacific, LLC: F. SHP 06-003: Request for Short Plat Approval of Quenzer Commons Condominiums No.2 Consisting of 16 Condominium Units on 4 parcels of Ground on 2.12 Acres in a C-N zone by Brighton Commercial, Inc.: H. Chanqe Order No. 1 for the Landinq Lift Station Proiect with JUB Engineers, Inc.: I. Approve Beer and Wine License Renewal for ChinaTown's Quik-Wok Restaurant at 3055 E. Fairview Avenue Ste. 200: J. Contract for DesiQn of Ten Mile Diversion Sewer Phase 2 with JUS Engineers, Inc.: De Weerd: Item 5 is the Consent Agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: That's been requested to pull Item G off the agenda completely, as things are not ready. And with that I move we approved the revised agenda and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all papers. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Department Reports: Meridian City Council May 16.2006 Page 4 of 57 A. Finance Department - Stacy Kilchenmann 1. Quarterly Financial Statement: De Weerd: Okay. Item 6-A, our finance department. Stacy. Kilchenmann: Good evening. I will be quick. I'm not going to spend -- unless there is specific questions -- so, the quarter actually ended in March and we are already in May, but unless there is specific questions, I'm not going to talk about the statements themselves. What I want to do is just update you a little bit on the budget process and where we are. We -- all the departments have turned in their enhancement requests and we have compiled lists of those on the summaries. We are done compiling the base budget and I just put in front of you the revenue manual for FY-07 in the back -- right in the back you should have the details. I want to really -- I'm going to talk just a little bit about some things that we are going to need to pay some attention to in this year's budget process. One of them is the Enterprise Fund revenue is shrinking in comparison to the cost, so we have spent a week with the Public Works department -- well, it's been two days, but it seems like a week. Kind of grueling over this and they have substantially changed the enhancements they are requesting and we are looking at the details to try to figure out where in the revenue structure we need to make some changes. It's been an evolving process. One of the things that's happened in the last couple years is that we started -- before Enterprise Fund revenue was always taken as a total and compared to the total expenses and Brad, which rightly so, thought that that wasn't necessarily representative. So, in 2002 when he redid the fee structure, we separated out operations which is funded by the fees we charge for water and sewer usage, and connect the construction, which is funded by the connection fees, when somebody builds a new home and connects to water and sewer. So, we have kind of gone back and reconstructed what that would be in the past if we had done it that way. And there is a couple of things that have happened on the usage fee side. One is that we have started charging them -- or in the last few years we charge them overhead for Public Works and we also charge a part of the General Fund. Are you guys passing notes? De Weerd: Yes. Bird: Yes. Kilchenmann: Do you want to read them to the class? So, I kind of did a worksheet -- Bird: He's the go between. Kilchenmann: Okay. All right. He's the middle man. Rountree: Do you want me to read it? Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 5 of 57 Kilchenmann: No. I did a worksheet that you can look at that just shows how the indirect costs have increased. So, we will probably need to go back to the base fee we charge to cover the indirect costs and increase that. And, then, I did a comparison of the direct costs, which would be the costs of like the water meters and so forth, just the costs unique to the plant themselves and, then, on the revenue side there are a lot of other factors in there. I just picked out the revenue -- usage revenue itself, but, in reality, we have interest and we have -- we have had latecomers fees in the past and we have third-party billing fees and miscellaneous fees. So, when we sit down and do the budget this year, we will need to be making some decisions about what we are going to do with the fees, how soon we are going to do it. We will have to look at those General Fund transfers we make. So, it's going to be a little tougher than it has been in the past. I'm just forewarning you. Although Brad's done a lot of work to cut it down. On the General Fund side, just -- I will just go back to the current year for the quarter. We are ahead of revenue, just because the sales tax revenue has been strong in Idaho and that -- probably there is no indication that won't continue throughout the year. And, then, our interest is a little higher. Surprisingly, we are getting the highest interest rates from our checking account, because interest -- short-term interest is so high. So, if anybody is so interested and they look at our investment portfolio and see a lot of money in cash, which is not something we should do, and that's why. So, are there any questions? De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: That's a great job again, Stacy. Kilchenmann: So, let me know if anyone has questions on the revenue manual as suggestions or if you find some hidden revenue that I overlooked or-- De Weerd: I hope J do. Kilchenmann: I hope so, too. Thank you. B. Mayor's Office 1. Request for Approval to Negotiate Contract for Construction Manager & Architect: De Weerd: Okay. Council, Item 6-B under number one, the request for approval to negotiate contract for the construction manager and architect. In front of you are the recommendations from our selection committee for construction management. The selected firm was Petra General Contractors and in the architectural services it was Lombard Conrad Architects. These are names that the committees have -- the committee has brought forward and the next step is to enter into negotiations. I would need Council approval for us to move into that stage. We do have representatives from Lombard Conrad, Russ Moorhead. And for Petra is Jerry Frank and Michael Nye. If Meridian City Council May 16,2006 Page 6 of 57 you would stand up, gentlemen? So, we appreciate you joining us this evening. Thank you. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we have our negotiation team move in to negotiate with Lombard Conrad Architects and Petra Construction for Architectural and Construction Management of the new City Hall. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Discussion? Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, just for the public, could you briefly outline the committee's task and their meetings and how they came at this decision and any things that might have the public record after that. De Weerd: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Wardle. We put out bid for Construction Manager and Architect services for a new City Hall project. That went out in March, I believe. We did meet once with our committee. At that time we had approximately -- and this is off the top of my head, so -- about 13 members. We did a review of the applications for construction managers. We had ten bids or RFQs, proposals, and seven in our architectural services. Then we rated those through the documents that were submitted and selected the top three. Those top three were, then, interviewed by a slightly smaller committee, because not everyone could be there on that day, and the ratings are there in front of you and the two names I'm bringing to you this evening to move forward with are Petra and LCA. Was that a brief enough synopsis? Wardle: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I have certainly read through the proposals and just wanted to -- for those that weren't involved in the process to understand that we had a very open process with the committee and that had come at this through all of our policies and procedures and arrived at these top two candidates, so -- De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Berg, as well as Mr. Baird, they helped shepherd us through this process to make sure that all the I's were dotted and T's were crossed, to make sure it was fair. We did record the interviews for any consideration by Council, if you wanted to listen to those, and so it was a very open and transparent process. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I just wanted to extend my thanks to city staff and the elected officials that participated, as well as the citizens that participated in the committee. Going through 17 Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 7 of 57 proposals is no easy task and trying to evaluate them and come out with what's perceived as and what actually is a fair and unbiased selection is tough work and I appreciate your effort and looking forward to a new City Hall that is a fruit of their efforts. De Weerd: Well, we are very pleased to bring these names in front of you tonight. I can tell you in our top three in both categories the city definitely couldn't have gone wrong, but I can also say that the selected firms showed energy and excitement and we look forward to working together with them. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 2. Committee Appointments: De Weerd: Thank you. And thank you, gentleman. You will be getting a call I think at 8:00 o'clock a.m. tomorrow to set a date. The next item is committee appointments. This will be the negotiation team. Council, I would ask your approval of the appointment of the negotiating team, which is Will Berg, Keith Bird, Ted Baird, and myself. So, I would like your approval by a motion. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the committee as stated by the Mayor for selection -- or for negotiation of the agreement and contracts for the new City Hall. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve the committee as appointed. These will be coming back in front of you for your final consideration. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll on that. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: De Weerd: Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda. Item 8: Update Report on the Appeal Hearinq for Order to Remove Junk Vehicle bv Steven Cady with Meridian Cherry Lane Mobile Home Park: Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 8 of 57 Item 9: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Order to Remove Junk Vehicle by Steven Cady with Meridian Cherry Lane Mobile Home Park: De Weerd: Item 8 is an update report. Mr. Nary or Ueutenant Stowe, who is -- Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I have had some numerous updates from the code enforcement division since last week's hearing -- appeal hearing on Mr. Cady's case. There are Findings in your packets. According to Mr. Venneman from code enforcement, both at the end of last week, as well as today, he was able to verify that there are no more vehicles or junk property that are now out of -- that are out of compliance on this property. They are now in full compliance with the city code. The Findings, the only recommendation -- or only addition I would have is the Findings reflect the property at 224 West Cherry Lane, but this is, actually, the -- or, excuse me, 424 West Cherry Lane. It's actually property next door, it's 314 West Cherry Lane. And so Mr. Berg can make that amendment, if that's included in your motion, but the Findings are ready for your approval. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Any questions from Council? Okay. If not, I would need a motion. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I would move we approve Item No.8, Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and order to remove junk vehicles by Steve Cady and amend that to 314 West Cherry Lane, Meridian Cherry Lane Mobile Home Park. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. You have heard the motion. We do have a second. Is there any discussion? Okay. Hearing none, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Council, we do have a note from our Planning Director on Cabella Creek. Cabella Creek is not on our agenda tonight. If you're here for that application, it was posted on the property that the hearing would be this evening and it's not on our published agenda. Is there anyone here to hear that application? Well, good. We are glad that no one was misinformed. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 9 of 57 De Weerd: Okay. Item 9 is Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law -- we just did. I'm sorry. Request for waiver. I will ask Mr. Nary to introduce this one. Item 10: Request for a Waiver of the First Year Lease Payment Obliqation Pursuant to the Lease Aqreement for Lakeview Meridian Golf Club: Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I do need to recuse myself from Items 10 and 11. De Weerd: Okay. Borton: So, I'll sit quietly. De Weerd: You're leaving the room, then? Borton: Yes. De Weerd: It's the only way I know of to keep an attorney quiet. Okay. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Nary: On Item 10, the lessees of the Lakeview Meridian Golf Club have made a request to you for the waiver of the first year lease payment obligation pursuant to their lease agreement. This is not a specific condition in their lease, but it was discussed at the time this new [ease was entered into with the operators, that they could come back each year to request the city, based on the number of improvements and the amount of improvements and the cost of those improvements, whether the city would be willing to waive the requirement to pay the annual fee to the city. The current fee under the contract is 6,000 dollars. I see Mr. Davis in the audience. I don't know if he has more information than what was provided in your letter. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Davis, do you have anything to add to what was in your letter? Davis: Not really. De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have any further information that you have need for or do you have any questions for Mr. Davis? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 10 of 57 Bird: I don't hear anybody jumping up to talk, so I move that we approve the waiver of '06's lease payment as stated in the redoing of the lease that -- for each hole he did was worth 2,000 dollars. He's done three holes. So, that's 6,000 dollars and that's our year's deal. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Wardle: Madam Mayor, I would just like to point out that -- and I mean we had a presentation by Dick Davis and Eric Oaas as to the state of the golf course and the improvements they have made this year and certainly feel that that justifies this amendment. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: Approve Aqreement with R.R. Davis Properties. Inc., Lakeview Meridian Investors, LLC and Idaho Independent Bank to grant security interest in Lease for Lakeview Golf Course: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 11. Mr. Nary. Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Item 11 is an agreement with Mr. Davis and the Lakeview Meridian Investors, LLC, and Idaho Independent Bank. I have an agreement prepared by Mr. Freeman, Council for Independent Bank. It has not been signed by all of the parties at this point, but what the gist of it is, there was already an existing agreement with the prior vendors of previously Cherry Lane Golf Course. This is to substitute Mr. Davis into that particular financial arrangement. The city's property -- and Mr. Madison is here from Idaho Independent Bank if I misstate this, but the way I understand this agreement, as well as the prior, the city's ground is not obligated in this agreement, nor is the city indemnifying this agreement. The city has the ability to purchase the improvements on the ground if a foreclosure were to occur, but they are not obligated to do that. So, all it is is it's the original agreement that the city had previously entered into with Cherry Lane Golf Course. It now substitutes the new vendor of Mr. Davis and the Lakeview Meridian Investors, LLC, into their place with the same basic terms and conditions. They do want -- there is some time sensitivity to getting this completed, so if the Council is of a mind to approve this, what I would recommend is that you authorize the Mayor to sign and attest after the other parties have attested to this agreement and, then, therefore, they can get it done probably before your next Council meeting, if that's acceptable to you. Did [ get that right, Mr. Madison? That's the way I read it, so -- Meridian City Council May 16,2006 Page 11 of 57 De Weerd: Okay. Council? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we approve Item No. 11, agreement with R.R. Davis Properties, the Lakeview Meridian Investors, LLC, and Idaho Independent Bank and to direct the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest after other property owners have also signed and attested. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion and a second. Any discussion? Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 12: FP 06-020 Request for Final Plat approval for 12 single-family residential building lots and 1 common lot on 5.47 acres in an R-8 zone for Quenzer Commons Subdivision No. 10 by Brighton Development, Inc. - west of Locust Grove Road and north of Ustick Road: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council, Item No. 12 is FP 06-020. I see that there -- the applicant has agreed with all staff recommendations, so I would entertain a motion. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve FP 06-020. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve Item 12. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg, roll call. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from May 9, 2006: AZ 06-003 Annexation and Zoning of 24.03 acres from RUT to R-8 (12.31 acres), R-15 (8.04 Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 12 of 57 acres) and C-C (3.68 acres) for Hiqhtower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC - southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from May 9, 2006: PP 06-003 Preliminary Plat approval of 106 residential lots, 4 commercial lots, 2 private street lots and 25 common lots on 22.94 acres in proposed R-8, R-15 and C-C zones for Hiqhtower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC - southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from May 9, 2006: CUP 06-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Mixed Use Planned Development that includes single-family detached, townhouse units, commercial uses, private streets, a neighborhood park and a vehicular access to Chinden Boulevard for Hiqhtower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC - southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Items 13,14 and 15 are continued from May 9th. Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a continued public item. The applicant provided a new disk to me to put in the computer and the computer has eaten that disk and now I can't get my computer to work at all. So, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage. The applicant is definitely at a advantage. I don't have anything. Can I have five minutes to just -- or a couple minutes to continue working on this? It's not good. De Weerd: Yes. I apologize to all of those that are in the audience, but we will take a five minute recess. (Recess.) De Weerd: Okay. I'll go ahead and call this meeting to order again. It looks like we have things up and going. Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thank you. And thanks to the city engineer for his kind assistance. This is the Hightower project. This was continued last week for information from the Idaho Transportation Department on the required right of way. We are breaking this hearing up to consider annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, conditional use, and private streets at this time and, then, we will discuss the variance in a little while. The outstanding issues before Council were -- there was one going into the previous hearing and you have had a presentation from staff, so I'm just going to go back to why the issue was tabled for a week. The outstanding issue going into the last hearing was some flag lots. This one in particular, the townhomes, and that -- at that hearing the applicant did agree that these two units would be removed and that these flags would become ten feet in width as required by code. Then there was the question of whether the appropriate right of way width was 70 feet or 100 feet and we did coordinate with both Sue Sullivan and Kevin Sublon of Idaho Transportation Meridian City Council May 16,2006 Page 13 of 57 Department and they are asking for 70 feet in this location. And, then, finally -- I'm not going to discuss the variance, but when we get to the variance application, one of the recommendations from staff is that we add a condition of approval into the development agreement. So, we asked that you not take action on the annexation until the variance item is heard. So, this may get a little confusing, but I think what needs to happen is that you can go ahead and hold the Public Hearing, you could probably close the Public Hearing on the preliminary plat and the Conditional Use Permit if you would like, but, then, we ask that you continue those items for their final decision until after you hear the variance and then -- but you can't make a decision on the variance until you have approved the annexation. So, Bill may be able to explain that a little better than I just did. Which ever way you do it it gets rather confusing, but -- so we do ask that you consider that before you close all the public hearings on these items. And with that the applicant does have his presentation for you from last week and they got into some of the issues last week, but did not give a full overview of the project, so they would like to do that. I'll answer any questions you may have right now. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any questions, Council? Thank you. The applicant. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Hull: I will. Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Phil Hull with the Land Group, 462 East Shore Drive, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. De Weerd: Thank you. Hull: Since we went over most of the presentation at the City Council meeting last week, I will keep this kind of brief and run through these slides real quickly. Just to remind everyone, our site is located right here between Locust Grove and Meridian Road and there is a neighborhood center designation on the Comp Plan at that location. So, we are proposing a mixed use development with three commercial lots up front and some R-15 zoning behind it, feathering back into R-8, as it feathers back into the Saguaro Canyon project. This slide shows buffer areas up front along Chinden with sidewalk, which we confirmed at the last meeting it was going to be ten feet, instead of the five feet that we were showing. We have got buffer areas along Jericho here as well. We have got a sound -- sound wall in front of the townhome area there. And the layout of the commercial area, we broke that up into smaller -- smaller buildings to kind of get away from the strip mall look and make it more of a neighborhood center feel, with -- just make it more walkable with plaza spaces at each entrance and separated sidewalks and whatnot, so you flow through all the way through it and cut down on -- basically cut down on vehicle trips, trying to attract the neighbors within this area into that commercial area. As you go back into the single family residential area, we have a couple of different product types back there. In the central area here around the park site, a one acre park site here, we have homes that back up onto that park site that are alley loaded and on the opposite side of the alley we have homes with the front porches up on the streetscape there. Throughout development we have separated sidewalks with an eight foot planter strip with a five foot walk, with street trees on all the lot lines. And, again, that park site in the center has multiple amenities, such as a gazebo, tot lot, Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 14 of 57 open space play area, barbecue pits, that sort of thing, that provides recreation for the residents. And, again, as staff mentioned, we also agreed to remove these two townhomes to create a park site here, so that these homes would front on that and have a much nicer view, as opposed to looking at the sides of some homes. And that's located here on the site plan, identical to what we are proposing on the north side here. And with that I'll stand for questions. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions, Council? Bird: I don't have any at this time. De Weerd: Okay. Hull: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there any members of the public who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Hearing none, Anna, do I remember from last week that -- was there not a question about the amount of right of way for Chinden? Was this -- Canning: Yes, ma'am. There was conflicting letters. One said 70, one said 100, but we verified that, indeed, they are looking for 70. The 100 was made as a generalized statement and was not site specific. At this location, because of the other constraints along Chinden, they are only looking for 70 feet of right of way. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, Mr. Nary, I have a procedural question. Anna addressed just briefly. Do we need to close these public hearings and, then, potentially reopen the annexation after hearing the variance or do we need to continue them until after the -- Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Wardle, General Henry Robert could not probably figure this out any easier than we have. What we think is the most appropriate way to handle this matter is to continue -- and what Mrs. Canning suggested is the preliminary plat and the CUP are probably not in play here, but for the sense of ease, if you continue all three of these matters, you can hear the variance, make decisions -- if the variance is going to be granted, to, then, include those conditions into the annexation conditions -- or the development agreement and, then, close your Public Hearing on your variance, go back to your other matters, finish those, and, then, go back to your variance. Courts are real picky about the specificity and order that you do these things, but to hear them to make some sense out of that is what we are hoping to accomplish, so that there isn't a final decision made on the annexation until you have all the information you need in front of you, but then -- and not a final decision on the variance until you have actually approved to annex the property. Those are the two things we are trying to accomplish here and I think this is probably the best way we can do it. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 15of57 De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Nary: That was the short answer. De Weerd: Well, I'm glad you didn't give us the long version. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: With that I would move that we continue Items 13, 14, and 15. Bird: I would second it. De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to continue Items 13 through 15 to after 16. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Continue Public Hearing from May 9,2006: VAR 06-004 Request for a Variance to construct an access to Chinden Boulevard, a State Highway, for Hiqhtower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC - southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: De Weerd: And now, Mr. Rountree, we will see you later. Rountree: I would recuse myself for Item 16. De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and open Item 16, continued Public Hearing from May 9th, V AR 06-004, with Anna's comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, on the -- I'm sorry, for some reason I didn't -- I was on the wrong presentation. That was what confused me. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, on this variance request associated with Hightower, they are proposing one new approach to Chinden Boulevard and that was evident on the preliminary plat site plan. So, you will notice that this does align with the road across the street on Chinden. You will also notice Jericho Road just east of this property. If you look at the vicinity map, the half mile mark is over here. So, we are just a little bit off of the half mile mark. However, this entrance, as noted before, does line up. We started talking to ITD about this quite awhile ago and with the north Meridian plan we worked with Sue Sullivan at ITD to determine that this, actually, would be the best location for the half mile collector system. So, what they have proposed is, indeed, a collector through to at least this point. So, it begins as a collector and, then, it will continue down into Saguaro Canyon. And you will see how it lines up with the street network in Saguaro. So, this will provide access for all of Saguaro Canyon and, then, Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 16 of 57 the subdivision to the west of there, as well as Arcadia and we have got a little bit of Reserve Subdivision here. So, with ITD's acceptance of this as the half mile location, staff has recommended approval of this variance, based solely on ITD's support of that project. Now, the original letter from Kevin Sublon asked the Council to condition the -- condition the variance with Jericho Road being closed and I will go back to that site plan, so you can see Jericho Road. They wanted the Council to condition that this needed to be closed before you granted the variance. Well, staff had concerns about tying those two things together, because ACHD is the -- has final approval over whether that road is closed or not. So, yesterday Sue Sullivan and Kevin Sublon from ITD, as well as Steve Siddoway and Lori Den Hartog from ACHD, all met and what they discussed and consentually agreed to is that the most appropriate recommendation as far as staff was concerned, that regardless of whether Jericho is closed or not, the appropriate location for the half mile collector and future fight is this location here that is being proposed by the applicant. What they have suggested -- and, I'm sorry, Mr. Hull was at that meeting also and he's also agreed to this -- that prior to a final plat being submitted anywhere on this subdivision, that the applicant file an application with the city to vacate this right of way. It would just be from Chinden to this connecting road here. So, it would be the small portion of Jericho. That they file that with the city and with ACHD. And, then, alj the respective agencies can consider that vacating that piece of property at that time, but they will -- they have consented that that would be an appropriate thing to do in the -- because I won't go into that discussion until a future date, but -- so just to -- just to reiterate, though, it wouldn't -- the plat wouldn't necessarily be continued on achieving that vacation, it was just that they submit those two applications -- or vacation requests. So, with that that really summarizes the main issue with this one and I can answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have any questions? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, if I understand you right -- and this is just -- they want to add to the development agreement when we approve the annexation and zoning, if we do, that the owner consents to the vacation of Jericho Road and that before they get the final plat application, they will have a vacation or exchange of right of way for Jericho Road to the City of Meridian and to Ada County Highway District; am I not right? Canning: Yes. That they will submit those applications. They may not be processed, but they will submit complete applications. Bird: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Thank you. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 17 of 57 De Weerd: Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant have anything to add? If you will, again, state your name and address for the record. Hull: Yes, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Phil Hull with the Land Group, 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. De Weerd: Thank you. Hull: Just a couple of quick comments about the variance application. It has been a long road to get to this point, so I will agree upon this one location for the mid mile entry. Many meetings with ITD staff, Compass staff, Patricia Nelson and, of course, the city staff with Steve Siddoway and Anna and whatnot and ACHD, Lori Den Hartog, and -- and it's been quite a process for everyone to agree on this one location. So, I think we have come a long way and I'm hoping that everybody can see the merits in having it at this point. De Weerd: Great. Well, we appreciate you working with all the agencies on that. Hull: Yeah. De Weerd: Council, any questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Hull: Thank you. De Weerd: Is there any public testimony on this application? Okay. Seeing none. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I'll do the procedural work and Mr. Bird will do the motion. I move that we -- or hearing no further testimony, I move that we continue Item 16. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It has been moved to continue Item 16 to hear them after 13, 14, and 15. Okay. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from May 9, 2006: AZ 06-003 Annexation and Zoning of 24.03 acres from RUT to R-8 (12.31 acres), R-15 (8.04 acres) and C-C (3.68 acres) for HiQhtower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC - southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 18 of 57 Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from May 9, 2006: PP 06-003 Preliminary Plat approval of 106 residential lots, 4 commercial lots, 2 private street lots and 25 common lots on 22.94 acres in proposed R-8, R-15 and C-C zones for Hiqhtower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC - southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from May 9, 2006: CUP 06-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Mixed Use Planned Development that includes single-family detached, townhouse units, commercial uses, private streets, a neighborhood park and a vehicular access to Chinden Boulevard for Hiqhtower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC - southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: Wardle: Madam Mayor, with that I would move that we reopen the public hearings on Items 13, 14, and 15. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I don't -- I don't necessarily need a motion. I had just-- Canning: I don't think you closed them. De Weerd: No, we didn't. Okay. So, we will now consider Items 13 through 15. Council, do you need further information or have any questions for either the applicant or staff at this time? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Again, I will ask if there is any additional public testimony. Seeing none, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearings on Items 13 through 15. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we finally close the public hearings on Items 13, 14, and 15. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion or do I have a motion? Okay. There is no discussion. Meridian City Council May 16,2006 Page 19 of 57 Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: First off, I do want to thank the applicant and Anna for -- it might have just been me, my confusion on the right of way issue on Chinden, 70 versus 100 feet, so [ appreciate getting that cleared up. I would move we approve Item 13, AZ 06-003, and the condition of approval be part of that annexation. Mr. Nary? Nary: For the development agreement. Borton: Development agreement. And add a condition of approval to that development agreement. Nary: Yeah. The condition of the development agreement, I think, was in relation to the application for the variance, so that would include that in the development agreement, if that's what Council member wants. Borton: Right. But is this -- do we do it in the annexation? Nary: Yes. Borton: Okay. I will kind of clumsily try and get that condition of approval in the development agreement. I include that the owner consents to vacation of Jericho Road and the owner will submit a complete application to include -- read my notes here -- to ACHD prior to approval of the preliminary plat. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Borton: For discussion, is that -- procedurally is that phrased right? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council member Borton, yes, that was what was recommended by the staff. Yes. And consented to by the applicant. De Weerd: Okay. Nary: Madam Mayor, on this particular one, because that condition has an impact, both on the variance, it would probably be appropriate if Councilmember Rountree were to abstain from this -- from just the annexation. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. So, we do have a motion. And was that complete? Borton: I believe so. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 20 of 57 De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second? Wardle: I seconded it. De Weerd: Okay. A motion and second. Any discussion? Okay. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, abstain; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. De Weerd: Okay. Item 14. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we approve Item 14, PP 06-003, preliminary plat for Hightower Subdivision. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 14. If there is no discussion -- Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Anna. Canning: Does the maker of the motion intend to include the developer's commitment to remove the two townhouse lots? Borton: Yes. Wardle: Second agrees. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Mr. Berg, can you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Item 15. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 21 of 57 Borton: I move we approve Item 15, CUP 06-004, request for Conditional Use Permit for Hightower Subdivision. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve Item 15. Is there any discussion? Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Continue Public Hearing from May 9,2006: VAR 06-004 Request for a Variance to construct an access to Chinden Boulevard, a State Highway, for Hiqhtower Subdivision by Hightower, LLC - southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Jericho Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 16. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Hearing no need for further public comment, I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 16. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the Public Hearing on 16. All those in favor say aye. Will the record not -- yes, thank you. That Councilmember Rountree abstained. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion on Item 16? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we approve Item 16 and include the applicant and staff comments. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion to approve Item 16. Mr. Nary, do we need also the conditions that were stated in the annexation in this item as well? Meridian City Council May 16. 2006 Page 22 of 57 Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, no, you don't need to restate those, because those were just for the annexation. De Weerd: Okay. Nary: This is just approving the variance as recommended. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, abstain; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. Item 17: Public Hearing: AZ 06-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.43 acres from RUT to R-2 for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Subdivision, LLC - 4240 East Bott Lane: Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 06-010 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval for 18 single-family residential lots and 4 common lots on 9.43 acres in a proposed R-2 zone for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Properties, LLC - 4240 East Batt Lane: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for bearing with us through this process. Okay. Items 17 and 18. I will open these public hearings on AZ 06-012 and PP 06-010. Start with Anna's comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Hendrickson project. It is located just east of Kingsbridge Subdivision and it's west of Selatir and east of Eagle, south of Victory, which is just up the -- would be up at the top of the slide there and north of Amity, which is right down here on the bottom of the slide. It's getting toward the edge of our area of city impact. Actually, this dotted line is our current area of city impact. This is within Boise's area of city impact. The applications include annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat. The gross residential density is 1.9 units per acre. It includes 18 single family lots on 9.43 acres in a proposed R-2 zone. Most of the lots in this area range from 12,000 and, then, they are a little larger on the perimeter. I do want to point out some awkward lots that -- we have a flag lot here that's a 30-foot flag and a house here. We have the existing house on a large lot back here that would also have a 30 foot flag coming out and they currently take access to Batt Lane, which is in this location at the southeast corner of the property. The open space for the project has a flag coming off this street, opens up briefly back here, and another flag going that way. The staff has recommended a development agreement. Some of those provisions that are unusual or site specific include that the applicant shall install and maintain the proposed off-site vegetation shown in the strip along the eastern property line. What we have is -- you can just see it here. Selatir is a public street. It ends and, Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 23 of 57 then, you have Selatir as a private lane extending from there. There is a small strip of land between Selatir Lane held in separate ownership and between this property. And I'm -- they have agreed to an off-site commitment to landscape that piece of property. The other development agreement condition is this -- that a maximum of 18 single family building lots will be platted on the property and, then, the applicant has proposed that all the homes in Block 2 would be single story and the Commission added a development agreement condition that stated that the homes in Block 3 would be similarly restricted. The Commission recommended approval at their April 4th hearing. In favor of the application were Ken Elliott, Gordon Bates, Don Hendrickson, and Christine Hendrickson. In opposition were David LaVigne and Leonard Vanskoy. And commenting were Tim Petchy, Shelly Robertson, Usa Becker, Jerry Larsen, Virginia Welkerstein and Susan Brender. And I apologize for any mispronunciations on any of those names. Key issues of the discussion by the Commission were access to Bott Lane as I noted down here. Design of the open space as I called out. It's kind of double L shaped, I suppose. Or double flagged. Umiting the height to single stories on some of the lots. And, then, the stub street to the north. The key Commission changes to staff recommendations were that they -- and I noted before, they did restrict the building heights on Lot 3 to be similar to what was proposed on Lot 2. So, if the applicant wanted to allow two story homes on Lot 2, then, lot -- or Block 2, then, Block 3 would not be limited either. And they also decided -- the Commission has recommended that the existing home be allowed to continue to access Batt Lane until Hendrickson Avenue, which is the street on the east end of the property, until it is extended as a public street to the southeast. I wanted to show you where Batt Lane goes. I believe this is the current path of Bott Lane and, then, it cuts across here to Cloverdale and then -- it's not showing, but it does eventually connect to Cloverdale, I believe. And the applicant may have a comment about that, but it does make its way there eventually. The outstanding issues before Council -- I have referenced the applicant's letter that you have received on your desk today and I did go through all of the other concerns. The first concern that they note is the Planning and Zoning Commission's restriction on height for Block 3. I think I have explained all the issues there, that, apparently, at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing they also -- the applicant did offer to set the homes on Block 3 25 feet from the back of property line to provide some additional buffer to those homes that are on Selatir. The zone only requires 15 feet. The applicant has also raised the question about fencing on the south boundary. They may need to explain this one further. I wasn't sure exactly where they were going. It's -- there are two general conditions in the landscape provisions that call out required fencing for the perimeter of the subdivision. I believe their concern is if they are accessing Bott Lane that they don't want to put a fence over it and, clearly, we allow breaks in those fences to accommodate access routes. The applicant also raised questions about the Ten Mile feeder improvements. That comment is not referencing an actual condition of approval, it's just in the analysis and the Findings. So, there is no need to address that on Council's part. There is a -- the applicant notes that there is some contradiction between staff analysis and Section 10 in the conditions of approval. This is not uncommon. Staff writes their analysis, they develop the conditions of approval. If the Commission decides to change those conditions of approval, we just go and change the conditions of approval, we don't go back and change the analysis. The Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 24 of 57 analysis is still left as it was for the planning -- original staff report for the Planning and Zoning Commission. So, that covers a lot of the items in that. One -- number one on their -- on their list under those is, yes, the preliminary plat revisions now address the issues discussed in Section 10, but we don't typically remove that analysis from the report. Item number two. Yes, those conditions have been met, but regarding a redesign of the site, staff had proposed a redesign. The applicant took another route to address those concerns and that's the one you see before you tonight, so -- but those references are still there, but they have redesigned the site. Condition 1.1.4, as noted, was removed, because it was inconsistent with the Commission's decision, but it's noted in the key changes. So, there is really no action needed on that one either. Item number four, the applicant -- the Commission has recommended that the applicant be allowed to continue to use Bott Lane until Hendrickson Road extends to the southeast. I noted that before. They are asking you to address language in the -- again, in the analysis section stating that access to Bott Lane be fenced off. So, it doesn't reference a condition of approval. There is no condition of approval that says Bott Lane has to be fenced. But I did want to take this opportunity to point out that staff is still very concerned about allowing this property to maintain access off of Bott Lane. This is our one chance and our only chance, basically, to get this current property owner to abdicate their rights to that access and as we have seen on Wingate Lane, it's crucial that the furthest in -- and this is the property furthest in on Bott Lane, that they -- that we sequentially abandon those rights. Now, in this case it may not affect the City of Meridian much, given that it's close to the boundary, but it may prevent the logical extension of Hendrickson Avenue if it's contending with Batt Lane access before it gets out to Cloverdale and that east-west connection through the section does become important, even if it is Boise city property it becomes important. Comment number five on their response, again, it references the analysis section. ]t's not necessary to address that one at this time. Finally, the applicant has requested that the Council remove the condition for the stub street and instead allow the applicant to have an emergency access to Selatir Place, the private lane just to the east. ACHD has provided comment for you. They sent an e-mail over immediately stating that it is a condition of their approval and they do want to see that stub street go in. If the applicant wants to provide an emergency access to Selatir in addition to that, they are free to do that, but they want to have that stub street and they will address the issue of whether it should connect at a later time. This does not provide a connection to Selatir at this time and they will address that later, but they are pretty adamant that they want that stub street to remain. So, the issues that need to be addressed from my notes are the stub street, access to Batt Lane, and the height for Block 2, and Block 3 and, then, the redesign that staff had proposed basically removed these flag lots from being so secluded and also made the open space more open. Again, the Commission has recommended this one to you. Staff still has concerns about these private -- these residences on these flag lots. Code does allow it. ]t's up to I suppose Council to decide whether it's in the best interest of the city to have these flag lots tucked way behind these other lots. And with that I will answer any questions that you may have. De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff at this time? Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 25 of 57 Bird: I have none. Rountree: Mr. Mayor? De Weerd. Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Anna, I can't read the number on this parcel. It's either three or five. Is that part of the flag lot access or is that -- can it be a common lot or what's going on there? Is that part of this lot here? Canning: It is the common lot. It comes down here, kind of shaped like a -- Rountree: Okay. Okay. Canning: -- flag with a pendent that connects. De Weerd: Okay. Anything else, Council? Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will state your name and address for the record. Elliott: Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council. My name is Ken Elliott, I'm with Vision First, LLC. Our address is 661 South River Shore Lane, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. De Weerd: Thank you. Elliott: Gordon Bates, who is our project manager, will be dealing with two of the points that Anna raised. I'd like to talk -- or I had planned to talk just about the height restriction on Block 3, but I first want to clarify one point on the Bott Lane access that I think may not have been stated clearly and that is that it's only the existing Hendrickson house on Lot 10 of Block 2 that will maintain its historic access to Bott Lane. The rest of the project will have that stub street blocked by a barricade and we will not seek or have any access to Bott Lane. Just the one house. And the Planning and Zoning Commission agreed with that compromise and, again, it will not interfere with the future extension of our southern stub to the south or the east, because the condition further says that once that public street connection is made, then, the Hendricksons will use that instead and will relinquish the existing access to Batt Lane. With that said, I'd like to go on to the -- the single story restrictions on Block 3. And interpreting the Planning and Zoning Commission's reasoning, I think it was primarily based on the fact that as a matter of contract when we bought the Hendrickson's land, we agreed that those interior lots that back up against the Hendrickson's backyard will be restricted to single story. Planning and Zoning seemed to think that if we did it voluntarily as a matter of the land purchase, that we should, then, go ahead and restrict those that adjoin Selatir. As you can see, the Hendrickson's house is oriented -- the backyard is to the northeast and that's the primary view from this area is of the Boise foothills, Bogus Basin, those lots if - - on the interior, if they were two story, would directly block the Hendrickson's existing view to the northeast and that's why we agreed to that concession. Along the eastern Meridian City Council May 16,2006 Page 26 of 57 boundary, Block 3, we did make several compromises with the Selatir neighbors and we thought that we had reached a census that did not include limiting those houses to single stories. As Anna mentioned, we have voluntarily agreed to a 24 foot rear yard setback. We are putting a three foot berm at the property line with a six foot privacy fence on top of it. There is an existing 16 foot wide strip to the west of that private lane, that's the area that we will be improving with landscaping and, then, maintaining through the homeowners association. Then we have a 50 foot right of way and, then, we have the front yards on the houses ranging anywhere from 50 and up, 50 feet and up. We eliminated one of the lots there. We originally had six lots. We reduced that to five, so that we have the largest lots in the subdivision adjoining Selatir. All of them are well in excess of 15,000 square feet. One is over 16. Each lot lines up with the existing lots on Selatir. So, we have a house -- a house on Selatir, a house on Hendrickson and, then, the fifth one at the south end adjoins an open space tract that's being held under the farm use covenant. So, we, basically, have four new lots aligned with four existing houses. These are the largest lots in the subdivision and with the primary view as it is to the Hendricksons, the primary view for the folks on Selatir is to the northeast and we think that the agreements that we reached voluntarily are adequate to buffer their front yard view from any two story houses that are built on our eastern block. I would note that Selatir is not restricted. One of the four houses has an existing two story house. The other three houses that adjoin us could add a second story at any time. There is no such restriction on their property rights. We are asking that the Council reconsider the Planning and Zoning's recommendation. You may recall as part of the Kingsbridge Subdivision approval that we voluntarily -- or through a negotiated settlement with the neighbors, limited the height on several of our preliminary lots to single stories along Zaldia Lane, along Dartmoor, the subdivision. Just to make this more than a hypothetical exercise, I want to let you know that we have signed lot reservation agreements on all of phase one in Kingsbridge from 18 builders who want to be part of the project. We had that on all the lots, except those that are restricted to single story. We expect that they will eventually sell, but it shows that there is a very real drag on the marketability of those lots when they are restricted to single story. So, we would ask that these five lots not be so restricted. And I'd invite Gordon Bates now, project manager, to address the other two points that Anna raised. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Elliott Unless there are questions that -- Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question. De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: You indicated that the 16 foot strip over here n Elliott Yes. Rountree: -- would be landscaped and maintained by the homeowners? Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 27 of 57 Elliott: Correct. Rountree: Is that a piece of property that your company owns or is that owned by the neighboring homeowners? Elliott: Madam Mayor, Councilor Rountree, it's owned by the -- either one or two of the residents of Selatir Place and so it will be an off-site obligation that we are taking on as a matter of deed restriction and covenants that will affect our subdivision. Rountree: And is that something that you could do? I mean have you negotiated that at this point or is that just wishful thinking? Elliott: That's part of our agreement that we have reached with the Selatir neighbors, that they want us to improve and landscape and, then, maintain that strip. Rountree: Thank you. Elliott: Thank you. Bates: Good evening. Gordon Bates. I work for Vision First. My business address is 661 South River Shore Lane, Suite 120, Eagle, Idaho. [very quickly will go through the presentation we have this evening. I want to thank all of you and Madam Mayor and the Council members for your time. We agree with most of the Exhibit B conditions of approval. I think the clarification letter that I sent speaks for itself there. There is a few items that we will discuss here in just a few moments. The neighbors that are here I believe will mostly speak to their concerns regarding the stub street and they will also voice their opinion on the height restrictions. I would like to note that this project does comply with the R-2 zoning, including the five percent open space, 15,000 square foot minimum lot size, 80 foot frontage. There are actually 15 foot flag lots and that's per the UDC and that was based upon redesign comments from Joe Guenther and I believe also Caleb Hood on that. They do have a shared driveway, which is the hatched area. There is a shared driveway here. There is another shared driveway right here. We do believe that these flag lots meet the UDC code. Amenities. If you could switch to the next handout there, Anna. The green. Thank you. A little bit of a zoom out, please. The green space highlighted is the common area. This is a detention area and common area here with trees and landscaping. The park originally came down a very narrow flag lot and flared out in this area. There was no access to Hendrickson Avenue here. This has been redesigned based primarily on Ueutenant Stowe's comments from the city police department to provide a flare visibility from the street here into the park to provide visibility and access into the park here, so that we meet his primary concerns about anybody, a police officer or otherwise, would have visibility back into this park. We also feel like this is a very centrally located park, it provides access by the new lots, it also provides access from the existing home. It provides a path area for younger children to play in it away from the street. We looked at separating the major recreational activity from the street traffic. We feel like that is very save. And as per Meridian City Council May 16,2006 Page 28 of 57 staff comments, we will have non-trespass light to provide very low level lighting to discourage activity after dark, but, yet, will also provide these neighbors with very limited visibility into that. This light will not splash out into those lots and creating a type of nuisance. It will most likely be three foot high bollards of light, shielded lighting on top. And we feel that P&Z has -- as they have approved this as noted in Exhibit B, item 4.1. We have had numerous meetings with the neighbors. Three of them to be exact. Lots of communication. There is concerns with the stub street going north to Mr. Dan Johnson's parcel. This area here that I did not highlight, because it's off site, is our 15 foot landscape strip, and the neighboring association has agreed verbally, we have not developed a written agreement yet, that would allow us to not only construct these improvements, but maintain them by the Hendrickson homeowners association. It will include a three foot berm and a six foot privacy fence centered on our easterly boundary and their westerly boundary. Ken went through the other concessions. I won't repeat those. I would note that we have the 25-foot yard -- rear yard setback and that's on note 15 of the preliminary plat. Fifteen foot wide buffer strip, a 50-foot wide right of way and, then, we start getting into their front and side yards over here. Staff notes -- also note that we comply with the Comprehensive Plan, low density residential future use. We also have provided reasonable transition lots and voluntary concessions that exceed the city requirements. Regarding the access -- Anna, if you could go to the next handout, please, with the fence. Existing Lot 10 of Block 2 is a portion that the Hendricksons are retaining ownership of. Their existing house is here. Their existing driveway comes down and comes into the Ten Mile feeder canal right of way and continues down to Bott Lane. We are not -- we are proposing to provide dual access for this lot. They will have a gate here with a paved shared driveway for city code, access to Hendrickson Avenue to Kingsbridge Drive and westerly. We are requesting that their existing legal and historic access to Bott Lane to the south remain and be allowed to continue until Hendrickson Avenue is extended to the south. Mr. Hendrickson is not here this evening. He'd point out that many of their friends and most of the community that they have relationships with are along Bott Lane and they would just like to continue that access for their sole purpose for this lot only. They would secure this gate and not let public access come onto their private property. They would not allow public access to come to Bott Lane. It would be solely for their use only and not the remaining subdivision or any adjoining streets. Fencingwise. There is some comments regarding fencing the south boundary against the canal located here. We are providing fencing from this point to here along the south boundary to the gate. These are all fenced -- either proposed fence or open fence around the common area. It connects to the fencing proposed for Kingsbridge Subdivision to the west. We are asking for a formal waiver from this point to the southwest corner of Lot 10, Block 2, to the gate at the westerly terminus of the shared driveway. Mr. Hendrickson's pointed out that they enjoy the canal there, it's part of the amenities of their property, even though it is not part of their property, it's on a separate parcel and is requested not to have to fence this, since we are providing fencing boundary in other areas of the subdivision and we would ask for a formal waiver noting that portion. Regarding the stub street, the developer, ourselves, and the neighbors along Selatir Lane would dearly love to see that stub street go away. Mr. Dan Johnson, the owner of this parcel here, speaks for himself on that matter. The staff report indicates that this stub street connects to Selatir Lane and Meridian City Council May 16,2006 Page 29 of 57 up to Victory. To date I'm not aware of Mr. Johnson having a formal application to do that. I feel like this stub street may go nowhere. It really depends on Mr. Johnson's development plans and I'll let him speak for himself. Selatir is a county road. It has no sidewalks. We feel that future connectivity is much better served down Hendrickson Avenue to a full urban street with sidewalks and connection over towards development off of Cloverdale Road. We would offer -- if we could have that next slide, please, Anna. I would note that this is purposefully a hand sketch change. This is just a proposal. It's not gone to ACHD, etc. But if ACHD agrees to eliminate the stub street here, we would offer to substitute that with the gravel and gated emergency vehicle only access lane to provide enhanced vehicle access to the Hendrickson and the easterly side of Kingsbridge Drive. De Weerd: Sir, if you could, please, summarize. Bates: You bet. In closing, we meet the zoning requirements, Comprehensive Plan designation. We are providing the city with larger lots south of the freeway, in comparison to the relatively denser subdivisions elsewhere. We ask that the city would reconsider the height restriction on Block 3. We ask that you could concur with the Planning and Zoning allowance for the continued legal use of the access of Lot 10, Block 2, to Bott Lane. We ask that you would grant a fence waiver on the southerly portion of Lot 10, Block 2. We ask that you would allow for -- subject to ACHD approval, the removal of the stub street to be replaced by an emergency vehicle access, again, contingent upon ACHD approval at a later date. This would allow for staff level approvals of those changes of preliminary plat, rather than a new public hearing before you. We also would -- De Weerd: Sir? Bates: Yeah. De Weerd: Your time is over. Bates: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I have a question. De Weerd: Okay. Bates: Yes. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 30 of 57 Rountree: What is this feature? Bates: That is an existing canal. It will be piped around the perimeter of the property. That's the McDonald Lateral. And we have worked that out with the Boise Project Board of Control. They feel like the hydraulics there are reasonable such that a piping will work just fine through there. It's got several checks providing lots of fall that we can pipe on the perimeter. Rountree: So, it will be on the southern perimeter? Southerly and westerly perimeter, yes, sir. Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. Bates: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. I have a number of people signed up here. When I read your name I will also read how you have checked the form. If you wish to provide testimony when [ read your name, please, come forward. If not, we will at least record your name and opinion for the record. Lisa Becker. Against. Becker: Good evening. My name is Usa Becker. 3421 South Selatir Place in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Becker: I live one lot north of the proposed development. Both Vision First and the homeowners testified at Planning and Zoning Commission. All opposed the northern stub street, so we wanted to explain why we oppose it. Our street Selatir is a very narrow street. It was designed as a dead end cul-de-sac to access six estate lots. [ wrote you a letter, but the picture didn't turn out very good, so I wanted to show you the width of the road. You can see if two -- if two cars are on that road, basically, there is no room for another car to get by. The road is, actually, 23.5 feet wide and we have irrigation runoff on both sides of the barrow pits. A lot of times the irrigation runoff it's basically from side to side. So, it's a very narrow road. ACHD in their letter dated March 21 st indicated that that northern stub street was placed there in anticipation of a future connection to Selatir Place. We feel this creates a safety risk. It would allow dumping urban density residential from Kingsbridge and Hendrickson onto this very narrow rural lane. ACHD also indicated that the stub street was there for future development to the north. However, we don't feel that's necessary. Our restrictive covenants only permit up to one acre lots. They are currently all five acre estate lots and our restrictive covenants only allow future development to one acre lots. Those one acres could be accessed easily off of Selatir. There is no need for the stub to access future development. We want to indicate that we do support the vision for connectivity between neighborhoods. That's why we have proposed a compromise of the fire lane, which would allow bike and pedestrian access between the neighborhoods without Meridian City Council May 16. 2006 Page 31 of 57 dumping urban density traffic onto this rural road. So, we just ask -- I'd ask in summary that you either remove the stub street -- we have talked with Commissioner Huber from the ACHD and she's indicated that on some occasions you have been willing to remove stub streets. Or we ask that you refer it back to the ACHD for a public hearing. De Weerd: Thank you. Becker: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Jeff Welkerstein. And I really apologize if I just messed up your name. Welkerstein: That's okay. De Weerd: And, please, state your name and address for the record. Welkerstein: Jeff Welkerstein. 3702 South Selatir Place. De Weerd: Thank you. Welkerstein: I live down about the cul-de-sac, second house from the end. I just want to concur with the previous testimony from my neighbor concerning allowing the stub street to connect into Selatir Place. I just want to reiterate it's a rural narrow road with barrow pits and no sidewalks. On the ACHD report they estimated that the Hendrickson Subdivision would add about 170 vehicle trips per day. I don't believe there was any mention of the additional traffic that would be added from the adjacent Kingsbridge Subdivision to the west that would want to shortcut through there as well. Also, we were unaware of any ten day appeal process to the ACHD report. The letter was dated March 21st and I did not receive a copy of the e-mail until after the ten day appeal period. So, I also would appreciate City Council recommending removal of the stub street or sending it back to ACHD for review. Another point I want to make is originally we were opposed to the density as it currently stands. I would be happier if the lot sizes mirrored the size of the Kingsbridge lots abutting the Dartmoor Subdivision, which was a half acre to one acre transition on some of the perimeters and some height restrictions as well. In talking with Vision First, we told them we would be more amenable to the proposed site, which are about third acre lots, assuming the house and the out buildings adjacent to Selatir Place are limited to one story and maintained a 25-foot setback. And so that's what Planning and Zoning recommended and we support restricting those and I think it's Lot 3 to one story. Then, finally, I also believe there is confusion about whether or not the Hendrickson property is included in this -- in the 9.43 acres. If it's not, I mean I'm confused, if they still want access to Bott Lane, if they are not part of the subdivision, then, including them in the 9.3 acres, the density is too great for R-2 zoning. So, in summary, concerns about the stub street. Hopefully, we can send it back to ACHD for review. And concerns about the density and/or the height restrictions. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 32 of 57 De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Jenny Welkerstein. Welkerstein. Also against. Okay. Thank you. David LaVigne. Exactly. I always appreciate coaching, though. Okay. If you would like to step forward and just say your name and address for the record. LaVigne: I didn't want to use my minutes up yet, so I was just waiting -- De Weerd: We won't start it until she's ready. LaVigne: Okay. Nary: Please summarize. LaVigne: Wait a minute. My name is David LaVigne. I live at 3317 South Selatir Place, which is just a little north of the proposed subdivision. And so what I wanted to do is just kind of talk -- walk you through some of the points. One of our primary concerns -- you want to flip to the next slide -- is -- we are requesting denial of the proposed plat map primarily because of the concern for the stub street to the north property for future. Primary concern is just the stub street. If you could go to the next slide. And as you saw, this is the stub street that we were talking about we would like to see removed. And if you want to go to the next slide. The Selatir Place, as referred, is a rural road, it's 22.3 feet wide with no sidewalks, barrow pits, and as you can see on the right-hand side over here, this is water that fills up with the irrigation water on the side. Cars in the middle here and you want -- I have got -- I have got two kids -- I have got three kids. Two three year old twins and -- forget how many I have. I don't get a lot of sleep. Rountree: How many is that? LaVigne: I don't know. It's a blur. But they -- you know, they, actually, go down and visit Jeff's kids down at the end of the street, which they have to run all the way down here at the end of the street and it's a one mile road. So, if you want to go to the next slide. So, as you can kind of see the way that the road is, it's a long -- long narrow road, barrow pits on each side, and it's 1.75 -- one to 1.75 acres and if you open this thing up to -- to what's coming over on Selatir from Kingsbridge and from the Hendrickson Subdivision, it's going to be like a speedway and a question to you guys is where are our kids supposed to walk and go down and visit their friends when you have -- when you potentially have 500 cars per day coming down this road when you open it up to Hendrickson Subdivision, as well as portion -- back portion of Kingsbridge. So, the next slide. To give you a flavor of what's on the street, if you haven't been down there before, just to kind of give you an idea of some of the homes, the estate homes that are on here. There is anywhere between one and five acre lots and it's right on the edge of the Meridian city limits, if you have seen it. If you want to go to the next slide. These are just some more five acre estate lots in Selatir Place. Just to kind of give you a flavor, the homes are setback, they are big acreages, and nobody's -- I mean it's just a - - it's a great rural environment that's still within -- you know, it's close to the City of Meridian, which we are getting fewer and fewer homes that are -- developments that are still out here like this. If you want to go to the next slide. So, what we'd like to -- the Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 33 of 57 primary concern is the public safety is the primary concern regarding the potential connection to Selatir Place via the stub street on the Hendrickson Subdivision. And as you have kind of heard, what we'd like to kind of propose is some options --layout some options for you. If you want to go to the next slide. And the Selatir homeowners, as well as Vision First, we were, first, unaware of the 10 day appeal period that must be filed to contest ACHD recommendations. That had actually lapsed, almost, by the time we had gotten to talk to the Planning and -- to Planning and Zoning. And what we'd like to recommend is the City Council -- one of the options is to -- the City Council not act on the report and-- De Weerd: If you will, please, summarize. LaVigne: Okay. This is -- if you want to go to the next slide. That was one option. And the next option. Bottom line is -- you have heard a lot of the options and you also heard about the proposed stub street. Removing the stub street and that piece of strip, spite strip that we have been talking about, is granting access across, is -- that's in lieu of -- we would grant access to something like that, because it's, actually, a part of the homeowners association. The group has purchased it under the homeowners association, that spite strip, and we would, actually, like to encourage some connectivity, but we don't want to encourage the connectivity to have all of the traffic coming down, but we do agree with the connectivity of neighborhoods. We would like to have connectivity between Kingsbridge, as well as Selatir as well. So, we would be more than happy to offer that up in lieu of removing the stub street regarding any future connectivity to that whole piece as well as you see right there. And one other last option, a quick summary, and I'm out of here, is that -- is that on putting a restriction on the stub street, which I had talked to Sherry Huber, ACHD commissioner about, she said that you could actually put a restriction on this stub street that it could not be used for -- for vehicle access, only emergency access or pedestrian access, if the stub street still had to stay there. So, that's an additional option for you to consider. So, I appreciate your time. Thanks a lot. De Weerd: Thank you. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Sir, we have a question for you. Wardle: Okay. Mr. LaVigne -- and I'm referencing your mention of increased traffic and those sorts of things. And maybe I'm not understanding the plat right. Does this stub street connect to your lane or does it just -- LaVigne: It does not. It is the future -- I mean we are -- it's -- the next step would be -- the person -- if you want to put up a slide of where it stubs out, the person or the property to the north is considering right now subdividing that -- that parcel and putting additional homes on it. ACHD has -- Lori Den Hartog, in her report, had mentioned that she would be willing to -- or she likes the idea of the connectivity and would like -- the Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 34 of 57 whole -- there is nothing in the back here and there is a stub street right here right now in Kingsbridge, which is already here. There is already one over here. So, one additional stub street here and, then, you have one down here. One going here out to this road. If Dan Johnson subdivides and brings that -- or approves -- you know, ACHD says they would like to connect, bottom line is and the concern is once -- once Dan Johnson decides to subdivide, which he's planning on doing and we don't know what the plat map looks like, because he hasn't filed it, but the next step would be to -- you know, the connectivity would go out to -- ACHD would like that connectivity out there. So, that's kind of where -- we are trying to be a step ahead of it. We have been talking about this for two years now as Kingsbridge was going through all this and wanting to connect over to this way, over to Selatir as well. So, we are trying to be a step ahead of it, because we know the next step is just going to be a continuous -- I mean that's kind of what the end result's going to be. We are trying to prevent that. Does that help? That's your question? Wardle: That clarifies it. Thank you. LaVigne: Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: It raised a question. Maybe it confused me. LaVigne: Sure. Borton: So, the concern that -- if there is a stub street here and there is connectivity here, it's not going to increase traffic on the street in front of these properties. LaVigne: It would not. Borton: Okay. Your concern is for properties up here? LaVigne: My concern is for properties up there that go all the way up. There is probably a quarter mile roadway from here all the way up here and my kids go walk down here right now to catch the bus, as well as other kids down here walk from here down the street to catch the bus at the end at Victory. Borton: Your photographs were of these properties, not -- or of the street up here, not of the street down here? LaVigne: Correct. These are all -- there is two more -- that's my property right there. There is two more properties here and there is more over here, but -- Borton: Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 35 of 57 LaVigne: Does that help? All right. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Susan Brender signed up against. Brender: I'm Susan Brender. I live at 3568 South Selatir Place, which is the second one acre lot on the east side of Selatir, not exactly adjacent, but my south property line would be the same as the north property line for the Hendrickson Subdivision. De Weerd: Thank you. Brender: I agree with everything that's been said so far. I just want to add two things. One is in regards to the safety along Selatir if the stub street were put in there and future access for all of Kingsbridge traffic were to dump out on Selatir -- right now the street is one of those where it's been blacktopped a couple of times and so on the sides there is probably a five inch dropoff in someplaces to the gravel. I'm sure the kids riding their bicycles down there, if they were trying to avoid a car, it could be serious and there are a lot of children on that street. The other issue that [ have -- that I want to emphasize -- it's already been mentioned -- is the height restriction on the east lots or Block 3. Contrary to the statement that everyone's view is to the northeast, which is true, but we also have a terrific view to the southwest. We can see the Owyhees. We won't be able to see them with two story houses. But the major thing is that single story restriction of Block 3 would be compatible with the house across the street. Those are my concerns. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Jerry Larsen signed up against. Larsen: Jerry Larsen. 3536 South Selatir Place. De Weerd: Thank you. Larsen: Ditto all my neighbors on the -- especially on the stub street. We have pretty much run that one. A couple of comments on the single story development. It is wrong for the area. It's a very open area. I agree they have made a big point about the view to the northeast -- primarily east northeast. We also do have a fantastic view out the west. I have some amazing pictures of the setting sun that a nine foot fence would not occlude those two story skulking homes from ruining. So, [ would ask they be restricted to single story. Also, I'd note that if you look at the scale on Kingsbridge would like to talk about how far away the houses are across the road and across our front yards. If you scale that, they -- those one story homes, hopefully, would be about the same distance away as the one story homes surrounding Mr. Hendrickson. So, it's the same distance. The other point I'd like to make is -- as explained on P&Z meeting when we were here before, the norm is that when somebody joins the city, they give up access to the county. I would ask that that be enforced here. Mr. Hendrickson seems to -- or Mr. Hendrickson needs to decide whether he wants to be in the city or in the county and either get in or get out, rather than cherry pick to his own exclusive advantage. The-- Meridian City Council May 16,2006 Page 36 of 57 you know, if he wants to have his dogs play in the ditch and have access to the ditch, then, stay in the county, don't develop. He can make that choice. But if he wants to be in the city, I think he needs to be in the city, so -- and if he is -- you know, if he is allowed access and out, then, let's take his property out of the density calculation, you know, not have it both ways. That's my comments. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Rick Anderson signed up against. Okay. Thank you. Delphia Anderson. Or Delpha. Thank you. Dan Johnson. Neutral. Johnson: My name is Dan Johnson. I live at 3501 South Selatir Place. Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council Members. I don't know if neutral is really the right way I feel right now, because I mean I have had some conversations about maybe doing something at some point with my property. I have been out there since '91. Built the house, enjoyed it. I'm seeing things change. But I agree with all my neighbors and also with Vision First that that stub street is not needed, not wanted, and doesn't belong there. You have seen what sort of area we live in. If I ever do split lots off, it will not be to move Hendrickson and Kingsbridge traffic down Selatir. I know from my two neighbors -- and we are all three irrigators, we fill those borrow pits full of water about twice or three times a month and it's not safe. Victory Lane is only -- or Victory Road is only two lanes with no turn -- center turn and there is no way you can stack maybe a third of a mile of cars in commuter time up and down our road. So, everybody's right, if I ever do split my lots, I don't need that stub street and I'm going to fight it with the rest of my neighbors. I know the Council here can make that decision. It's back to ACHD. But I think, from what I understand, the Planning and Zoning Commission understood what we were all saying is that that emergency access is really a gift from the neighborhood to allow something to happen while the dynamics of development and connectivity and things like that happen. My understanding is that it's going to be about 14 to 18 months before the sewer and water and the absorption rate of Kingsbridge and Hendrickson come our way. In that amount of time it's hard to say what could happen to the other parcels and ACHD needs to understand that, Council, and everybody else. So, I'm standing with my neighbors. I don't want the stub street. I will not connect to it if it stays. And so that's where I am. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Okay. Tim Petchy signed up against. Hasn't changed yet, uh? Petchy: Not yet. My name is Tim Petchy. I live at 3726 South Selatir and that's actually -- I, actually own these two lots at the end of the road here. And I'm with my neighbors on stopping the stub street connecting out to Victory Road in the future. That's just -- there is no place for that on our street. It's a small rural road. But another concern of mine is that the restriction on Block 3, we do enjoy a view out to the west. Actually, the way this lays out, we would have three of those lots would actually be abutting my property and we do enjoy our sunsets, our views out to the west. If I'm out - - our house actually views out to the northwest from the front of our house, so that directly affects our views and 1 kind of thought we had P&Z on our side protecting that. We did make some concessions on the size of those lots, so I don't feel that third acre Meridian City Council May 16,2006 Page 37 of 57 lots are really a transition to the five and one acre pieces we have out there. So, I thought that was maybe a concession that we could work with with Vision First and that's my comments. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Usa Petchy is also against. Thank you. And Bob Becker. Against. B. Becker: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council Members. I really don't have much more to add. I think my wife did an excellent job. Nary: Name and address. Name and address, sir. De Weerd: Oh, yes. B. Becker: I'm sorry. Bob Becker, 3421 South Selatir Place. She stole all my notes, so she, essentially, did my work for me. The only thing I would like to add is you, essentially, have everyone here opposing the stub street. You have the developer opposing the stub street. You have the adjacent landowner Dan Johnson opposing the stub street. You have all of the other neighbors opposing the stub street. And we would ask that you send this back to ACHD, so that they can study it and hold a hearing and we have a chance to maybe get the stub street removed. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there any additional testimony on this? Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Canning: I forgot to address one knew issue that the applicant had raised in their letter and I just feel it's important to at least note it on the record, so that we have a clear record for the future. They have asked that Mr. Hendrickson be allowed to continue having livestock on the property, the larger lot that's being proposed. In the past the city has allowed livestock to continue on larger properties for a limited time as a nonconforming use. If the Council does wish to grant that request as part of the development agreement, the applicant would need to document what animals they have and what animals they continue to have -- will continue to have and when that use will end, because they are not allowed in the city. So, they did raise that issue in their letter. It was not discussed previously, so -- typically we see that that -- well, the last time you did it, the ability to have horses was limited to the current property owner only and I think we limited it to exactly the number she had on the property at that time, which was three. Actually, I think we limited it to those three horses that were on the property, so -- De Weerd: And we lost them through attrition. Canning: Yeah. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 38 of 57 De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further public testimony, I would ask the developer if they would like to have -- yes. I'm sorry. Before we call you up -- Wardle: Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: If Mr. Inselman could ask -- or could answer a question that's been raised by the neighbors and that would be the process to -- is there a process to appeal ACHD's decision on this stub street? Inselman: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Gary Inselman representing ACHD. 3775 North Adams. This was acted on in March. There is a ten day appeal period. The developer certainly knew. It was attached to our staff report that went to them. If the Council approved a plat that differed from the one we did, there would have to be a reconciliation of. If they denied this plat and the applicant resubmitted, certainly we would review the new plat and hold public hearings now we are aware of all of the interest in the neighborhood. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: While we have got the other black cat up here, I'm confused by your letter. And the letter starts off about -- you didn't require a stub street to the east, because of the strip of property and so you proposed a stub street to the north and required that. Your letter ends with this statement: The district is supportive of the neighbors' proposal to allow an emergency access from Selatir Place across the strip of property now owned by the homeowners association. So, they kind of got ahead of this -- or in the middle of this. Does that mean that if that were provided you would still take their -- or ACHD would still take the strong position for a stub street? Inselman: The lane to the east is private, so a public stub to a private road would not serve a lot of benefit to the public and, then, there is that spite strip that would need to be crossed at some point. The only reason for the stub to the north is to preserve the opportunity for the connectivity. There is no guarantee that there will ever be a connection to Selatir if Johnson, I believe that's his name, developed his property in a manner that it does not require connection to this subdivision or does not require a connection to Selatir, perhaps it would never happen. I can't say until that parcel comes in. It's only to preserve options for the future. That stub could be moved west of where it's at, anywhere along that north boundary would provide a little more circuitous route in the future if it ever did connect. It may never connect if Mr. Johnson doesn't develop. If it ever did, we certainly look at the condition of the existing street. We are very concerned about a place for pedestrians. We have to tackle these issues, unfortunately, far too regularly in the county, where older narrower streets are Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 39 of 57 developed at the end and more traffic is put down them and as best we can we require off-site improvements to widen that road to provide a place -- safe place for the pedestrians. It's difficult to require the developer of a small parcel like Mr. Johnson's to improve a quarter mile of road with curb, gutter, and sidewalk, but we will certainly make what provisions we can for the safety of the pedestrians in the future. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if I could follow up on that. I have been involved with at least one project that was similar to this where what we ended up doing is taking the stub up, run it over, and, then, run it up again and some of the houses would have faced what is Selatir on this one. So, there are ways of getting public street connections in there without having a direct access to Selatir at this time. And so it's -- this one is -- everyone's assuming that the next one will just end -- you know, pull that public street right to that cul-de-sac and my experience has been that ACH 0 commission does listen and that they try and meet those concerns that Mr. lnselman has pointed out. De Weerd: Yeah. But, Anna, I guess there is this problem of institutional memory, too, if Mr. Johnson sells and the next person comes and does it, you know, they can do it a little bit differently and we have seen the dangers of urban densities connecting to some of these private roads or rural roads that are really there to serve just more of that rural level development and it is -- we are seeing that all around and this is the first time I have seen it really be asked to stub into it. Canning: Madam Mayor, we -- I have had hits on probably half of those five acre lots, people looking to buy them, assemble them, and redevelop them. De Weerd: Well, that is sad. I really like the pictures I saw. Tell them there is other places and land. Thanks, Gary. Okay. If the developer would like to come up with wrapping up remarks. You have five minutes. Elliott: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Again, for the record I'm Ken Elliott for Vision First, 661 South River Shore Lane, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. We have -- I think looking at this map, it is helpful to recall that the Kingsbridge Subdivision does have two stub streets to the north, one near the northwest corner, one near the northeast corner, then, we have our primary access out to Eagle Road, plus a secondary access through Dartmoor. So, by adding 17 houses to that 125 unit subdivision, we are being asked to, essentially, add two additional stub streets. We think one is warranted. We think an emergency access is warranted through Selatir, but what we think is going to happen, what the scuttlebutt is, is that that large rectangle to the south of the R-1 abutting Cloverdale, which is split by the Meridian and Boise areas of impact, is likely to develop and that with some cooperation from our neighbors to the south on the large ten acre tracts that we could loop the Hendrickson Avenue connection over to that large rectangle and go out to Cloverdale Road. That's been our hope and plan all along. That's what we told the Council and the Planning and Zoning with Kingsbridge, that we were hoping to acquire Hendrickson, so that we could get access out either by Batt Lane and, again, although it's not shown, the part that's within Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 40 of 57 the Portland -- or the -- Portland. Boise. I'm slipping back to a past life. The Boise area of impact, that is all a public street all the way to the point where it gets to the canal, which is the diagonal road. In response to the one gentleman that would take away Hendrickson's access through Bott Lane, it seems a little counter productive if you're going to add one more house that has no way to get out when we are trying to maintain an access that goes back about 80 years. The canal was sold to the New York Canal Company at a time when that ten acre lot owner was a shareholder of the canal company and so to just take that access away because they are a remnant parcel and now part of the Hendrickson subdivision, that was certainly never our understanding as a developer, it was never the Hendrickson's contemplation that they would give up their access to a county road, the only stretch that's private, I think they have got a good argument for the title company, if it has to be made, that they have an established legal access to the point where they connect to Bott Lane. So, we urge you to give them that -- to allow them to maintain that historic access. Again, it's only for them. We have got a fence and barricades preventing any of the other future residents of the subdivision from accessing Bott Lane. We will go out on the public streets through the city. I would also like the Council's consideration of -- to allow them the personal right, as long as they own the property, to maintain the number of horses or llamas that they have on the land, not limited to lives in being -- as to the livestock, but allow the Hendrickson to enjoy the right that they have historically had and to allow them, as one of the animals die, they could replace it, they wouldn't have any more in number than they have now, but they wouldn't lose their rights slowly as the old critters fall away. Thank you very much. De Weerd: I guess I do have a question for you and it's something that hasn't come up through testimony. Can you show the plat, Anna? I am curious. You mentioned the open space and it's very accessible and in a good location. I don't see what's good about it. It's behind people's houses, it's tucked behind, and it is out of the vision of the public. So, it is concern of the safety aspect. It looks like it's more beneficial to only a couple of people, rather than the entire development in terms of the esthetic value. And, then, you also count your drainage lot as -- in your open space calculations. There is not too much play that goes on in a retention area, but I would like to hear your comments regarding open space. Elliott: Madam Mayor, we meet the code requirement for open space. We redesigned the park at the express -- with advice of the police department. It was a narrow strip coming in from the east-west street to the north. We flared that open, adding that Lot 5 to the park, so they have complete visibility into it. It's quite clearly a pocket park and I think there are lots of those in -- in other subdivisions. We think by adding the opening to Hendrickson Avenue to the east, that we create a nice loop, we create a safe area for young kids to play, but the people who are cutting through the neighborhood on bicycles can also readily good through the park. De Weerd: Well, I guess I will politely disagree. I sometimes think that we are creating attractive nuisances behind -- and hiding them from the public eyes keep them safer. And so I guess there is just a difference of opinion. And, yes, you did meet our Meridian City Council May 16,2006 Page 41 of 57 minimum requirements. You know, nothing more and nothing less. But I guess in -- well, it just seems like it's -- it's pretty minimal and there is not too much benefit to the homes that are in and around there. But that's, again, my perception of it. Elliott: I guess in response, Madam Mayor, I would just say, again, that we -- we got some pretty strong criticism from the police department and redesigned it in a way that they approved and that Planning and Zoning Commission approved. And we think there are benefits to having the main -- the main play area removed from the street for safety and so you get a little peace and quiet, rather than just being right out on the street front. De Weerd: Well, again, I guess in what I have observed through community design is the more eyes on open space you can get the safer it, really, truly is. So, again, just a difference of opinion. Elliott: We do have six or eight households with their backyards up to that park, so I think there will be a lot of -- a lot of eyes on it. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Elliott: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any further information from the applicant or staff? If not, I would entertain a motion to close this Public Hearing. Or to continue it for reconsideration back to ACHD regarding the stub street. Bill, would that take a continuation to have it go back to ACHD or what is the process for that? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if I understood Mr. lnselman correctly, I guess there wasn't -- there isn't a mechanism to remand this back to ACHD. If the Council approved a plat that was different than what they approved, or did not allow a plat, they would, then, have an opportunity to revisit it. But there isn't a mechanism to just simply remand it. De Weerd: So, we have no appeal of their decision either, then? Nary: No. De Weerd: Okay. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: So, the only -- the only avenue is to turn this down and make them go through the whole process all over again? Nary: Well, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, certainly that's an option and that would certainly be one process. If the Council was of a mind to recommend a different Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 42 of 57 plat configuration without a stub street or with the stub street in a different location or with the other connection -- again, I think it was -- if I understood Mr. Inselman correctly, if this Council recommended something different than what they have seen, they would, then, have to revisit it and I think there has been some proposed alternatives. So, you wouldn't necessarily have to reject it just to have it reviewed. Madam Mayor, if you wouldn't mind, the only thing I guess additionally I would like the Council to consider and maybe we have all become a little more heightenly aware of these types of concerns. You have a consentual annexation, but it appears that a lot of the testimony from the applicant is disagreeing with the conditions either placed on this by ACHD or staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission and I guess just for your consideration in making your deliberations, you may want to consider whether there is truly a consentual annexation request in front of you or whether their conditions are such that it no longer is conceptual and that may not be something the city wishes to annex at this time. The conditions regarding the animals on the property, although may be small, is a significant change from what you have done in the recent past. The conditions regarding access to the public street is a significant change from what's been required in the past. The conditions regarding the house sizes and limitations was fully discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commission and that was their recommendation. It just appears, I guess -- and I just wanted to just make all of you aware and maybe you already are, that, you know, normally a consentual annexation doesn't always place quite so many conditions upon their consent and if their consent is so conditioned, I guess I just wanted to make the Council aware that you may want to factor that into your deliberation and give that some due consideration as well. De Weerd: Okay. Questions from Council? What direction -- I would look for a motion as to what direction you would like to go on this. Rountree: Is the Public Hearing still open? De Weerd: Yes, it is. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: If there is no further information or public testimony, I move we close the Public Hearing on Items 17 and 18. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the pu blic hearings on 17 and 18. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Rountree: No. De Weerd: Okay. Three ayes. Motion carries. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 43 of 57 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. De Weerd: Discussion? Rountree: Madam Mayor, the reason I'm opposed to closing the hearing is because J think it's still valid to get some more input We don't have -- and I don't know that Anna has the road situation for the adjacent subdivision to the west and where those stub streets mayor may not come into this parcel. Canning: To the west, sir? Rountree: Yeah. Canning: To the east? Rountree: Kingsbridge. Canning: Kingsbridge? The only-- Rountree: That's the only one? Canning: That's the only stub on their eastern property line, I believe. Yes. Rountree: I thought I heard somebody indicate that there was one -- Canning: I believe they have two to the north. Rountree: Further north? Bird: On the north. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Council, any comments? I guess I'll give my -- I don't have a vote, unless you tie, so I will start discussion. You know, I appreciate larger size lots. We don't have a whole lot in our city. But at what cost? You know, just because they are bigger lots doesn't mean they are really a true amenity to add to our community. I'm concerned about the open space. I think it will be nice for a couple of houses to have that open space, but the safety of our kids -- I mean we looked at park design, we don't like to tuck things behind things. It's better to have it open to the vision of all and it's even that self- policing, thinking a car can drive by and -- and it's another set of eyes. It's another set of eyes for that safety. I know I'm a big advocate for connectivity. I appreciate the concession to bring this stub out and have it pedestrian. I can't imagine that those neighbors are going to be walking -- their kids will be walking to the elementary school that's going to be down the road and they will be walking through those subdivisions. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 44 of 57 So, it's a good access to have. I get concerned about the ability to connect vehicles to those more rural natured roads that don't have curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Again, it is a safety factor. So, the open space and the stub street are certainly concerns of mine, but when a property subdivides, sells it off and subdivides, they lose some of their rights. I mean the right to develop urban and they also want to stay agricultural. They need to make up their mind and, again, that's only my opinion, but there is a real contradiction on this that has some areas of concern and I guess it's going back to a phrase that has been used -- we are in no hurry to add more land to our city limits, that these kind of concerns should be answered before they get here. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: You have heard me say those words before. De Weerd: I quote my favorite people. Rountree: And I think you made something -- you made a statement that really rang true to me is that this is a confused venture, in my opinion. It's a property owner who wants the best of all worlds and at some consideration, but not total consideration of what the world that they are going to create around them is going to be. I very much support the idea of internal circulation and I think that it needs to be accommodated. If that's the best location in the world, I would be surprised. I think there are other combinations that could be done. It's somewhat limited by the fact that out of this parcel somebody wants to run a hobby farm in the city. It's either city or it's a ranchette. It can't be both. I'm really concerned about our experience with lanes. We have fought lanes for the last ten years and I got to tell you, they are nightmarish and nobody comes out winners. We have been to court. People have been to court. Nobody wins. The City's come out all right, but there is issues with those things created. As far as restricting heights, et cetera, in this particular subdivision, the sale is I assume pending or done based on the conditions of height restrictions on some lots and to me that's between the contract holder and seller and on that point I guess I don't have any strong feeling. I think that the lots are big enough and the spaces are spaced enough that that really is not an issue, from my perspective. It's proposed as a city subdivision, yet we have ordinances that require a subdivision to be fenced, yet they don't want to do that as an entire subdivision. It's really hard for me to say that I can't support this particular application, because I have been pushing for larger lots and Anna's going to growl at, because -- De Weerd: Me, too. Rountree: -- we like small lots from a planning perspective. Canning: It's the density, not the design. It's design, not density. Sorry. I got that backwards. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 45 of 57 Rountree: It is design. It is about design. And, I don't know, I could go either way, but I think that there is nothing that don't work for me with this particular project that now is the time to say they didn't work. For me. I don't know what the rest of the Council wants to do. I'd probably -- unless I hear a really good argument, not support this particular annexation at this point in time. I would be willing, however, to reopen the Public Hearing and look at some additional design details or changes that the applicant might want to make to save them the aggravation of trying to do this over. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Councilman Rountree reopened it and what you want to bring back, the problem is one of your biggest holdups was the existing hobby farm and I'm in the same boat you are. We both love the larger lots and everything, but I -- I mean, evidently, we are not talking about a couple of horses or one or two llamas, they want to go on and keep it the deal. They don't want their south end fenced, when everybody else's is fenced. I think if you're going to be annexed in, you Jive under the same rules and regulations as everybody else in the subdivision. That's my personal opinion on that. I'm quite shocked. I wouldn't want -- I wouldn't want a way over to there, because if they got water standing like that, I certainly -- beside the fence, I certainly don't want my kids walking -- or grandkids walking down it. That was a pretty good volume of water going down there. In fact, I'm shocked that we didn't see a bunch of mosquitoes -- De Weerd: I did. Bird: -- with animals and stuff around there. I'm kind of like Councilman Rountree, I could go with a new design to a degree, but I also -- the owner of the property that sold the property is -- in my book, has to live within the same regulations. I have no problem with if he's got two or three animals on there now, he can have them, but once they decease or he sells them, he don't replace them. And pretty soon he's not a hobby ranchette. So, I can -- I could support opening it up again if he felt -- I don't know what kind of redesign they are going to do, unless they do a complete redesign. I do like -- I really do like the size of their lots, though. De Weerd: Okay. Any further comments? We would look for your direction. I guess, Mr. Nary, some of the options would be to remand back to Planning and Zoning to address some of the issues that Councilman Rountree and Councilman Bird have discussed or what are the options? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think you probably have -- have two primary options. I mean you can -- you can certainly -- well, I guess three. You can approve the project as presented. You can make amendments as you have done. You can reject the project as presented. You can remand it. There is a number of issues that you have raised and I guess I'll concede to Mrs. Canning, I mean at a certain point Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 46 of 57 the staff time that's necessary to re-analyze a redesign when you have raised -- I mean I just made a very quick note as you have been speaking of six primary issues that there are some significant concerns about. To the lane, to whether the -- the private lane. The animals on the property. The height restriction. The stub street to the north. The access to Bott Lane. In addition to the access to the canal. And the fencing surrounding the property. And the relationship with the other county subdivision that's adjacent. Those are quite a bit of -- of redesign to one project, but, again, like I said, it's been my experience from the staff's perspective at planning, you know, the remands work fairly well when it's fairly small and lot sizes -- or parks. I'm sorry. The open space is another issue you had raised. When it's simply a redesign of a minor thing or just a park redesign or streets or one thing, but you get a number of them, the staff time gets eaten up pretty heavily and realistically a re-application is just as -- just as easy on the staff as it is to try to remand it and redesign it that way. But I don't know if Mrs. Canning has a different opinion. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if I might add to that. In the past when you have remanded things, even if they were large redesigns, it was generally when staff was unaware of a City Council concern and was not able to guide the applicant through the review process to address some of those concerns. We have worked with the applicant on all these issues. We have made suggestions that were not followed. We have told them that the access lane was an issue in the pre-application conference. And we have really struggled to get to this point today. And so I would ask that -- I would certainly prefer a new application. De Weerd: Okay. Council, you have heard some of the choices that you can make in the form of a motion. I would entertain a motion or further discussion. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I just -- just a comment as far as my preference to -- and I understand staff's concern with continuing to work with the applicant. I recall this same applicant on the application next door, as I recall we denied one of those and they brought back a new project and, really, in my mind addressed the concerns we had at the meeting and so I don't think that we necessarily need to deny this and send it back, we can probably work through some of these issues. But that's just my opinion. De Weerd: Well, I look forward to whatever the motion is going to be. Rountree: You guys on that end do it tonight. Borton: I can chime in my list as well. They have been said. I have got similar concerns. In no particular order. The Bott Lane access. The single story, double story side. I made a list like Mr. Nary did. Sixteen foot landscape buffer on the east. Fence on the south. Stub street. The livestock. And the open space parks. And I agree with Meridian City Council May 16,2006 Page 47 of 57 the Mayor. Those are -- that's the start of my list and if it's easier and more appropriate from staff's perspective to redo this, I'd defer to their experience and expertise in it. And with that I'd move to deny Item 17, AZ 06-012, request for annexation and zoning. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny Item 17. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg, you will call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. De Weerd: Okay. Item 18. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we deny Item 18, PP 06-010, request for preliminary plat. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny on Item 18. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 19: Public Hearing: VAR 06-009 Request for a Variance to allow for a patio structure in the required rear yard for 5278 N. Cougar Flat Place by Dana & Rhonda Patterson - 5278 N. Cougar Flat Place: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Item 19 is a Public Hearing on VAR 06-009. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a variance application for 5278 North Cougar Flat Place by Dana and Rhonda Patterson and you can see the outline of the property. It is at the end of the cul-de-sac, right near the entrance to Lochsa Falls. And so Lochsa Falls is between Under Road and McMillan as you know. This is a picture of the patio that has been constructed. And I'm going to -- I forgot to put the site plan in the presentation, so I will have to put in up just to ask her. These two posts -- the setback -- the required setback is 15 feet. This post is at ten feet six inches. This post is at nine feet nine inches. And you can see the additional posts as you go down the property. The structure itself, this portion of -- the living portion of the Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 48 of 57 building, is outside the setback area. It's just they extended the roof to cover their patio and that's where they got in trouble. Staff has recommended denial. We were not able to make the findings for approval of the variance -- or two of the three findings for the approval of the variance. It's a pretty straight forward application. 1'1[ go ahead and switch to the overhead, so that you can see the site plan. As I note, I believe this -- this dotted line shows the 15 foot setback and, then, they have marked the location of each post and its distance to the rear yard fence -- rear yard property line. With that I will answer any questions Council may have. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, did they have a permit when they put the patio -- I won't call it a cover. think what they -- patio cover in? Did they get a building permit? Canning: I believe the applicant has all that information. Bird: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Canning: And she's very nervous, so you need to be nice to her. Patterson: I'm just a mom. De Weerd: We will be nice. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Patterson: My name is Rhonda Patterson and I'm at 5278 North Cougar Flat Place in Meridian, Idaho. 83642. I'm going to go ahead and read this, if that's okay, so I can be quick. Just so how you know we got to this point. Obviously, it's already built. We do acknowledge we goofed and we are only blaming ourselves. My -- we are our own contractors and my father is a licensed contractor and he's been guiding us through this process, but -- he's helped us with five homes and with each home he hopes we learn a little bit more and he steps back a little bit more. This being our fifth one, he really wasn't that involved. Needless to say, he's not very happy with me right now, because I messed things up. He's not here -- yeah. And he's not here tonight, because this is my mess to clean up, so another learning opportunity. So here I am. As I said, we have built four other homes and we had always planned to sell those homes, so we built them to sell. This actual home we plan to stay in, because my husband won't move again. Before we submitted plans we, of course, had our list of extras that we wanted to have in our home and the numbers were coming in that we probably couldn't afford the patio cover, so we submitted plans without a patio cover. Goof number one. Our plans were approved. We started the foundation. We started framing and, then, as more bids came in it looked like we could swing the patio, so we went ahead and added it on. We Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 49 of 57 did that prior to the framing inspection, because we knew the -- the inspector would be there and he would inspect it, had no idea that it, obviously, had it been on the plan they would have caught it at the time we would have submitted plans, but he came and -- I want to just make sure you know we do realize if we are granted a variance, we do have to resubmit plans with the patio cover on them and I don't want anyone to think we were trying to get out of paying that extra permit fee, because that wasn't it. We were just really excited we could afford the patio cover, so we jumped ahead. Obviously, that lesson's been learned and we could have avoided this whole problem had we just thought about what we were doing. When we put the patio cover up, we were under the impression that all the measurements were taken from the footings and none of our footings are in the 15 foot setback. When the inspector came through, of course, he told us he measures from the posts and so we have marked that our posts are in -- into the setback. He did recommend that we go ahead and talk Don at the building department, which we did. He reviewed our problem. He did recommend that we go ahead and apply for a variance. He noted that our request would have merit, because we are not trying to overbuild on a small lot, it's just an odd shaped lot, specifically the shallow depth in a logical place where the house would logically go. And that that created a bit of a hardship. We, then, went to Planning and Zoning and at the pre- meeting they went over their issues and their biggest issue seemed to be that two of the posts do fall within the ten foot utility easement. One is three inches into it and one is 16 inches into it. And they did say if we were granted a variance that those posts would either have to be moved or we would need to get a vacate of that easement and we never did intend to get a vacate, we just -- we can move those posts without it posing any problem. We have talked to the truss company about that. Just a few things to consider. Obviously, because of this process and going through the neighborhood meeting and everything we have gotten to know our neighbors quite well. Only a couple of them actually came to the neighborhood meeting and they only came to see if they could help. They were all very nice. We have several neighbors that actually have a front, rear, and side view of our property and we went to them door to door and just explained what had happened and what we had done and what we were trying to do and, actually, they were all actually -- and in my packet they all signed letters in support of what we were trying to do. So, to my knowledge no one has voiced any opposition. And they have signed letters in support. The second consideration is that the patio does give our two story an improved appearance, because it breaks up the back of the two story and it wraps around the side and so it does show from the front and it just offers some variance in the roof line and it does have it's own roof. It's not part of the house roof. Let's see. All of the neighbors in the cul-de-sac felt like the addition would improve all of our property values. Thirdly, the property behind us right now is a five acre tree farm and they currently have planted mature trees all along the perimeter fence line, so we have mature trees all along behind our patio. They have done this in an effort to screen all of our development from them and it also provides us with screening from them. So, I would imagine those trees would stay planted even after the property is sold, if and when that happens. That tree farm currently has no plans to sell, but when and if they do, if a residential area would go in back there, logically, the lot behind us would be a corner lot, so we are looking at our rear lot facing someone's side lot line. That would just be logical. Of course, I have no idea what they would end up Meridian City Council May 16. 2006 Page 50 of 57 doing. And, then, fifthly, and over 800 home sites in Lochsa Falls, most of the properties have an average of 110 to 120 feet in depth. There are some that have less. There are just a handful that have around 95 feet in depth and that's about where we sit with where our house sits. We do have a lot of lot space, but it's in a funny location on the sides and the back of our property, and we set the house in the cul-de-sac so it flowed with the existing homes that were already on -- they were already all built. So, basically, this patio cover is 72 feet long. It's taken, obviously, a lot of time, labor, material, and money. So, I am here before you now, knowing that a variance would allow us to correct our problem with the least amount of expense, labor, and time and it would allow us to fully utilize this beautiful feature. And we are at your mercy. And thank you for your time. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Mrs. Patterson, on your -- go back to the elevation, would you? No. The first one that -- there we go. Right there. Are the trusses -- the trusses aren't strong enough if you were to take the -- the posts out, are they? Patterson: We have talked to the truss company about moving them out of the setback. Bird: Yeah, you can move them back, but you can't -- you can't eliminate them. Patterson: I can't eliminate them, no, because they are holding -- Bird: And if you get them too far in, then, if you get snow load -- Patterson: Actually, the way the truss company was looking into designing it, if we were to move them, they, actually, said that wouldn't pose any kind of a problem with whatever truss they had engineered to fix it. The only problem they were having was right here on this corner. Bird: That's what I was going to say. What's going to hold it up. Patterson: That's the problem. Bird: And if you move it back in you have got the two coming out. Which ones are in your right of way. Patterson: Can I walk over there? De Weerd: Yeah. You will need to use the -- ma'am, if you can use that. Patterson: Okay. This one and this one are the two that are in the easement area. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 51 of 57 Bird: And they are in by three inches? Patterson: Three inches. Three inches and 16 inches. Bird: Okay. So -- and I take it it's the corner ones, probably, is the one that's the farthest in and that's probably the one that's holding the most weight. Patterson: Yes. The truss company has worked with us. On the two that are in the ten foot easement, they are working with us on getting those moved out. So, that -- that at this point should be doable without any stability problems. Bird: Well, I just -- you know, I personally know that you made an honest mistake, you didn't do it purposely and we have all made mistakes before and it can be redone, but I -- you know, you can't -- you can't do something that hurts the integrity of the building. That's the whole thing. And if it's already up there, I mean it would be major if you had to go in there and take everything out. Grady: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Grady. Grady: I think we can work with -- if you choose to grant this, I think we can work with the applicant to vacate easements or whatever we have to do. For a matter of a few inches, I don't think it's a problem. I think structurally I don't think it's a good idea to be messing with it, so -- De Weerd: I think it sounds like the greatest punishment has been facing your father. It would have been mine. Patterson: And right I now I live with him, because he's helping us and -- yeah, it's been fun. De Weerd: Any other questions from Council? Bird: No. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Len or Bill, If you vacate that easement, is the variance needed, then? Nary: It's the 15-foot setback. Bird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 52 of 57 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Now, if we grant this variance and you have to come back in with plans and everything and at that point we can go out and inspect and make sure that everything is still structural and everything and, Len, I want to thank you on that variance deal. I think that's great if they can do something like that. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion, then? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move -- De Weerd: To close the Public Hearing? Bird: To close the Public Hearing on VAR 06-009. I was just wanting to get out of here. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close Item 19. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird. Bird: Madam Mayor, I move we approve VAR 06-009, the request for a variance to allow for a patio structure in the required rear yard at 5278 North Cougar Flat Place. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question for the maker of the motion. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Would that -- the intent of that is to at a minimum move the physical structures out of the existing easement and that the variance would allow those structures to be within the 15 foot setback requirement? Bird: Yes. That is my intent on it and if it's possible that they don't have to move it within the easement, with the help of our Public Works, I am all for that and -- yes. Rountree: Okay. I will second that. De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 53 of 57 Canning: Madam Mayor, I'm unclear now. So, if they submit a vacation application for the easement, you would consider that and, then, decide on moving the structures with the vacation application or did you want to condition that now. Did the question make sense for -- Bird: Yeah. Anna -- and I -- yeah, Bill, I don't know if we need to -- if we bring that together in one motion or not, because they have got a -- the vacation of an easement is different than going and getting -- and all they are doing is asking for a variance from setback; is that not right? Canning: Correct. Bird: And, then, is the easement within that same variance? Canning: No. Bird: That's what I mean. Can we have it in the same motion? Nary: Madam Mayor, I guess I thought I understood Councilmember Bird's motion to be to grant the variance to allow the structure to remain in the 15-foot setback, but that there will either be no structures in the ten foot easement or that the portion that is encroaching on the easement be vacated. So, either option of those -- so, the ten foot easement area either has to be cleared or vacated, but the 15-foot setback variance is what was being granted. Rountree: That would be a whole lot easier with that vacation. Bird: Yeah. With the vacation. That's -- yeah. Thanks, Bill. That's alii -- Anna, do you and Will understand that now? Rountree: That's how I understand it. Canning: Yes. Again, Mr. Nary has worked his translation magic from Council to the planning department and planning department to Council, so -- Bird: Okay. Well, thank you very much. De Weerd: Mr. Berg, do you have something to add? Berg: No. If it's in writing, it will be great. The Findings will tell it all; right? De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, nay. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 54 of 57 Borton: It's just -- for what it's worth, my comments on the no is I -- I don't see there is any specific characteristic of the site and I know it's -- it's a simple mistake. But variances require certain findings and there was nothing particularly unique about this particular piece of property that requires a variance, other than the fact that a mistake was made and I understand it was an honest mistake and I appreciate your efforts in trying to get it fixed, but to be a stickler for the rules I'd say that. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. The motion was passed. Just thought I'd tell you that. Item 20: Ordinance No. 06-1232 : RZ 04-011 Request for a Rezone of 9.16 acres from R-8 to C-C zone for Cairns Crossinq Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. - south of West Cherry Lane and east of Under Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 20 is Ordinance No. 06-1232. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read this ordinance by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance 06-1232. An ordinance for property located as described in Attachment A of this ordinance and rezoning certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as required by Stubblefield Development and Planning, Inc., and rezoning the land use zoning classification of said lands from R-8 to C-C in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules, and providing an effective date. De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard this ordinance read by tile only. Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety? Seeing none, do I have a motion to approve? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Before I make the motion to approve, I want it noted publicly that on the list of Council it's got Donnell where it should be Borton. He is the one passing it, not Donnell. Isn't that -- am I not right, Will? That's what ours was. Berg: Madam Mayor, I did not go over this or correct this ordinance and when I noticed that I thought I would probably just get the corrected copy. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this highlights the problem we have had a couple times that you have seen. The ordinance is submitted with the development agreement. The development agreement-- Meridian City Council May 16,2006 Page 55 of 57 Bird: Waited too long. Nary: -- then waited until it was signed and brought back. Now, there has, obviously, been a fairly significant lag when it is done, so once we have sent it, the clerks, of course, we don't review it a second time when it gets in front of you, they just wait for the development agreement to come back and, then, they approve it. So, I think that's probably where the oversight may have been, but I don't know, I just-- Bird: Well, I just wanted to make sure publicly that we -- that we noticed that. De Weerd: Okay. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor. We will get that corrected before you sign the ordinance tomorrow. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird. Bird: With that I move we approve Ordinance No. 06-1232 with suspension of rules. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion to approve and a second. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. I would consider a motion to adjourn. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question for Will. De Weerd: Yes. I'm sorry. Rountree: Do you have any need for the proposals, additional copies, or can we dispose of the ones we have? Do you want to keep some around for file copies or do you have more or -- Berg: Madam Mayor, I would collect them if you do not want to look at them anymore, because they are a public record and if somebody does want them, I would not have to reproduce them, I could just give them to them. And we have had quite a few of the applicants, I guess I could say, from the proposals, who wanted just to look and see Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 56 of 57 what the other ones did, so they could improve theirs, maybe, the next time. So, that would probably be good if you didn't -- if you were going to distribute it and -- Rountree: I will bring you a box. De Weerd: I have a whole bunch, too. Hey, Council, we are submitting ideas on the AIC City Achievement Awards. The deadline is on Friday. If you have anything that you, in particular, think that the city does very well that should be submitted for this, I would need to know as soon as possible, so we could start the writing up of that project to submit for this. Bird: Tell me one thing we don't do well. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I would suggest that the recently passed UDC and most specifically the risk that the city undertook by ordinance that deals with highways. That's probably the only one in the state that I know of. De Weerd: I think Caldwell has a pretty good -- Bird: Bill's about ready to turn white. Rountree: Well, you know, we are going to test it for everybody. De Weerd: Might as wel!. Any other ideas that are a little bit less contentious? Borton: State championship for Meridian High in football. Bird: Yeah. There we go. State championship. De Weerd: Yeah. We have a lot to do with that, I'm sure, so -- okay. Well, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Bird: So moved. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. AI] those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 57 of 57 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:24 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) ~~ MAYO~ TAMMY EERD