Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 09-12 Meridian City Council Meeting September 12, 2006 A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, September 12, 2006, by President Shawn Wardle. Members Present: Shaun Wardle, Keith Bird and Charlie Rountree. Members Absent: Mayor Tammy de Weerd and Joe Borton. Others Present: Ted Baird, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Bill Musser, Bill Johnson, Len Grady, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X Shaun Wardle X Charlie Rountree o o Joe Borton (arrived late) X Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd (arrived late) Wardle: I'd like to welcome everyone to our September 12th City of Meridian City Council meeting at 7:00 o'clock. I will begin with roll call attendance. Mr. Clerk. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: Wardle: Thank you. Item NO.2 is the pledge of allegiance. I have asked Chief Musser to lead us in the pledge. Thank you. (Pledge of allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Randy Rodes with the Vineyard Church: Wardle: Thank you, Chief. Item 3 is the community invocation by Pastor Randy Rodes with the Vineyards church. Pastor Rodes. Rodes: City Council Members, it's a pleasure to be here tonight. Let us pray. Father, we thank you for this great City of Meridian and, Lord, we were just reminded a couple of -- just this week, Lord, of the anniversary of 9/11 and we once again thank you for all the privileges of freedom that we enjoy in this great land of ours. And, Lord, as we take steps forward as a city, I pray that you will just be with us every step of the way, Lord, that you will give wisdom to these council members as they make decisions tonight. Lord, that you will give your protection over the city and we thank you for all of the police and fire people that are involved in protecting our city. Lord, we pray that we would not draw on our own wisdom to make these decisions, but, Lord, as these council members discuss things and come up with these decisions, Father, that they would tap into your wisdom. So, guide them and move our city ahead as a city that belongs to you and we Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 2 of 58 thank you for every family in this community. We pray you will be with them and just be in this meeting tonight we pray in Jesus' name, amen. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: Wardle: Thank you, Pastor Rodes. Item 4 is adoption of the agenda. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: On the Consent Agenda we want to add an Item Q, a license agreement with the Jabil building. Department Reports, it has been asked that -- Public Works has asked to take themselves off of the Public Works department report, so there will be no department report. Item No. 19, which is a Public Hearing with Cherry Lane, has been requested to be continued to 9/19/06, because of posting requirements. And with that our resolutions will start with 06-529, end with 06-532. And our ordinance number on Item 20 is 06-1263. With that I'd move we approve the revised agenda. Rountree: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve the revised agenda with changes as noted. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Consent Agenda: A. Tabled from September 5, 2006: Resolution No. 06-529 Adoption of the Ada County Emergency Management Plan, All Hazards Mitigation Plan, Wildland-Urban Interface Wildfire Mitigation Plan, Ada County Flood Response Plan, Ada County Hazmat Response Plan, Ada County Terrorism Response Plan, and Ada County Wildfire Response Plan: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06- 019 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.59 acres from RUT to a R-4 zone for Southwick Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - 1255 West Ustick Road: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06- 018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 42 building lots and 6 common lots on 10.59 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Southwick Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - 1255 West Ustick Road: Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 3 of 58 D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06- 024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.17 acres from RUT to an R-4 and R-2 zone for Napoli Subdivision by Briggs Engineering - east of Eagle Road and south of Zeldia Lane: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06- 023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 29 residential lots and 3 common lots on 9.44 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Napoli Subdivision by Briggs Engineering - east of Eagle Road and south of Zeldia Lane: F. Development Agreement: AZ 06-004 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 358.57 acres from RR to R-2 (66.02 acres), R-8 (167.02 acres), R-15 (79.82 acres), C-N (17.26 acres) and C-C (28.45 acres) for The Tree Farm by Treehaven, LLC - north side of Chinden Boulevard on both sides of Black Cat Road; west of Spurwing Subdivision: G. SHP 06-006: Request for Short Plat Approval to create 4 building lots out of 2 existing lots on 2.831 acres in a C-G zone for Sparrowhawk Subdivision by Sparrowhawk, LLC - north of Franklin Road and east of Nola Road: H. SHP 06-007: Request for Short Plat Approval of a 4-unit condominium plat in a C-N zone for Quenzer Commons Condominiums No.2, by Brighton Commercial, Inc. - 1565 E. Leighfield Drive: I. Approve Transfer of Location of Beer and Liquor Licenses for Top Shelf, LLC from 127 East Idaho Avenue to 126 East Idaho Avenue: J. Approve Public Works PRV Radio & Power Installation Contract Change Order No. 1 with Lea Electric: K. Approve Encroachment Easement Agreement at Well No. 16 with Rosario Place Limited: L. Approve Amendments to Public Works Department Personnel and Position Changes Requested for FY 2007: M. Resolution No. 06.530 In Support of the 2008 Western States Police and Fire Games: N. Resolution No. 06-531 : VAC 06-008: Request for a Vacation of a Pressure Sewer Easement within The Reserve Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 4 of 58 Subdivision by Conger Management Group - southwest corner of North Locust Grove and Chinden Boulevard: o. Resolution No. 06-532 V AC 06-004 Request for Vacation of the existing utility easements on the interior lot lines for Lots 21, 22, 25 and 26, Block 7, Sundance Subdivision No. 3 Sundance Subdivision No.5 by Dave Evans Construction - northeast corner of Ustick Road and Meridian Road: P. Approve Agreement for Chain Link Fence Installation with Anvil Fence Company for City Hall Property: Q. Approve Agreement for License to Use Building with BBC RPI Meridian, LLC: Wardle: Item 5 is the Consent Agenda. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: As I stated before, Item No. A, resolution number is 06-529, M is 06-530, N is resolution 06-531, 0 is 06-532. We have added Item Q to the Consent Agenda, a license agreement with Jabil for use of their building. And with that I move we approve the Consent Agenda as revised and for the President to sign and the Clerk to attest. Rountree: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve the revised agenda noting the addition of Item Q, license agreement with the Jabil building. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Department Reports: A. Public Works - Brad Watson: 1. Discussion of North Black Cat Lift Station Project: Wardle: Thank you. Item 6 has been deleted from our agenda. Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 5 of 58 Wardle: There were no items in Item NO.7. Item 8: Public Hearing: VAR 06-019 Request for a Variance approval for removal of the sidewalk requirement along Larkwood Place for Cardigan Bay Subdivision by Big River, LLC - 5450 and 5500 Larkwood Place: Wardle: Item 8, Public Hearing VAR 06-019. I will open with staff comments. Canning: President Wardle, Members of the Council, the first Public Hearing before you tonight is a variance request. It is for Cardigan Bay Subdivision, which is located -- this variance only affects six of those lots within that proposed subdivision and it's 5450 and 5500 Larkwood Place, which are the current addresses. The variance is to not construct curb, gutter, and sidewalk along Larkwood Place. The subject properties are these six. One, two, three, four, five, six. And you will see there that they currently have frontage on Larkwood. It is a developed street section. The remainder of the subdivision would have curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The neighboring -- during the preliminary plat approval process the neighboring property owners requested that Larkwood Place, this portion of it, not be required to do the curb, gutter, and sidewalk, so that the road would maintain its kind of rural county feel to it. So, during the approval process both you and ACHD supported that request and, actually, you placed a condition of approval that they seek out and obtain this variance prior to final plat approval and that's what they have done. So, the staff recommendation was for approval of the variance. It does seem to be an unusual property circumstance in this case that warrants the variance. There are -- to our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council and I will answer any questions you may have regarding the variance. Wardle: Thank you, Anna. Council, any questions of staff? This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone that would like to testify on Item NO.8. Would the applicant -- thank you. State your name and address. Stiles: Sheri Stiles, 150 East Aikens Street, Eagle, Idaho. I am just here to ask for you to approve the variance. It was -- the plat was approved with the condition that we get the variance and so that's why the next item is on the agenda tonight, too. But unless you have any questions I have nothing to add. Wardle: Thank you. Council? Bird: I have none. Rountree: None. Wardle: Hearing no further public comment, I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Rountree: So moved. Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 6 of 58 Bird: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 8. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: We have had previous discussion on this item. To be consistent with the applicant's desires for a more rural community in this particular large lot subdivision, I would recommend that we approve the variance 06-019. Bird: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 8 VAR 06-019. Mr. Clerk, would you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 9: FP 06-040 Request for Final Plat approval for 28 single-family residential building lots and 3 common/other lots on 11.5 acres in an R-4 zone for Cardigan Bay Subdivision by Big River, LLC - 5450 and 5500 Larkwood Place: Wardle: Item No.9 is FP 06-040, Cardigan Bay Subdivision. Canning: President Wardle, Members of the Council, with the approval of the variance, this final plat is ready for approval -- or for your approval. It is consistent with the approved preliminary plat and we do have a letter stating an agreement with the conditions of approval from the applicant. Wardle: Thank you. Council? Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve Item 9, final plat FP 06-040. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 7 of 58 Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item NO.9. Mr. Clerk, would you, please, call roll? Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 10: Item 11: Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from September 5, 2006: AZ 06-013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.77 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: Continued Public Hearing from September 5, 2006: PP 06-011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 122 residential lots (50 4-plex lots and 72 townhouse lots) and 10 common lots on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: Continued Public Hearing from September 5, 2006: CUP 06-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a multi-family development consisting of 200 multi-family dwelling units (4-plexes) on 50 lots and 72 townhouse dwelling units on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: Wardle: Thank you. The following item, Items No.1 0, 11, and 12, I will open the Public Hearing on these items. Before I proceed to staff report, I have a procedural question for the attorney Mr. Baird. The question is on -- we have seen these items before. What are our procedural presentations? Baird: Mr. President and Members of the Council, you're correct, you have heard this item before. Before your findings were finalized there was a request for reconsideration. The Council did grant that request for reconsideration and set it for tonight's hearing. In chatting with the Planning Director Canning, this is, essentially, going to be a new hearing. She will start out with the staff report. You will hear from the applicant and have any public testimony and, then, deliberate to reconsider your decision. Basically, there is no decision, because, again, the motion that was made last time was never finalized. Wardle: Thank you, Mr. Baird. I will begin with staffs presentation. Canning: President Wardle, Members of the Council, this is the Canterbury Commons project and it is a reconsideration hearing. The project is located along Pine Street and that is west of Linder, east of Ten Mile has shown. It is an application for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and conditional use approval for the multi-family portion or Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 8 of 58 the apartment complex. The annexation and zoning request is for R-15. The site is 21.77 acres. The preliminary path approval -- this is, actually, the preliminary plat, but I think it's easier to see the units on this one. The preliminary plat approval is for 122 residential building lots and ten common lot and, then, the Conditional Use Permit approval for the multi-family development consisting of 50 four-plexes and 72 attached townhouse units on the 21.77 acres. It's currently RUT in Ada County. At the previous hearing one of the additional items of note from the applicant -- there was a brief discussion about whether these would be condos and how they would be sold. So, just to supplement the information that's in there and leave some extra time for the applicant, perhaps, there was that discussion and each of the apartment buildings would be condominiumized with the commitment by the applicant and that those would -- then could be sold individually or several of them could be sold to one investor, but they could be sold individually. There was a question about whether the preliminary plat was still needed and he expressed that it was needed for financing purposes. So, that was one of the issues or discussions at the last hearing that would not be reflected in your staff report. The average lot size in the development is 4,781 square feet. The gross density is 12.5 dwelling units per acre. And approximately 12.6 percent of the area being developed is set aside for open space. Within that open space the applicant is proposing to construct a clubhouse and pool, a tot lot, and I think the tot lot is in that location as well and a -- excuse me. I lost my place. And a pathway system. The townhouses are located on the east side of the development and they do take access from public streets. I think there was -- in the request for the reconsideration there was some discussion about public versus private streets. So, let me flush out that discussion. The public streets -- you enter from Pine Street, the public street would, then, take a turn to the east and would loop around to serve all the townhouse developments and, then, come up to connect to that street. This area appears as open space, but these are -- these are lots. So, almost all the units are shown here, but not this bank and not these three for some reason. But all the other units are shown on this diagram. So, the public streets come and make this one loop. The private streets connect to those public streets and form a separate loop. This would be just a private street connection into the property. It is fairly common to see multi-family development take access from private streets. In fact, the reason we put the private street provision is so that fire department could get these drive aisles, essentially, named, so that they could find units more easily. But we do see some apartment complexes that have more public streets coming into them and provide kind of around the perimeter of them. So, that's certainly something for Council to consider. I did point out at the last Public Hearing and I will point it out again, we have worked with the applicant to try and get rid of the single loaded aisle on -- for these townhouses. You have -- all of this portion is double fronted, but there is a lot of pavement here where this becomes a single fronted public roadway with the townhouses on one side of it. For the code -- the UDC for multi-family developments with more than 100 units gives the decision-making body, you all, the authority to require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the development. So, in this case we have 200 units. As a reference, if you only had 75 units or more, you would only be required to have four amenities, with at least from one -- one from each category and those categories are quality of life, open space, and recreation. Along that lines, the applicant is following -- is providing the following Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 9 of 58 amenities. The 3,000 square foot community clubhouse and fitness facility and that would be a quality of life amenity. The property management office, maintenance storage area, development map, and directory and pool. The pool would be a recreation amenity. The tot lots would also be a recreation amenity. And the walking trail as well. Half basketball court. A picnic area. That would be a quality of life amenity. And open space. That would be an open space amenity with the pathways. So, it's still -- one of the big questions is whether this development has provided enough amenities in Council's opinion. That door is left open for you to require additional amenities as you see fit. The DA provisions recommended with this project were primarily to tie the re-zoning of the property to the specific development. There are no off-site commitments or unusual provisions included in that DA. We do have several elevations. These are of the townhouse units. You will see that the -- they are front loaded, so the garages are visible from the street, of course. These are some other townhouse elevations. These are the elevations of the four-plex units. And, again, there has been a commitment to condominiumize each of those units. There is more elevations. And I also have some perspectives provided by the applicant. Oops. Where did that come from? Hold on. This one is of the apartment buildings and you can see the drive aisle. What is not shown here are the required carports. So, the carports would be where the parking spaces are. And I could show that on the overall site plan. These are of the townhouse units just as you make that curve that -- to the north-south. This is of the tot lot and the community center. And the pool would be just behind that, I believe. And I believe this perspective is from the south end of the property looking into the multi-family. The townhouses would be at your back, basically. And, again, this doesn't show the required carports. Did want to point out those carports. As part of the UDC revisions one of the -- one of the things we did in coming up with multi-family standards was to talk to one of the higher quality apartment developers in town and one of the things he expressed was that it was important to have covered parking for these apartments. So, we did require covered parking spaces and so these brown lines you see here would be the carports over the required parking. These long rectangular ones. Recently fire department has raised a couple issues with this development for this hearing. One of them was a shift in -- or a reassessment of where the 150-foot length for this -- this drive aisle would be measured from. Originally it was going to be measured I think mid point between these two and now they have shifted it to this west property line -- or kind of west entry road. So, the 150 feet would be measured from there. That shouldn't have much impact on this development. The other issue that was raised was with regard to ability for the fire department to get a gurney to these apartments if needed and the issue -- let's see if I can -- it's a little shaded, so it's going to be difficult to point out, but these shaded areas represent the carports and you can see the spaces underneath. When they are fully parked and there is two parking spaces per unit, so there is not a lot of excess parking, but when it's -- when it's fully parked, if there were a need to get to this building, you would likely have to come back to here to get the gurney through. So, the fire department is asking for separate access into these, other than the required parking spaces. You see some landscape islands in the center, but those would have landscaping and trees located in them, so there wouldn't be an opportunity to access there. And I can blow this up in more detail. This blows -- I can get details of this quite nicely. If you'd like me to zoom Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 10 of 58 in someplace else I can get that up for you. Just let me know. So, those were some additional concerns expressed by the fire department. The Planning and Zoning did recommend approval at their June 1st, 2006, Public Hearing. Jeff Wardle, Joe Ricci, Lance Hornick and Mark Sanders spoke in favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition, nor did anyone comment. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the requested variances to lot size and setbacks and not being supportive of those requests. Those requests have, actually, since been removed. The common area calculations -- the elevation, particularly the double-fronted four-plex elevations, and the layout of the project. There were no major changes to staff's initial recommendation. The outstanding issues to our knowledge before Council tonight are, one, are the proposed amenities sufficient for this site, this development. And, then, the additional request of the fire department as I just explained to you. So, with that I will answer any questions you may have. Wardle: Thank you, Anna. Council, questions for the planning director? Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Anna, refresh my memory on the private streets. What are the widths that are being proposed? Canning: It would be 25 feet from the back of the parking stall to back of parking stall. If there is not parking areas, it can be as narrow as 20 feet, but anyplace that there is parking there needs to be 25 feet of backup space. Rountree: How about the proposed private access off of Pine? Canning: I would have to measure. It looks like it's 20 feet from this diagram. Rountree: And my last question on the public street on the east side, all of those units are those four-plex single story with garages or maybe two story with garages? Canning: Yes. Rountree: The elevations with the garages? Canning: The townhouses. Rountree: The townhouses. Canning: Yeah. The four-plexes. And this street as well. Again, they are not shown right there. There is three there and there is several here that aren't shown. Rountree: So, that's what's proposed as well for the lots? Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 11 of 58 Canning: Yes. These. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: I was going to ask the applicant, but I can ask Anna. Where is the public going to park? Visitors. Refresh me on that. Canning: There are -- to my knowledge -- let me -- I can check on the parking calculations. I don't -- I didn't look that up before this hearing. I apologize. I think they are providing to per unit right now, but they may have additional ones. Let me look, because they probably wouldn't have carports and that may be the easiest way to identify them. And it looks like everything has a carport. So, I can look it up or if the applicant isn't able to come up with that information, I can find it in the file. Bird: Thank you, Anna. Canning: And, then, there would be parking on the public street that would be available for the townhouse development. Bird: How about the private street? Canning: That's the one I don't know about. But I'll look it up if I need to. Bird: Okay. Wardle: Council, additional questions for the planning director? Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none. Wardle: Invite the applicant forward for their presentation. Note for the public record that though the applicant has a very distinguished last name, we are not directly related. J. Wardle: We are not close enough that we associate together. Wardle: Name and address for the record. Rountree: Good for the applicant. Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 12 of 58 J. Wardle: Mr. President, Jeffrey Wardle. My address is 877 Main, Boise. I'm here on behalf of the applicant tonight. We appreciate staffs efforts on this and we have gone back and reviewed the -- the transcript of the comments that were made at the time of reconsideration. We are prepared to address those issues tonight. I don't want to rehash issues that are set forth in the staff report and that Anna has done an excellent job of addressing. I do want to walk you through a couple issues and, then, we can talk about what I perceive to be your concerns about traffic and parking. With respect to the UDC, it does require that additional amenities be provided when a project gets to a certain point in density and in our discussions with the Planning and Zoning Commission, they suggested additional amenities, which were added at their request, which staff has identified many, but I want to take an opportunity to point those out, the additional amenities that were not discussed. As Anna pointed out, there is the clubhouse, which will have the property management office with storage, the pool, tot lot, open area here. Additionally, Planning and Zoning Commission had expressed some concern about the connectivity of the pathway and where it was to be located. So, as a result of those discussions, the pathway was placed upon a common lot along the Ten Mile drain over here, which will be landscaped, and this does not depict it, but it was also modified to come back up here and connect. So, that it connects with the sidewalk there, loops around like this, and, then, comes back out to Pine. Additionally, Planning and Zoning Commission suggested that this be the location of a half basketball court, which was added. They suggested an additional tot lot, which was added here as part of this common area. And a picnic area, which was added there. As Anna indicated, initially there was a request for a variance. That has been removed. That is not on the table. And as a result of the removal of that request for variance additional common area was provided here. The reason these lots right here and these lots right here do not depict buildings is because in removing the variance it was necessary to come forward with a slightly wider lot, which required modification of the townhouses. So, with that there are more amenities here than were initially proposed. There were amenities added that the Planning and Zoning Commission directed. And in light of the discussion that you had last week regarding parks and public recreation, I think it's important to note that to a certain extent projects like these provide much of the base recreation need for -- that will be consumed by these residents. That the private provision of these amenities takes some of the impact off of Meridian's park system. Now, it's important to note that these will be subject to your impact fee, but in considering the benefits that's derived from these private amenities, that's important to consider. Now, with respect to the parking requirements as raised by Councilman Bird, the requirement of the UDC is for a minimum of two stalls per multi-family unit to be provided. That does not -- and it's variable, because the requirement is based upon the number of bedrooms and it doesn't require that those units be specifically dedicated to a specific unit, but it's important to note that the site more than parks itself and, in particular, Anna had raised the issue of where was their public or visitor parking. These stalls up here are not specifically tied to any unit and I believe at one point they were, in fact, shown as not being covered, but they have been covered now. Additionally, as staff indicated, in the townhouse component your requirements require a two car garage, as well as a 20-by-20 parking pad in front of each of those units. These are also public streets and there would be parking along the public street over here. Meridian City Council September 12. 2006 Page 13 of 58 Councilman Rountree had raised the issue with respect to the private streets and I would direct you, if there were any questions about that, ACHD in its staff report and recommendation of approval indicated that these need to be 40 feet wide, I believe. So, even this connects here to a private street, these would be full turn aisles or at least 40 feet wide out onto Pine. Now, the issues that the fire department raised, those are new. Those were not before you previously. We had discussions with the fire department before the last meeting to gain verification that certain changes that we made pursuant to their initial comments were satisfactory and they have not responded to that, but they did indicate at that time that they were satisfied, because initially there were units over here which were removed due to their concerns over location and of access. Now, with respect to the issue of access for a gurney, we certainly understand their life safety concerns and to the extent that a condition of approval to the preliminary plat needs to be included to address that, we believe that that could be handled through, you know, addressing these -- these landscape aisles like Anna indicated. But at the same time we think that it's important to recognize that you need to have a project that's not just asphalt and not just parking areas, but there has to be some of these amenities and that's why we had provided as much landscaping as we did. In dealing with this site, the other issue -- and it's indicated here what the adjoining -- zoning of the adjoining parcels are. It's R-15, much more intense to the west. It's R-8, much less intense to the east. And the desire of our client in coming forward with this application was to work with the city to come up with a project which transitions between these neighborhoods and it's also important to consider that you have the Union Pacific Railroad right of way here with industrial -- light industrial to the south of that corridor. It's our belief that a multi-family project of this type is the appropriate use in this site. Your Comprehensive Plan indicated this is a community mixed use, which provided for a rather significant density up to 40 units to the acre. Because the issue was discussed early on with planning staff and with the Mayor with respect to what type of project would be appropriate for this site and the desire to provide for truly affordable owner-occupied housing for your workforce, for the working families of Meridian, it was determined that a condominiumized project would be the most appropriate to address those concerns. Now, as Anna indicated at the last hearing, there was discussion about why to condominiumize this and I believe in my discussion with Anna and with legal staff afterwards, we certainly were amenable to having that included as a condition of approval. The important thing to realize -- and I know Councilman Borton had expressed some concern about how do you insure maintenance of these types of shared facilities. That is the benefit of condominiumization. Under the Idaho condominium act you have much greater enforcement ability in a condominiumized project than you do in single lot homeowners association traditional subdivision and the reason for that is that these units -- all of these units in the entire subdivision as part of a homeowners association, which will maintain the landscaping and those amenities, but this portion will be part of a condominium association and when you own a condominium, you own the interior of a unit and you own an undivided interest in the common area. The common area is everything outside the walls, floor, and ceiling of a unit. And what that does is it provides that the association provides for the common maintenance of all of your structural systems, all of your HV AC plumbing systems, it provides for the exterior maintenance of the buildings, so the roofs, the exterior painting, Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 14 of 58 all of those things are maintained in common. That's the way a condominium works. Now, the benefit to that is that if an owner here -- you know, if an owner in any subdivision in Meridian that's got CC&Rs decides they don't want to pay, there are very limited bases upon which the association has to recoup those dollars. But the Idaho legislature long ago recognized that with a condominium, because of the common maintenance, because of the obligation that each owner has to insure that the property is maintained for the benefit of the others, there is a much more stringent enforcement requirements and enforcement obligations which were available. Now, the effect of that is a four-plex project that is condominiumized from the outset, with the common maintenance, common management that we have talked about and provided as set forth in the staff report, insures that the issues that you may have had in the past with respect to some four-plex projects will not be here. Now, Councilman Borton had also raised an important issue, which is the fact that this is America and you can never stop anybody from renting out their property. And that is as true in Paramount as it is in any other subdivision in the City of Meridian. But the difference is because this is a condominium project, you will insure that the maintenance of the facility, not only interiorly, but also exterior and landscaping, is preserved. That is something which is truly unique and that the applicant showed from real foresight to come up with a project that insures that these things will be maintained and that many of the issues and concerns that have been raised in the past will be eliminated. Now, I also recognize that Councilman Rountree had expressed some concern about the affect approval of this project would have in light of your ongoing Ten Mile corridor study. Now, as I understand it, the actual boundary for the Ten Mile study area is the Union Pacific railroad here to the south. That the Ten Mile study extends over here, you know, a mile, mile and a half, and, then, it extends to the edge of your area of impact over here. Now, it's important to recognize that in ACHD's evaluation of this, our client, the applicant, had provided a traffic stUdy prepared by Washington Group. Washington Group's evaluation was that in light of the fact that this intersection here is already in ACHD's capital improvements plan and in light of how the rest of Pine has developed, that this project will generate a minimal amount of additional traffic. That the PNP count of vehicle trips per hour would be 186. And it would have no effect on the level of service. The level of service on Pine would continue to operate at a level of service B, which is well below the level of service -- the maximum level of service of 9,500 vehicle trips per day, which would be a level of service B. Now, in evaluating that, ACHD required that the drive aisles and the entries into this project connect at these points, so that they corresponded with the road immediately to the north. That's one of ACHD's policies as a result of the road. Entry points were -- were designed located as such. Additionally, the last comment I would make about the road is it is unique that you do have a single project that comes forward with both and public private roads. The reason for that is your UDC does encourage private streets within multi-family to insure that life safety issues, address the other entrances that Anna raised in her presentation. And with respect to the public street, the public street will be maintained by ACHD after it is dedicated. But the private street will be the duty and obligation of the owners association to maintain. And so even though ACHD will collect impact fees and ACHD's evaluation and Washington's Groups evaluation was based upon the current impact fee ordinance, ordinance 200, which has since been adopted, was about three hundred Meridian City Council September 12. 2006 Page 15 of 58 thousand dollars in impact fees for roads being generated by this project. Additionally, out here on Pine ACHD has -- their requirements requires the application to dedicate additional right of way and to improve this right of way to its ultimate build out standards. Now, with that, the last topic that I would like to talk to you about before we open this for consideration and any questions you might have, would be the issue of design. Anna, would it be possible to go back to those elevations? Now, early on, like I indicated, our client, the applicant, met with the Mayor and met with staff pre-application to really get a feel for what it is that Meridian wanted at this site and how it could be addressed. And they were very sensitive to the concerns that have been expressed about other multi- family projects which may have not had the highest standards with respect to design. As a result, our client felt it was very important to come forward with a commitment that there would be multiple elevations, there would be multiple finishes, so that you not only had different elevations and different footprints, but you would have different appearances. But when we met with staff it was indicated from the beginning that there would be a need to do something different, do something more, and that was the intention of our client in coming forward with these proposals, that these are not intended to look like four-plexes, because we recognize that we need to integrate with the neighborhood. Now, there has been some concern expressed as to why -- why are four-plexes beneficial. There certainly have been some issues with other four-plex developments in this community, but at issue here is the fact that in attempting to integrate with this neighborhood, it's important to come up with something that has the same mass and size and scale and scope as the immediate neighborhood, something that looks not like large multi-family apartment complexes, but something that's got more of a look of single family residential. A four-plex gives you that mass and scale. Now, with respect to the concern about double frontage, which was raised and discussed fully by the Planning and Zoning Commission, we came forward with this elevation here to show you the reverse of those units that were described as being double fronted. Now, this is a public street. This is a private street. And there would be carports here. But in doing that -- and as indicated on the site plan, the applicant came forward with a much more aggressive planting and landscape proposal for here. The applicant also came forward with a plan to provide various footprints along here and to modulate the frontages of the buildings, so that there was much more differentiation and a much more appealing appearance. With that I would stand for any questions you have. I do have the applicant, our client, Mr. Joe Ricci here tonight, as well as the architect, to talk about some of the design concerns you may have. Wardle: Thank you. Council, questions of the applicant? Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Mr. Wardle, going back to your first comments about the private streets and the public access, you indicated these points of access would be 40 feet or whatever was consistent with ACHD and pointed -- and I guess for the record I want to hear you say that all the accesses from Pine Street will be to -- to meet a public access point, as Meridian City Council September 12. 2006 Page 16 of 58 opposed to a private street standard, which would be 40 feet -- Gary? Thirty plus feet? Yeah. Because the graphic we have here does not indicate as such. J. Wardle: Mr. President, Councilmember Rountree, I am looking at ACHD's conditions of approval -- Canning: Mr. Wardle, I may be able to help you out. The plat -- here, this is perfect. The plat -- well, maybe not. The lot lines -- there is 45 feet in between these two lot lines. There are what appears to be five foot attached sidewalks, so that would leave 35 feet for the drive aisle. Rountree: So, do you agree with that analysis? J. Wardle: President Wardle, Councilman Rountree, I do agree with that analysis that is 45 feet of right of way, with five feet of detached sidewalk on both side, leaving a 35 foot drive aisle, which, then, is widened to 40 feet out beyond that along the common lot at the entry. Rountree: Thank you. Mr. President, a follow-up question as it relates to the -- something that's new to us as well, the comments from the fire department in terms of emergency access into the facilities. I don't have a solution for you either. And I'm not going to say we want to give up landscaping in order to do that, but it seems to me like it's a legitimate concern to get access in and out of those multiple unit complexes, typically in a hurry and easy. J. Wardle: President Wardle, Councilman Rountree, I agree, the trade off, however, really is as you put it, is landscaping. Now, you know, the UDC requires the two parking stalls per -- per unit. We have complied with that standard. We certainly want a safe project, but the reality is that only under -- you're looking at a very unique set of circumstances, I believe, when this would be a hundred percent parked and maybe -- you know, certainly I recognize the fire codes and fire department, that is always their concern is what happens in the worse case scenario. The worse case scenario is that if we can go back to the wider view, Anna, of the whole site plan, the reality is that there will be access at a variety of points, that the point of access is typically going to be no more than 200 feet away, if that is a concern. Additionally, if we need -- if you direct us to remove landscaping so as to satisfy the fire department's concern, we certainly can make that modification. And it wouldn't necessarily require removal of landscaping at each of these points. I mean, basically, you could remove a few trees and that would give you -- and, again, I'd need to talk to my client and the design folks, but we could remove some trees to provide you additional access, which would leave you within, you know, 100, 150 feet of any doorway and that would be consistent with what your existing requirements are from the fire department. And so I think you could save much of the landscaping. But that's the reality, that those would probably be the places where we could do that to satisfy the fire department. Meridian City Council September 12. 2006 Page 17 of 58 Canning: Councilmember Rountree, Members of the -- President Wardle, I'm sorry, Councilmember Rountree, there are -- don't let me get you in the head there, Jeff. There are -- they have consistently provided double space handicapped loading. I think you can see one here. That area would provide a means of getting in there. I forgot to point that out before. So, in the areas where they have shown those handicapped spots -- but they aren't universally spread, like every third unit or anything like that. So, they are a little bit haphazard. I don't know if they show up -- I can't pick them out at this level, but there are a variety of double handicapped spots around. With regard to removing the trees from the landscape islands, that would require a variance. That's not an alternative compliance item. J. Wardle: President Wardle, Councilman Rountree, maybe my eyesight can be a little bit better to direct you, but, basically, anyplace you see shading here, here, here, here and I believe there, anyplace you see those, those -- that shaded area would be the stall, which would be reserved and parking would be precluded, so that you could have a handicap van. And so, basically, you have three -- you have three stalls there, but the middle stall is not being utilized. Appreciate staff correcting me on the reading of your landscape requirement. Rountree: Thank you. Wardle: Council, additional questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none. Canning: President Wardle, Members of the Council, I do need to clarify one other statement made by the applicant. And I'm sure it was unintentional, but he spoke of the Comprehensive Plan designation allowing up to 40 units per acre. That is true of the mixed use regional. The mixed use community, however, only allows up to 15 units per acre. Just wanted to make sure that was clear. Wardle: Thank you. J. Wardle: President Wardle, I do apologize that was a misstatement on my part. Wardle: Thank you. Questions about the Comp Plan language? Rountree: I have a question for Anna and probably Mr. Wardle as well. Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Mr. Wardle indicated that there had been some time spent with staff in terms of multiple looks, multiple footprints, both from the front elevation, as well as backage street, modulations, difference in materials. Has that been articulated well enough to include that into the Findings? Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 18 of 58 Canning: I believe it is included. I will have to check the staff report to be sure, but in my brief survey for the number of parking units I saw it referenced, but I can go check the conditions of approval. Rountree: Thank you. J. Wardle: Mr. President, Councilman Rountree, I mean certainly we are willing to make that commitment and I believe that when Councilman Bird made the motion to approve at the hearing in July, that the language was included to incorporate the presentation and representations that we made here and, certainly, if that needs to be more clearly articulated in the development agreement, we certainly would work with legal counsel to accomplish that. Wardle: Thank you. Additional questions? J. Wardle: Thank you. Wardle: I have one additional person signed up for this Public Hearing. Joe Ricci. Signed up for. State your name and address for the record. Ricci: Good evening. My name is Joseph Ricci. I'm the president of American West Homes. My home address is 1117 Brightwater in Boise. 83703. Our approach to projects has been -- as a company has been to ascertain the housing needs of the community. We have done this for 31 years now. The Comprehensive Plan calls for an R-15 zoning as an overlay on -- over our land and we first designed a rental community for this property. We did all the work. We worked with staff, with Caleb Hood, and we got to an application stage, but Caleb had suggested that maybe we meet with the Mayor, that there had been some problems with some four-plex communities in the very near vicinity of this property and that, to say the least, they haven't been very well received in the community, especially in the City of Meridian. So, after meeting with Mayor de Weerd, she outlined the need for there to be for sale housing, you know, for the critical working force in Meridian. She talked about, you know, the commute times that people had to have and the unaffordability and how expensive it had gotten here. And so scrapped what we had and we redesigned our project and as you can see, this is -- this is a very challenging site. This is, basically, a triangle and it's got a canal, you know, on the bottom half of it and it's got a little canal on the northeast corner of it, and we have really, you know, had fits trying to come up with something that would be beautiful, that would fit well into the -- you know, the community and that most importantly would be affordable to the median income earner in the City of Meridian. So, we redesigned this project, which is now one hundred percent affordable housing, meeting the median income in the City of Meridian. One hundred percent. And, of course, that assumes today's interest rates and construction costs. We did some calculations -- delays in redesign add approximately 2,000 dollars to the cost of each home per month because of the professional fees, architects, engineers, the interest carryon the property, you know, the rising material and labor costs, et cetera. You know, we are trying to stay within the scope of it being affordable housing, because it's Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 19 of 58 really needed here and as, you know, time goes on it goes on and on outside the grasp of the average family being able to afford it. Our project design has a great neighborhood feel. Are we able to go back to that -- what do you call that -- rendering of the neighborhood? Because the units are broken down to smaller buildings and this isn't the greatest perspective, because you can't see the separations, you can't see well the articulations -- that's the clubhouse -- between the buildings. But we have a lot of articulation of the building, varied building materials, various, you know, colors, various setbacks and configurations and we have a nice, you know, facade and it's very well landscaped. Wardle: Mr. Ricci? Ricci: Yes. Wardle: I assume you're summarizing for us? Ricci: Yes. Okay. You know, we offer more amenities and open space than any other project in our price range. I believe we had 11 separate amenities in the property. Our project asks for no variances and fully meets code in all respects. We are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. We are only asking 8 0 percent of the density allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. We have worked cooperatively with staff. Have staff recommendation for approval. We have a Planning and Zoning recommendation for approval and it was recommended by the City Council for approval. There has been no public appeal filed and we have no neighborhood opposition. And, finally, I want to just say something from a practical aspect. When completed and sold out, our project will add approximately 750,000 dollars per year tax base to the City of Meridian. So, we, once again, ask for your final approval to bring the City of Meridian this well-planned and well needed project and I thank you and I stand for questions. I want to answer the question about gurneys if I could. First of all, downtown buildings, you know, have elevator, stairs -- I mean there is much more challenging sites than our property to get in -- you know, gurneys into a home. But we have handicapped loading, double-wide spaces, throughout the entire site. Where those are not available, perhaps if required by the staff, we would be amenable to it. We can cut in through the landscaping some kind of little pathway that maybe wasn't in the place of where the trees are, but just a pathway that was a gurney pathway if needed, so that every 50 feet or so, you know, that would be a good solution to get -- you know, to get through there without really interrupting the look of the project and taking out too much of the landscaping. So, I thank you and stand for questions if you have any further. Wardle: Council, questions of Mr. Ricci? Rountree: Mr. President. Thank you for your comments. You reminded me of a question that I had written down here and didn't ask. Ricci: Uh-oh. Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 20 of 58 Rountree: No, it's not uh-oh. If I don't get the answer I'm going to be confused. On the rendering or the plat that's colored that shows the landscaping, that odd remainder of parcel that's in the northeast corner above Eight Mile Lateral, you show as landscaped. I assume that's going to be part of the common area to the development. Is that -- Ricci: It is a common area, just as we didn't mention a couple others, too. You see in the northwest, that triangle up there, originally there had been a unit up there, too. We have taken out several buildings throughout the process of this application. That's another big open space, as well as -- I don't have one of those little red pointers. This one right here is one also, so -- Wardle: There is a pointer right there. Right on top. Ricci: Oh. Got you. Too late now, but -- yeah. One there and one there, too. Rountree: So, I guess you don't -- what I'm asking is you don't have -- on that particular piece of property, that triangular piece, have designs for maybe a commercial building or something on that? Ricci: We do not. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. Ricci: It's just simply another open space that's just primarily landscaping. Rountree: Okay. Ricci: Just to create the open space. We have more open space in this project -- probably double to open space that a typical project of this size would have. Rountree: President Wardle? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: You introduced yourself as the president of American West Homes? Ricci: Correct. Rountree: Have been in business for 30 years? Ricci: Thirty-one. Rountree: Thirty-one years. Good for you. Has that been in Idaho or-- Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 21 of 58 Ricci: Started in Nevada, went to Arizona, California, Wyoming, and Idaho. We have been doing primarily subdivision building. We do small garden office buildings and we have done a lot of multi-family homes as well. Rountree: Okay. And though I'm not going to ask you to do this, I'm going to ask you to respond. You're calling this Canterbury Commons. I assume your company has a logo and you're proud of your product. Would you put your logo and your product emblem on a sign on the street that would be at the entrance of this particular subdivision? I'm not asking you to do it, I'm asking you would you -- would you do it in terms of you're proud enough of this project to do it, put your seal of approval on it, put the company's name up there. Ricci: You know, I'm the dad offive boys and -- I mean you asked me a really important question. You know, there is -- Rountree: It is. Ricci: You know, there is only one thing you could leave your kids and that's integrity and my dad was born and raised in Italy, didn't have much of an education, I worked with him in carpentry from the time I was a little kid and I love what I do. I mean it's more to me an art -- or as much to me as an art as it is a job and I won't do something that I'm not proud of, because I want to be able to require that of my sons also. So, I'm proud of this project. It's a beautiful project for its price point and for its location. I mean we are accomplishing some great things with this project and it's well needed within this community. So, if you're asking me if I'm proud of this project, I'm tremendously proud of this project and I think if Caleb Hood were here he would at least concur that we have very much tried to cooperate, you know, with staff and work with the city in concert with the city in cooperation to give you all, you know, what you need for this site. Rountree: Thank you. Ricci: You bet. Wardle: Thank you. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone else who would wish to speak to this application? If you would, please, state your name and address for the record. Pena: Mr. President, distinguished Council, my name is Michael Pena. I live at 2659 West Primeland in Meridian. I'd like to speak in favor of this project. There is a number of points I think of smart development. One thing I think that is critical is I applaud the Council and Mr. President for -- and Planning and Zoning for pushing condominiums in this development. I think it's needed very much in our community. With recent real estate escalation price points it's very difficult for young people to find affordable housing and I think this project will do that. Thank you. Wardle: Is there anyone further that would like to speak to this application? Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 22 of 58 Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: I think our fire department would like to and I would like to ask some questions regarding fire safety, too. Wardle: Mr. Johnson. Johnson: Mr. President, Members of the Council, to go on, number one, the first issue of the gurney access, that's just one part of our concern with the access to these individual apartments or condos. The other is once they have that small room and contents fire, the time to stretch a hose line 150 feet, 200 down is -- allows that fire to just continue to propagate on us, so that's why we need those access points at each and every one of those buildings. Another concern that we have with so much parking in such a tight area is the view of the citizens backing out and we are talking young families in these condos, potentially, and affordable housing, we are talking first houses, younger kids, there is no place for people to see when they are backing out if a kid's running between carport and carport. That's another safety concern that I see from the fire department and, then, you get the larger vehicles, the SUVs that pull into these little tight parking spaces and, then, they don't get all the way in and the next person in the little Isuzu trying to back out can't see, hitting another car or maybe hitting a child or a fire truck coming in. So, that's -- you know, yeah, it does meet the code, but these are just some safety concerns that the fire department does have on this. Wardle: Thank you. Council, questions for fire department staff? Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. Johnson, how long would it take you to run out two or three hundred feet of hose, if you have to go all the way down to the end of the lot and come back? Johnson: Coming back with a three or four person crew, that's probably two to three minutes of fire build up. Bird: And how much can a fire gain in one minute? Johnson: It doubles in size every minute if it's free burning without us getting water onto it. Bird: Okay. That's a real concern with me. I like the project, but I -- something has got to be done for safety of not only getting a gurney back there, but just fighting fire back there. I know we got -- we have got our handicapped at every so often, but that might Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 23 of 58 not be the closest place to pull a hose through. I'll leave it at that. I'll ask Mr. Wardle when he gives his reply. Wardle: Thank you. Additional comments? Rountree: I have another question, I guess. And I never can relate how our ordinance for four-plexes applies to these kinds of things, but does the sprinkling requirement apply in this particular case or not? And that question is for Chief Johnson. Johnson: That is -- yes, these will be sprinklered units. Rountree: Okay. Canning: President Wardle? I do have Commissioner Rountree -- Commissioner -- Councilman Rountree's answer regarding the building -- the varied building setbacks from the articulation of those units. It was shown on the final plat -- and I think you can see it in this blow up a little bit. You can see how some of the units are turned and there is some articulation there. That is how it was depicted and it is not a condition of approval at this time. Rountree: Okay. Canning: Nor is there a requirement to condo the plat at this time. The applicant did say that they would be willing to accept that. Bird: Oh. Okay. Wardle: Thank you. Additional questions before wrap up? Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none. Wardle: Mr. Wardle, if you would like to -- J. Wardle: Very briefly, President Wardle, Members of the Council. We understand the fire department's concerns. These are always concerns. But the realty is you have adopted a development code that we have met and this is -- this is tension that always exists, but as was pointed out by Councilman Rountree's question, we certainly can have our architectural consultant get up. These will be sprinklered. You know, four- plexes are sprinklered under the building code, because of these very concerns. Additionally, as the fire department indicated, yes, there are concerns about gurneys, but there are other issues there as well. But the intent of sprinklering is to provide that initial time buffer that you need to get there. We recognize the concerns about the location, but the reality is that, again, through those landscape islands, hoses can be pulled, those requirements can be met. We have attempted to design a project which Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 24 of 58 meets your code and that's what we have done. That's why we think we have a positive staff report. We certainly are willing to do those things which are necessary to make the project safe, but at the same time we have to comply with your code and if these are items that the fire department really believes need to be addressed, then, they need to be addressed on more than just this project basis, but it needs to be a possible issue for reevaluation in the UDC. With that said, there really has been a push over the last several years to widen what gets sprinklered, what doesn't get sprinklered, what provides these issues. There has also been recognition that private streets are a way to insure that many of the concerns about traffic, many of the concerns about drives, are addressed. Now, the reality is that, yes, these are 25 foot private streets with parking on both sides. That's a requirement, though, of your UDC. We have met that requirement. With respect to the concerns about children in the streets, that's always a concern. That's a concern whether it's on a 25 foot wide street, a 33 foot wide street, or a 35 foot street, which is what the private -- the public street is designed to meet. We have been through a very intensive process with your staff. We greatly appreciate, as my client indicated, the input that he got, because the reality is to develop a truly affordable for sale product requires something different. It requires a different design and a different model than what we have in much of Meridian. I think we are all surprised by the appreciation in land in this city over the last year and a half. I don't think any of us foresaw this 18 months ago what we saw with land prices and the reality is with many of the applications that you have seen come before you recently, your typical eight to ten thousand square foot lot is -- and home to be built thereon is no longer affordable. Those homes are pricing out at a minimum of 350,000 dollars now and you have to ask how can housing be affordable when a young family has to spend the first 150,000 dollars on the dirt. In working with staff I think my client should be commented for the fact that they truly have attempted to address the issues and come up with a product which meets a need, come up with a product which is high quality, come up with a project which is different, and come up with a product which has taken an approach which is unique to insure that many of the concerns that the city's had in the past will be addressed. We certainly are grateful for the positive staff report that's been provided in this matter. We appreciate the work that the Planning and Zoning Commission did with us to develop a better project. And we appreciate your patient consideration of this project over the last two public hearings which have been held on this matter. And with that we certainly are amenable to inclusion of the conditions of approval that have been discussed here tonight, if you feel those are appropriate, to insure that those things happen, because we recognize that frequently the problems that you have seen with other projects have arisen from the fact that issues of design, issues of elevation, issues of materials, have not been adequately addressed. We are committed and prepared to do that. And with that I stand for any further questions and would request, again, your support for these applications and request your affirmative vote. Thank you. Wardle: Council? Bird: I have none. Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 25 of 58 Wardle: Mr. Rountree? Rountree: You just keep -- you keep talking. And I see the families that potentially live here and you weren't here earlier this evening, but we had a presentation from the Valley Ride group public transportation and I see at some point in time this will certainly be the type of facility where public transportation certainly would assist in the future residents. My question would be on the part of the willingness of the applicant, given some of the open space adjacent to the Pine Street, that at some future date and not with the plat, but just a commitment at some future date, working with ACHD in order to provide a bus pull out or a bus shelter that might be on either the west or east end of that particular project on Pine Street that would be accessible by pedestrians and hopefully some day the public transportation system that we all desire, but none us are willing to pay for. J. Wardle: President Wardle, Councilman Rountree, certainly I think that's appropriate, because recognize there is a 20 foot wide buffer strip here along Pine, so we wouldn't be dealing with trying to place one of these inside somebody's lot. And, additionally, as you pointed out, there is common area here and there is common area here. And I would also point out that I believe in your Comprehensive Plan that the intersection, you know, basically a quarter mile to the west is intended to be a transit node at Pine and Ten Mile or Ten Mile and the railroad and that's why I think it is important to recognize that if you want a valid -- if you want a real transit system, you have to have pedestrian connectivity and you have to have density and that's why I think you had great forethought and foresight to designate this for the use that you did. So, my client has indicated they are certainly willing to do that in the future and we can document that however you feel appropriate. Rountree: Thank you. Wardle: Council? J. Wardle: Would you like to hear from the applicant on that point? Rountree: That's fine. Bird: That's fine with me. Rountree: That's fine with me. You bet. Just gives me more time to think, though. Wardle: Restate your name and address. Ricci: Joseph Ricci, 1117 Brightwater, Boise. The northeast corner you had asked about that area just north of the canal that's the common space or open space area. That would make sense in the future to perhaps become a pull out for a transit system. The northwest corner wouldn't make any sense at all, because we are 300 feet, you know, from Ten Mile Road. So, you know, you have got another, I don't know, 1,000 Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 26 of 58 feet or so there, so you're a quarter mile or so away, so it would make a good pull out point and I think that, you know, it would be actually a good use for that property, because it really doesn't connect that well to -- you know, to the site anyway. One thing that might be pointed out also is the fact that this project is designed for the critical working force in Meridian, you know, for people that live in Meridian. You know, their commute time is going to be cut down tremendously if they could live here and work here. They are keeping all their dollars here, they are spending locally, and they are able to spend more time with their families, because they don't have to spend an extra maybe 20 minutes or so each way, you know, driving somewhere. Thank you. Rountree: Thank you. Wardle: Mr. Rountree, did that bring up any additional -- Rountree: No, I'm dry right now. Thank you. Wardle: Thank you. Council? Bird: I have nothing. Wardle: We do have an open Public Hearing on Items 10, 11, and 12 -- Canning: President Wardle, while the Public Hearing is still open, can I make a suggestion regarding the last question regarding a bus pull out? Wardle: Understanding the applicant has the final word, yes. Canning: Yes. Just one opportunity to do that, because once there is a condo association you'd have to have permission of the entire condo association. If you wanted -- I think we have out at Heritage Commons or Quenzer -- I think we have an easement dedicated with the plat for a future pull out at some point. I don't -- there is no mechanism for how that will get constructed or who will fund the construction of that, but it noted as an easement and that might be a good opportunity here. Rountree: Good point. J. Wardle: President Wardle, we certainly would accept a condition of approval that an easement for a turnout be associated with that parcel, which is a separate -- it is a separately described lot. I don't recall which lot it is, but a condition of approval that a transit turnout easement be recorded as part of that is acceptable to us. Rountree: Thank you. Wardle: Thank you. For the record, I'm going to note that we are joined by Councilman Borton (at 8:16 p.m.), but I'm going to ask, again, a procedural question of Mr. Baird. Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 27 of 58 Baird: Mr. President, I know where you're going, because I'm having the same thought. And Mr. Borton would probably agree with me that he should abstain from voting, because he didn't hear what was presented tonight. However, if there is a desire for him to vote, we would have to continue the final decision until next week and give him an opportunity to review the record, either to listen to it or to review a transcript. So, I'll kind of leave that up to Mr. Borton and the Council. But those are our options in that regard. Wardle: Thank you, Mr. Baird. Council, do we have any additional -- no questions on the -- Bird: No. Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: I would do whatever the Council is most comfortable with in light of what they have heard. How is that for a vague wishy-washy answer? Rountree: How is that for being on the fence, uh? I wish you would have been about five minutes later, how about that? Wardle: Council, we have, I guess in my opinion, heard a lot of new information which we have been deliberating on and considering, especially from the applicant. If it is Mr. Borton's intention to vote on the application, I would certainly request his review, but we could also deliberate and vote with his abstention as well. Borton: Mr. President that would be fine with an abstention. Bird: I'm for that. Rountree: Thank you. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: Hearing no more comments, I move we close AZ 06-013, PP 06-011 and CUP 06- 006, the public hearings. Rountree: Second. Wardle: The motion is to close the public hearings on Items 10, 11, and 12. All in favor? Meridian City Council September 12. 2006 Page 28 of 58 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. Wardle: Item NO.1 O. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve AZ 06-013, to include all comments from applicant, public, and staff and to get the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law drawn up for approval. Wardle: We have a motion. Do I have a second? Rountree: I'll second that for discussion. For clarification. Wardle: For clarification. Canning: Councilmember Bird, would that include an amendment to the development agreement for the bus pull out and the requirement of condominiumization and when would you like that codominiumization concluded? Would it be prior to occupancy of the units? Bird: It would be prior as we -- this was all why I just said public -- so we didn't go through a whole list of stuff and not forget something. Yes, the turnout would be like we did at Heritage Commons with the Quenzer property. The condominium association before occupancy, as -- and I believe the applicant agreed upon that. And the design and everything like that, too, you know. So, that's why I said all public and applicant -- Wardle: Anna, just one clarification for the Findings. Is there enough discussion on specific design criteria presented by the applicant and discussed by the Council for you to write that into the development agreement? Canning: President Wardle, Members of the Council, the -- I believe the elevation -- the development agreement ties them to the elevations they presented. Bird: That's right. Wardle: Thank you. I have a motion and a second and clarification on approval for Item NO.1 O. Further discussion, Council? Rountree: None. Bird: I have none. Wardle: Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 29 of 58 Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, abstain. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. Wardle: Item 11. Bird: I'll try this one again, too, Mr. President. Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve PP 06-011 and I believe we are only going to have nine common lots, if I'm right, if we are going to dedicate the one. I believe the applicant said that was a lot or should we just leave it like it is, Anna? Just like it is? Okay. I move, then, that we approve PP 06-011, Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, and include all applicant, public and staff comments. Rountree: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 11. Just a point of clarification, Anna. I believe the applicant made reference to the positioning of the handicap stalls and that access, to re-Iook at that under the discussion. I would suggest that under this motion that the realignment of that provide better gurney access for the fire department would be substantial compliance when the final plat come forward. Would you agree with that statement? Canning: It may be more appropriate, because it was related to the apartment complex itself, to just put it in the CU for the apartment complex, rather than the preliminary plat. Wardle: Okay. Thank you. Canning: And if -- President Wardle, if you could articulate that one more time when it comes to that, because I didn't understand what you said. I apologize. Rountree: You get to make the motion. Wardle: Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, abstain. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. Wardle: Thank you. Item 12. I'll attempt my motion. I move that we approve Item 12, CUP 06-006, to include applicant's commitment to align where appropriate the handicapped parking stalls, which provide an open corridor to meet, where achievable, the fire department's request for gurney access, to require the additional -- the Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 30 of 58 additional amenities proposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and to, again, tie that criteria to the development agreement to the application. Rountree: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 12. Anna, is that enough -- okay. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, abstain. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 06..034 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.95 acres from R4 (Ada County) to L-O (Limited Office District) for Ashtyn Park Annexation by David N. Price -- 201 W. Ustick Road: Wardle: Thank you. Item 13 is a Public Hearing on AZ 06-034. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Council President and Members of the Council, the next project is Ashtyn Park. This is somewhat of a reconsideration. A longer separation between the last hearing. This project -- you have seen it before. It's located at the corner of Ustick and Meridian Road, the southwest corner to be more precise, and it is an application for just annexation and zoning at this time. You will see the property to the north is the city park and, then, to the -- immediately to the west is a church. To the east we have a county sub, which we have been directed to seek annexation on and staff hasn't quite got there yet. And, then, a variety of parcels within the county. There is an existing home on the site that's being proposed -- that's actually in the right of way. That's being proposed to be removed as part of this development, so that will not stay. This is the conceptual site plan proposed by the applicant. They do intend to construct an office development. To support that request the applicant has submitted this concept plan for how the subject property may develop and also some pictures of what the buildings will look like. These are taken from the Heritage Commons office area and they have committed to using a similar style architecture on their project. And similar to that, the buildings are squarish, rather than rectangular. The applicant has -- the Comprehensive Plan currently shows a public, quasi-public, for this property, as well as residential. There is the exception that we talked about at length last week with regard to the office use, but we also discussed the residential exception. This qualifies for that residential exception. It is on two section line roads, has frontage on those roads, and is less than three acres in size. So, they are taking -- using that provision of the Comprehensive Plan to ask for the L-O zoning on this property. Also, consistent with what we talked about last week, although they are asking for the L-O zoning, staff is just proposing that they be allowed the principal permitted uses in that zoning, not the conditionally allowed uses. So, that would be a development agreement provision that would limit them to just the light office uses. Other provisions of the development agreement, the kind of nonstandard provisions, would be to tie them to this concept plan. To tie them for up to six office Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 31 of 58 buildings, with a maximum size of 5,000 square feet each that are single story. And, again, the staff has just taken the concepts of those -- those pictures and this is what we have come up with. Variations in roof lines with at least of portion of the roof having a 6/12 slope. Awnings over some of the windows and the front door. Columns. At least 25 percent of the front and street facing facade to have windows. At least two different types of siding material. And generally compatible in appearance and bulk with these pictures. If they aren't able to meet those design standards, staff is recommending that they have to go through the conditional use process. With regard to access, the applicant is proposing a full access driveway at the southern end of the property. And it's approximately 350 feet south of Ustick Road. When this is signalized, ACHD has said that they may restrict access at this point to right-in, right-out only. Staff has recommended -- and you will see the stub here for cross-access to the church property. The hope is that over time we will get a reciprocal cross-access agreement with the church, so that church members, as they leave and want to head south on Meridian Road, can come through here and, likewise, if these folks want to head out toward Ustick Road, they can head out through the church property, rather than having to go through that constrained intersection. We don't think we will see a lot of cut-through traffic, because of the -- the zigzag pattern that you need to go through to get through this development. I have already mentioned the office uses. The only other consideration that we are asking be included in the development agreement is the hours of operation. Consistent with former Council approvals, we are recommending that the office hours be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. And that would be the times that the public can arrive at those offices. Certainly an employee could work late or something like that. I showed you the pictures. The Commission recommended approval at their August 3rd Public Hearing. Van Elg from Land Group spoke in favor. No one spoke in opposition. Lester Vogle from the irrigation -- had concerns about irrigation water and they did comment. Key issues of discussion were the uses allowed on the site and the proposed zoning. There were no major changes to staff's initial recommendation and to our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before City Council. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding this project. Wardle: Thank you, Anna. Council, questions for staff? Bird: I have none. Rountree: None. Wardle: If the applicant would, please, come forward. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Elg: My name is Van Elg. I'm with the Land Group. 462 East Shore in Eagle. I have about a 45 minute presentation for you tonight. I'm kidding. Wardle: You already started your 15 minutes. Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 32 of 58 Elg: Yeah. Rountree: You're done. Elg: We appreciate staff's comment on this. We have gone through this project before. Or we haven't, but Mr. Price has. And during the last hearing he recognized that he needed some -- P&Z and City Council apparently asked for some additional information regarding elevations and some site plan clarification. And, frankly, Mr. Price is embarrassed about this, but he didn't make it to the hearing in time and wasn't able to present that information before the hearing was closed. We are back before you again a year later and we have a new design that we believe is much more palatable. One of the things that you will notice right here, the old design had an access point right here that ACHD was going to require a little bit of shifting and alignment with Eastbrook Street, I believe it is, that's across the street from that. Right there. And the new design that we have -- that would have been a restricted access as well and was quite close -- within 175 feet of Ustick Road. The new design, which is 315 feet south of -- at the pavement, I believe, of Ustick, right there, will allow for a full access for the current period and should that site be signalized, as Anna mentioned, a right-in, right-out may be required by ACHD. The project also -- Anna, if you could go back to that site plan. The project also right here -- we have turned all of the buildings along Meridian and Ustick in order to give them a face out appearance with landscaping, windows, and tried to locate the majority of the parking on an internal node, so that we don't have a parking nightmare right there at that intersection. You can also see that, as Anna mentioned, we don't believe that this will promote any kind of cross-through traffic, as they'd have to come all the way through here, over here, and clear back over to the church site. Mr. Price has also already obtained the cross-access easement with the church. That document is -- it's finished and there is a sewer line that runs through here that's a private sewer line. It's almost like we put in some sort of a -- this was a concern during the last meeting with Public Works. Almost like we put some sort of a -- a man hole right here, allowing the church to connect in there and, then, a sewer line out there, that I think will help solve that initial concern. But we may need to discuss that with the staff a little bit more. But, in any event, we will have a sewer connection here and we will make sure that the church still has a sewer connection one way or the other. We have also discussed with the church that there could be additional Sunday parking here as part of the cross-access easement, should they have additional demand. So, I don't want to belabor the application much more. Certainly open myself up to any questions that staff -- that the Council might have of me tonight and ask that you allow us to move forward with this project this time, with a better design and with the information that you requested at the last hearing. Wardle: Thank you. Council, questions of the applicant? Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 33 of 58 Rountree: And this is for my own information. If there is ever a future desire to sell one of these buildings, would it not be in the benefit of the applicant to subdivide these into lots or -- probably a question either for you, Van, or Anna. I don't know. I don't know if any thought's been given to that. Elg: That's certainly a possibility. Whether it's subdivided or condominiumize the units in the future. Rountree: Okay. Okay. You could do it that way. Elg: Uh-huh. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. Elg: Okay. Wardle: Thank you. Council? Len, while we have the applicant, I believe there was a question of sewer line. Grady: Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that I understand correctly. You are proposing that anything on your property is the new sewer line and not the private sewer line? Elg: Correct. Grady: Okay. That was all our concern was. Wardle: Additional questions, Council? Rountree: I have no -- Bird: I have none. Wardle: Thanks. Elg: Thank you. Wardle: This is a Public Hearing. We did not have anyone signed up, if you wish to speak to this application, please, come forward. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Michaelson: Sure. Elaine Michaelson. 128 East Eastbrook Court, Meridian, Idaho. A question that was brought up when I was speaking with Mr. Price was on Meridian Road that there was going to be an island put in there. My only worry is -- and I was going to ask Mr. Johnson, is was -- if there is an island put in there, how does the fire department get to us? Just, you know, right now we can turn left or right out of our Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 34 of 58 subdivision, but if an island is put in there, as were told by Ada County police and Meridian police, we are only going to be able to make a right-hand turn. That would mean that unit three could not come from Locust Grove to us, they would have to go all the way around the mulberry bush to get back to us and I'm just proposing that that not be done. It is a concern. Thank you. Wardle: Thank you. Chief Johnson, would you like to address that for us, please? Johnson: Mr. President, Members of the Council, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of there being a curb there. Is this along the same lines as the Eagle Road curbing that we see right now? Wardle: Actually, chief, maybe we could get clarification from Gary lnselman with ACHD as to the validity of the -- Inselman: Mr. President and Council, Gary Inselman representing ACHD, 3775 North Adams, Garden City. In some of the earlier iterations of this project when they were aligning an entrance with that street or slightly offset from that street, it would have required a median to prevent the conflicting turning movements. With the access at the south property line, that was avoided and we have no intention of putting a median in at this time, even with our interim signal that's being installed, but that is always an option if accidents warrant it or other conditions in the future when the road is widened. Wardle: Thank you. Bird: Thank you, Gary. Wardle: Is there anyone further that would wish to speak to this application? I assume that answered your original question. Would the applicant like to respond to -- any additional statements? Okay. Council? Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: If nobody wants to talk in the Public Hearing, I move we close AZ 06-034. Rountree: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 14. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wardle: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council September 12. 2006 Page 35 of 58 Bird: Mr. President, I move that we approve AZ 06-034, to include all public, applicant, and staff comments. Rountree: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 13. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Public Hearing: AZ 06-033 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.6 acres from RUT (Ada County) to 6 acres of R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) and 1.6 acres of R-8 (Medium Density Residential) for Benelli Springs Subdivision by Rob Godsill - 3420 South Locust Grove Road: Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 06.041 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 17 single-family units in the proposed R-4 zone, 8 single family units in the proposed R-8 zone and 5 common lots on 7.6 acres for Benelli Springs Subdivision by Rob Godsill - 3420 South Locust Grove Road: Wardle: Item No. 14 is AZ 06-033 and Item 15 is a Public Hearing on PP 06-041. I will open these two items with staff comments. Canning: Thank you, President Wardle, Members of the Council. This is the Benelli Springs project. It's located on the east side of Locust Grove Road, approximately 600 feet south of Victory Road. I do want to mention that the -- the long-standing continued item of Casa Meridiana is right to the north. And, then, you have the Tuscany Lakes project -- or the Tuscany project to the south. This is annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat application. The annexation and zoning is for 7.6 acres to a mix of R-4 and that would be six acres, and R-8, 1.6 acres. I think you can see here that the north side of the entrance road would have the R-8 designation and, then, the south side of the entrance road would have the R-4 designation. The preliminary plat is for 25 single family buildable lots and five common lots. All of the homes within the development are proposed to be single family detached homes. The average lot sizes in the proposed development are 8,812 square feet. That would be in the R-4 zone. And 5,085 square feet in the R-8 zone. Approximately 12 percent of the site is set aside for open space. That open space area includes this Ten Mile Creek easement, the landscape island in the cul-de-sac, and landscape buffers. Which are probably not included in that calculation, but those would be the other open space areas. The staff -- the overall gross residential density is 3.3 dwelling units per acre. Staff is recommending a development agreement. The provisions of that would be to clarify that it's only single family detached homes and allowed accessory uses. That the applicant agrees to construct a ten foot multi-use pathway along the Ten Mile Creek easement, as noted on that plan and from Locust Grove Road to the southeast corner of the property and that there be a maximum of 25 single family building lots. So, really, the main purpose is for Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 36 of 58 the pathway construction. The main purpose of the DA. We don't have elevations for you tonight. The Commission has recommended approval at their August 3rd, 2006, Public Hearing. Kevin McCarthy spoke in favor. No one spoke in opposition. Renee Seeley commented. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were groundwater concerns with slab-on-grade construction. This is an area where there has been a lot of concern about high groundwater. I believe Len has further information on that issue, should you require it. And, then, access to the parcel to the south. There was some question by one of the Commissioners whether this should provide a stub street and a bridge -- let me briefly address that. It is a relatively small parcel. Staff did consider the need for that. Given its size, we felt it probably would develop with at most a common driveway with three or four homes. So, you know, triangle-shaped parcels just don't redevelop easily -- or don't develop easily in general, so we don't anticipate a lot of development on that piece of property. And didn't see the need for a bridge and a public street stub. So, the one outstanding issue for the City Council -- the applicant was supposed to come back with more information for you regarding groundwater and the type of construction proposed. And with that I will answer any questions you may have of me. I did want to point out -- sorry. Forgot. That we do have a stub here going to the Casa Meridiana property. A public street stub. With that I will answer any questions. Wardle: Thank you, Anna. Council, questions for staff? Bird: I have none. Wardle: Would the applicant, please, come forward. If you can place that on the easel, there. And then, please, state your name and address for the record. McCarthy: Good evening. My name is Kevin McCarthy. My address is 9777 Chinden Boulevard with Toothman-Orton Engineering. For the most part, as far as staff comments are concerned, we didn't take much exception to any of those things and we agree to almost all the items they brought up at the P&Z hearing. One item that we have kind of already addressed on -- you can see on that map there, that originally -- and you can see on the preliminary plat we show the pathway along the Ten Mile Creek on the south side of the creek and we relocated that to the north side at staffs recommendation, so it ties in better with the Tuscany development to our east. So, we agree to do that. As staff mentioned, the groundwater issue, we do have ongoing groundwater monitoring. We are monitoring all through the irrigation season here coming up. We are well aware that it -- there is high groundwater in the area. So, we may have to consider going to slab-on-grade construction and some of that will just depend on how much fill we have to bring into the site. One thing that we were not aware of prior to the P&Z hearing, but we have been made aware of now is that a flood study has been performed by Paul Kunz for the Tuscany development and it is going to have some impact on our property. It could cause us to fill more than we would have otherwise. So, we are not going to necessarily commit to that slab-on-grade construction, because if we have to fill the site three feet, we will probably be able to go with standard footings in that area and not have to necessarily worry about groundwater Meridian City Council September 12. 2006 Page 37 of 58 issues. We are waiting for -- Paul Kunz hasn't finished his flood study yet. Once he does that we will be able to determine the amount of fill we will have to have on the site. That's something new that I'm not sure staff was aware of prior to this meeting. The other things that have come up a little bit -- sewer and water were -- I think we are on board, everything there. With that I'll answer any questions that you may have. Wardle: Thank you. Council? Bird: I have none. Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: I can't tell from what you have got on the board. Do you have the pathway to the north side of -- McCarthy: Yeah. I do. I'm sorry. The gray shade that you see here -- that gray line right along there, that's the pathway we are showing along the north side of -- Borton: Okay. McCarthy: And that's all included in a lot that's, you know, a hundred foot on center. So, fifty foot from that center line is where the rear of the lots are at. So, it's all -- the Ten Mile Creek is all included within it's own lot. Borton: Okay. Thank you. Wardle: Council, I have an additional follow-up question of staff while we have the applicant. Anna, is -- you have heard the determination before, the need for slab on grade will be ongoing and determined. Is that something that could be determined at final plat stage? Do we need to make the determination now? Grady: President Wardle, with this new information it would almost seem prudent to commit to slab on grade and back off if -- if we can come to some sort of agreement later. I know there is a lot of stuff going on, some groundwater monitoring, but I also know that there is some -- some of the old monitoring showed some fairly high groundwater levels in there and I'm not sure what mechanism we would use in the future to insure that those -- those homes are protected in there. So, again, if you -- if it's possible to take the more stringent approach and let us back off in the future, that would be my recommendation. Wardle: Is that -- Meridian City Council September 12. 2006 Page 38 of 58 McCarthy: I'm not opposed to that. I just would like to -- if we do have to fill for the floodway consideration, that we possibly back off that requirement and not require the slab on grade. Grady: I'd sure agree with that. McCarthy: Okay. Thank you. Wardle: Council, anything further? Mr. Rountree? Rountree: You have indicated there is a flood study being done. What are you going to do if it happens to be in the zone of no build? Are we going to be back here with a replat? McCarthy: No. We have already -- in speaking with Paul Kunz who is performing the study, it's not going to be in the no build zone, it won't be in the floodway, it would be in the flood plane. Rountree: Okay. McCarthy: So, basically, he's going to establish elevations that we would, then, have to comply with your flood plane ordinance to be above those elevations. Rountree: Thank you. Wardle: Thank you. Thank you. This is a Public Hearing. Anyone else wish to testify on these applications? Anything further from the applicant? Council? Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close AZ 06-033 and PP 06-041. Rountree: Second. Wardle: Moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Items 14 and 15. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 39 of 58 Borton: Give you my two bits on -~ on the project. I guess I'm somewhat reluctant on the development of smaller parcels and I know that's how it takes place often and how it takes place in certain circumstances, but oftentimes I look to see if there is something compelling about a project that makes it be something that the City of Meridian is better off having and nothing strikes me with this particular project. How it's set up does that for me, so -- so for what it's worth that's -- Wardle: Thank you, Mr. Borton, for the record I will welcome Madam Mayor to our meeting. De Weerd: Thank you. Wardle: I'll continue to run it, if that's okay. Council? Rountree: Mr. President, I would move that we approve Item 14, request for annexation and zoning for AZ 06-003, with the development of a development agreement as identified by staff and with the condition that would provide for slab-on-grade construction. Bird: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 14, with the addition of a requirement for slab-on-grade construction. Anna. Canning: President Wardle, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree in particular, would the -- I have some proposed language to reflect the discussion I heard tonight and if this is appropriate, if you could amend the motion to say that. The homes shall have slab-on-grade construction unless an alternative building teChnique is determined appropriate at the time of final plat approval. Rountree: That's fine. Canning: Thank you. Wardle: Second agrees that that's okay? Bird: Yeah. I agree with it. Wardle: Thank you. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll on Item 14. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, nay. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Wardle: Item 15. Meridian City Council September 12. 2006 Page 40 of 58 Rountree: Mr. President, I move that we approve Item 15, PP 06~041, preliminary plat. Bird: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 15. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, nay. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Wardle: Madam Mayor, would you like to -- Item 16: Public Hearing: RZ 06-006 Request for a Rezone of 6.82 acres from R-8 to R-15 for Cedar Springs Townhomes by John Flaherty Construction - south of W. McMillan and west of N. Meridian Road: Item 17: Public Hearing: PP 06..033 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 48 attached single-family units in the proposed R-15 zone, 20 detached single-family units in the existing R-8 zone and 5 common lots on a total of 11.05 acres for Cedar Springs Townhomes by John Flaherty Construction - south of W. McMillan and west of N. Meridian Road: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Items 16 and 17 are public hearings on RZ 06-006 and PP 06-033. I will open these public hearings with staff comments. And thank you for -- I'm sorry I'm late, Council. We were at one of our Mayor's anti-drug coalition kickoff events for Project 7th Grade. I brought my drug test to let you know that I have been working. Rountree: And use it carefully. De Weerd: And I was clean. Borton: Let the record reflect she's holding a box. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Cedar Springs Townhouse development. It's located on Lot 2, Block 36 of Cedar Springs Subdivision No.4, which is just west of the entrance road to Cedar Springs along McMillan Road. No. Wait a minute. Just east, sorry, of the entrance road on McMillan Road. You can see that most of the area around it has been preliminary platted. Some of those developments haven't been -- this is Amber Creek. That hasn't been developed yet. We are just beginning to see -- this was the preliminary plat approved and, then, you have got Paramount to the north and to the east of that. Most of the Cedar Springs development has been constructed. This is the preliminary plat. Again, very difficult to read, so I'm going to spend most of my time either on using this landscape plan, which is a little Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 41 of 56 easier to see, or this conceptual townhouse plan. The applicant has applied for rezoning of 6.82 acres from R-8, to R-15 and preliminary plat approval of 68 residential building lots and 48 of those would be attached single family units in the R-15 zone and 20 detached single family units in the existing R-8 zone. They have also -- there is five common lots and that's on 11.05 acres. The total gross density of the development is 6.15 units per acre. Approximately six percent of the site is being set aside for open space. The development also includes a micropath at the south end of the property to Cedar Springs North. As I mentioned before, the gross residential of the individual zones -- the overall of 6.15, but the -- it's 7.04 within the R-15 and 4.73 within the R-8. I think that you can see the flag lots. Those are the proposed R-15 designation. The large lots are the R-8 lots. As background information, the original preliminary plat for Cedar Springs, which was done in 2002, noted that this site was to be developed as attached single family units. The note reads: Future attached single family residential areas. I think that the applicant had thought that it was approved for a higher density, but in looking through our records we could only ever find R-8. But there is a clear note that says it was for future attached single family residential area. Staff is recommending a development agreement that includes the following kind of nonstandard provisions. That would be the maximum, the 68 dwelling units, and that the applicant commit to construct the townhouses according to the elevations provided with the preliminary plat application. And I do have those elevations. This is them. The Commission recommended approval at the August 3rd, 2006, Public Hearing. Daren Fluke spoke in favor. No one spoke in opposition or commented. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the courtyard design with those flag lots and the minimum lot sizes and shared drives and that was with reference, actually, to the R-8 units. Some of them were short a little bit of frontage. There is a condition of approval that deals with that. The only outstanding issue -- this will become apparent as I show you some photos that I have developed. It's just whether or not Council wants to incorporate a condition on the preferred common driveway construction and it's not really an issue, it's just whether or not you want to comment on it. These next photos are not provided by the applicant, these are just ones that -- pictures I went out and took. When you were struggling with these flag lots you asked me for Southwick Subdivision. I committed to going out and taking some lots of how these developed and bringing those back to you. Well, Southwick changed their design, so I never presented those, but I have picked a few of those for -- to provide you tonight. So, let me show you those. Oh, these are more elevations. There were two buildings. I'm sorry. Okay. This is one -- and this is probably the closest one to what the applicant is doing. These are attached units, similar to the applicant's proposal. They have got them attached at the garages, kind of in the center of the project and you will see here that there is -- it's very similar. There is two units here and two units here and you can see the relationship and how those face the street. There is a very friendly appearance to the street, similar to the ones they have proposed. Here is the front elevation of the street elevation of the ones they have propose. Again, the garages are similarly placed and the front doors are similarly placed. This one would be just around this corner. You can't really see the front door in the elevations, but the back unit it would be just around that corner. And that's how this one works, too. It's just around that corner. This is another one -- oh, let me point out how this one is constructed. This one you have got the sidewalk coming down, you Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 42 of 58 have got the pedestrian ramp. There is a vertical curb. That vertical curb extends around the corner and, then, you have some colored stamped concrete on the edge of this common driveway. You have also got some colored stamped concrete kind of defining that division for where that common driveway is and where pedestrians might walk, kind of the continuation of the sidewalk. So, that's how that one is constructed. You will see there is a variety of construction techniques and I just don't know if Council has a preference, since these are kind of new for them. This is another one and, actually, one of these units may be John Flaherty units. I think that some of them were -- that this was a project -- I think one of -- at least one of them is Flaherty and one is Legends, but this is a little different. What you have here is a sidewalk that comes across -- these are detached units, but they load from the center again and you see the units in the back. You, obviously, get it distorted here, because I have got it kind of in a panorama. But the front of them, again, is very friendly to the street, a nice street appearance. This is further down the driveway, so it's easier to see those back units. But you have got the front doors on the back. The garages all take entrance from the side here. In this case they are not attached, though. They are separated there. So, that's just a couple quick examples of flag lots and how those kind of parking courts look. Because these are photos, these driveways look ten times longer than they really are. That's just the distortion of the camera, so that they look very long. They are not very long. This one is constructed with an asphalt common drive, with a concrete ribbon curb and, then, concrete parking pads to kind of differentiate where the home -- the private driving areas are -- and I have a detail of that, so you can see the sidewalk, it's just a rolled curb going onto the private drive, similar to most driveways with a concrete ribbon curb. The attached sidewalk. This is a third option on the construction. This one has attached sidewalk. A rolled curb coming around the corner. The example we saw had a vertical curb. This one has a rolled curb. There is just a -- valley gutter providing that kind of distinction between the common drives and the public street. This one was a common drive. Maybe use asphalt. So, this one looks more like a straight -- this particular development I didn't show the whole thing. These are very large lots. These are ten, 11, and 12 thousand square foot lots in this flag lot development. This one they are closer to 8,000 square feet. The same development. And, then, this one they were much smaller, so -- kind of three different scales there of flag lot development. So, that's my flag lot presentation, along with the Cedar Springs Townhouse, presentation and I'll answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Council, any questions? Hi. Fluke: Hello. And thank you, Madam Mayor. Daren Fluke, JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, representing the applicant. Anna did a good job describing the project to you, so I won't belabor that. I, basically, want to make two points. One is I know that the Mayor and Councilman Bird were on the Council when we originally brought Cedar Springs North through and 50 the point I want to make is that this was always intended to be developed with something of this nature. That's why it was platted as an 11 acre lot. We just weren't -- didn't have designs at that time and so we agreed to come back with our application, which is what we are doing now. I did provide an analysis in the application showing that we have plenty of open space within Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 43 of 58 Cedar Springs North to accommodate this project. They will have full access to all of those amenities that are in the existing project and this is just a real natural addition. The second point I want to make is what a nice addition this will be to this neighborhood. Councilman Borton just made the comment that he looks for something special or particular about applications that add something new, different, or nice to the City of Meridian and I think you would all agree that this is different than what's in the neighborhood. Everything you see out there is in the neighborhood of six or eight thousand square foot lots with detached units. This is a different market. This is meant to reach people who are empty nesters, people who don't have kids, people who don't want a yard to take care of. The applicant anticipates, actually, that some of his buyers may be people who have -- older folks who have family living in the Cedar Springs Subdivision and may not even live here year around, but want to have a nice place to live when they are here with their family. And so that's sort of the market that he's going for. It's very well situated with regard to commercial uses and the transportation system. There is commercial just to the north about a quarter mile east. There is commercial just to the west about a half mile, I believe. So, it's got a lot of the things that you look for when you do a higher density project. The last thing I want to talk about is design. I think we understand that with the project like this you're not looking to just pack units in, but you want something that looks nice that doesn't detract from the surrounding properties and it's really an amenity to the city, if you will. To that end we came up with this site plan, which we are pretty proud of. We have done a lot of work on this, had a lot of iterations in coming up with this. We do have the courtyard concept. They have flag lots, sort of -- because they have flags, but that's, really, their only resemblance. These are more patio homes where they share these motor courts in the middle. And so the idea is that you have two units that -- De Weerd: Daren, I'm sorry. Fluke: Yes, ma'am. De Weerd: But can you put it up somewhere so everyone can see what you're pointing at? Fluke: What this one has that the other one doesn't have are the building elevations. So, I guess we can talk off the screen here, but these courtyards are intended to accommodate the four garages. The way we were designing this was with rolled curb around the public street, which this is all public street. It will have rolled curb on both sides. It is intended that the driveways will be concrete and they will be delineated much like you saw on one of the photos with a stamped and colored concrete, probably as a border, leaving the center as your standard concrete, which does sort of delineate that as private property distinct from the public property. The advantage to us using the rolled curbs, then, is that we don't -- you don't necessarily have to have it at every driveway and you sort of get to the same place with a little bit of nicer design with the concrete on the driveways. So, again, I think I'm just going to leave it at that. We are very proud of this project. We'd love to see it built out here and I will just stand of any questions that you might have. Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 44 of 58 De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. Fluke: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony? Okay. Seeing none. Yes, Bill. Johnson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Bill Johnson from the Fire Department. Just one comment on the flag driveways there. I know it isn't intended to have parking there, but, you know, at times -- and the applicant even stated, you know, that elderly -- older people that may only be there part of the time, may have family that come and visit, as they start parking in these areas it's hard, because they are private driveways, to maintain access, even though in the plot it addresses it, it meets code, it's just one of those things that's kind of a nuance there that we could run into some access issues with parking and that was a discussion I had with the fire chief earlier today on this project. De Weerd: Thank you. I appreciate you bringing that up, because I think this is similar to some of the concerns from SSC. Anna, did they provide any comments on this -- on this application? Bird: Anna, go back to your picture that you had that had that red pickup parked in the roadway. It gives you a good example of what's going to happen. There you go. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm looking first for -- if the -- there is a requirement on the fire department -- there shall be no parking permitted on the proposed shared driveways. SSC will not provide trash pickup services utilizing the common drives. The developer shall install concrete pads at the end of the common drive no more than five feet behind the sidewalk. The pad shall be of sufficient area to accommodate the receptacles of the residences that take access from the common driveway and that is one of their standard conditions of approval. Did that answer Council's concerns -- Mayor and Council's concerns? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I'd like Daren to get up and publicly say that they will post all these flag driveways at no parking. Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 45 of 58 Fluke: Madam Mayor, Daren Fluke again. Certainly we'd not prefer to put up no parking signs within this entire project. We are trying to make something that looks nice and, you know, that certainly wouldn't be our preference. There is a condition of approval, 3.13, that there be no parking in the driveways and we understand that. I just think that from a design perspective if you have a no parking sign at every single one of those driveways it's going to look like a forest of road signs in there and completely defeat what we are trying to do. Bird: But who is going to -- who is going to make sure that there is no parking in there? If I'm a visitor out there, I don't know that there is no parking in there. I haven't read the development agreement or the plat or anything. I pull in there and park. And 90 percent of your people that live in those houses don't know it either. Fluke: Madam Mayor, they are all private driveways, first of all. The public streets are 36 foot wide street sections, which accommodate parking on both sides. So, there ought to be no need for visitors to park on the driveways themselves. There is -- because there is ample parking within the project on the roadways. Bird: And I realize they are private driveways, but that guy that lives in the back of that, at the end of it, he'd sure like to be able to get a fire truck in there if he had a problem. Fluke: Madam Mayor. Correct me if I'm wrong, deputy chief, but I don't think you will be pulling fire trucks into those driveways in any event. The depth on those driveways are all less than 150 feet and they are not provided with fire truck turnarounds and so I - - my understanding is that you wouldn't, but -- Johnson: Typically, even if they are less than 150 feet, we may still pull down in there, it's just that that short of distance it's safer to back -- back up using a spotter to back out and back onto the main public street, but if we have a fire back in there, we are going to get just as close as we can in there to deploy our lines, because we have got to get around to the back of the structure, as well as the front, and most of our lines are 150 feet long. Fluke: Well, I stand corrected then. My understanding was that you need a turnaround for the fire truck to pull in there, because every project I have ever done I have had to have a turnaround if it's more than one lot deep. But what we have got -- it will be parking here. The parking is provided in front of the garages, with no need to park in the throat. You know, there are driveways here right on front of the garages that meet the Meridian standard for parking at 20 feet in depth. So, I would -- I mean alii wanted - - I don't want people to think that they can't park in front of their garage. You know what I mean? De Weerd: Daren, I see you had a neighborhood meeting. Did anyone attend? Fluke: No, ma'am. Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 46 of 58 De Weerd: And they were provided the plat and that sort of thing? Fluke: Yes, ma'am. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Anything else from staff? Council? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Daren, on the sse question, can you show me where you anticipate this to work? I mean I -- by way of example up here in the northeast corner is it a situation we are going to have, you know, a concrete pad and nine garbage cans and piles of trash in front of this guy's house and this house? I mean is it a good plan that's just inviting a problem for the homeowners? Fluke: Madam Mayor, I guess I have two comments that I -- my first comment is that there is ample room out front here to put a pad on either side of the driveway that's a concrete pop out that would accommodate the residents pulling their trash cans out to curb side. And on this particular section here the comment does say that it can be anywhere from five -- up to five feet behind the right of way. There is ample room to put a pad here for people to place their trash cans there on pick up day. The second comment I'd have is I think it would be a pretty sorry commentary if a nice project like this couldn't get approved because the trash people didn't want to come down the driveway and pick up the trash cans. I mean the residents -- everybody else has to drag their trash cans out to the curb, why would these folks not have to, you know. I mean -- Borton: I'm not saying they wouldn't, I'm just curious if you are going to have -- invite a situation where people are griping because they have got what looks like a mini garbage center in front of their home every week with people putting all their garbage in one spot. Fluke: I guess the way we will deal with that is to just in the CC&Rs we will require that people not leave their trash cans out there during the week and that they simply pull them out on trash day, just like every other neighborhood. Borton: It just -- it invites a difficult enforcement issue, like Councilman Bird brings up with the parking. I mean I know all too well what CC&Rs can and can't do. I mean intentions are noble, I don't doubt it, what you're saying, but it invites a problem where, you know, not only will you have people understandably violating the daily parking there, but you will probably have people understandably violating trash CC&Rs as well. Not necessarily your fault, but whatever invites problems down the road and, then, we hear about it. Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 47 of 58 Fluke: Madam Mayor, I guess I would only say if you .. if the Council had advice or consent on that, we'd certainly be glad to hear it. It is one of those minor issues with the kind of project that I don't know that there is a great solution to, so -- Borton: Fair enough. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions, Council? Fluke: Madam Mayor, I'd also make the point if no parking signs are a make or break, we will certainly do them. I just don't think it's going to enhance the design of the project one bit. Bird: And I would agree with you. De Weerd: Okay. Any further information needed? Questions for staff? Okay. Council, what would you like to do? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would like to close the public hearings on RZ 06-006 and PP 06-033. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 16 and 17. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have just a comment. De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I don't have a history with this particular project and this particular plat. Apparently had designs in mind like this, but was zoned an R-8. I don't see any compelling reason to rezone from R-8 to R-15. We have had this type of presentation before and low and behold the project came back to us as an R-4. So, I guess some people may think there is a market for this out there and I don't see this as a compelling need to change the zoning. So, I'm probably not going to vote in favor of this particular application. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rountree. Any other discussion, Council? Bird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 48 of 58 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I -- sitting on the Council when Cedar Springs one, two, and three come forward, I didn't -- I am in agreement with Councilman Rountree. I don't like this high density out in that area. Maybe there is a -- I'm not a real estate marketer, I don't know what's being asked for out there now, but the rest of that area, I just -- I can't see going from R- 8 to an R-15. Maybe there is a market out there for it, but right now I don't -- I don't feel like I'm anxious to approve that high of density out there. De Weerd: Anna, did you have something? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I -- perhaps in my testimony before I -- typical of the planned development at that time, although the concept may have been presented for attached units -- and I think it was -- they just zoned everything one designation. De Weerd: I'm sorry. Baird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Baird. Baird: I might suggest that we reopen the hearing to get some comments on the record. It's a technicality, but it's important information. Bird: That he should be allowed to respond to. De Weerd: Okay. Council, if you'd like to consider those comments, I would entertain a motion to reopen the Public Hearing. Bird: Madam Mayor, I'd like to have everybody have their deal. I would so move. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to reopen the public hearings on Items 16 and 17. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Anna? Canning: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess I will apologize in advance, because I'm a little frustrated by what I'm hearing, not in regard to this specific proposal, but perhaps in general. Although this is zoned R-8 currently, the R-8 designation does allow up to eight units per acre, as does the Comprehensive Plan for this area, and this is within that eight units to the acre. We have had a lot of discussions Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 49 of 58 about Blueprint For Good Growth and about the need to have some areas with some higher density development. This would be a direction I think that the City of Meridian could pursue with these courtyard lots, rather than with what I consider to be very minimal designs that we get on the front loaded attached units, basically what looks like half of the Canterbury Commons units that we saw earlier today, those townhouses, if you split them in two. That's typically what we saw. A very garage dominated landscape with the R-8. This was approved for -- the plat specifically says it was approved for attached units. They could do a standard R-8 sub with 4,000 square foot lots and put these attached units on them. I just -- I guess I need more direction from Council. I'm looking at a Blueprint For Good Growth meeting coming on Thursday and if the Council is only looking for 8,000 square foot lots, I need to get us out of Blueprint For Good Growth gracefully, because that's not what they are recommending Council go towards. They are recommending that you move eight units per acre. Now, it doesn't happen automatically and I'm not trying to say that, but there is -- I need -- I need to know where we are going. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'll give you the comments of one Councilman. Nine years ago I thought we needed to change. I'm not too sure that a couple of Councilmen that stepped off weren't right when we did change. I see us getting a lot of high density. We just approved a high density thing on -- at one location. I think there is areas that we need to stay in medium density. R-15 to me is not a medium density. I mean R-40 and stuff like that, I realize you guys do consider it. Blueprint -- I don't think -- I don't think this City Council has adopted Blueprint. So, I don't -- I don't know, Anna, what to tell you, but on my end I'm going to take it as application by application, location by location, myself and I know that you're going to come forward with what you think is the best thing and I admire you for it and 90 percent of the time I agree with you. The other ten percent we disagree, but that's okay. De Weerd: Okay. Council, I would ask if there is any other discussion before I ask for any remarks from the applicant? Okay. Fluke: Madam Mayor, thank you. I very much appreciate the opportunity to respond. I understand the Council's concerns regarding density, I think, and I think that was a good project you approved earlier. The one thing I didn't point out to you is just the elevation view that we have here from McMillan Road. This is what you will see with the existing landscaping with the buildings that we are proposing. Essentially, it looks like a single family residential project. I appreciate Anna's comments as well. You need to find a way to incorporate some density into your city without ruining the whole reason why people want to live here and they want to live in detached single family areas. I think -- excuse me. I think this is a good way to do that. That's my opinion. With regard to what we were approved for earlier on, I just want to direct your attention the narrative that I wrote on October 11th, 2002, which should have been included in our packet. In Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 50 of 58 particular on page two, paragraph three, it says the area intended to develop with attached single family residential units, town homes, contains approximately 11.5 acres and is located at the northeast corner of the project. The applicant is seeking conceptual approval for up to 112 residential units with detailed approval to come at a later date to renew preliminary plat application. The lots in this area will be at least 4,000 square feet in size and will accommodate zero lot line buildings in accordance with the provisions of the R-8 zone. It's important to note that the project as achieved -- I'm sorry -- as designed achieves an overall gross density of only four units to the acre. That was Cedar Springs North without this -- this lot. This was at the lower end of the three to eight units contemplated by the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for the area. So, although this looks dense on paper, this -- this discrete portion of Cedar Springs North, the 11 acres, only comes in at 6.1 units to the acre. If you factor in Cedar Springs North, which this lot was originally platted, we still only come in at less than five units to the acre in an area that you're own Comprehensive Plan that you have adopted has designated this as medium density residential, which, correct me if I'm, Anna, but allows eight to 15? Canning: Three to eight. Fluke: Three to eight. So, we are a full -- almost two full units below the density that was contemplated by your adopted Comprehensive Plan. So, I appreciate your comments and I hope you will take my comments for what they are worth. If you had questions I would take those now. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Just a point of clarification. Anna, given the current zoning of the property and the narrative that was just described, can those -- can that narrative be achieved in an R-8 zone? Canning: The R-8 zone, theoretically, allows up to eight units per acre. It wouldn't accommodate this style of courtyard development. Wardle: And, Madam Mayor, clarification that the specific narrative described attached single family dwellings, zero lot line, all of those things would be allowed within an R-8 zone; correct? Canning: The attached single family is a principal permitted use. The zero lot lines question comes up as to whether they -- that needs approval at the preliminary plat stage. Wardle: Okay. Thank you. Bird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council September 12. 2006 Page 51 of 58 De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, on an R-8 what's the minimum lot size? Canning: Four thousand square feet for attached -- Bird: What's the width? Canning: Forty feet with a shared drive. Bird: Thank you. De Weerd: Any other questions or discussion? Fluke: Madam Mayor, could I make one more point to that? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Fluke: Anna, could we see the plat, please? That's good. The R-15 is only on this area here and this area here and the only reason -- and I mean the only reason I came to you and asked for an R-15 is so that we could try this courtyard type development. There is no other reason to do R-15 and, honestly, I think the R-15 is a moot pOint. We are sort of getting hung up on semantics -- or on semantics here, because you get what you get with the project, six units to the acre, with good design, whether it's R-15 or R-8. If you want to let me do that in R-8, regardless of the code, I would be happy to do that and I'll throw out the R-15 right now. But I did that because that's what the code backed me into doing to do this kind of project. So, you know, don't get too hung up on R-15 and 15 units to the acre, because this project is six units to the acre on that 11 acres or only four units to the acre on the entire 80 that was Cedar Springs North. Thank you very much. De Weerd: So, Anna, the reason that he is doing the R-15 is to do this particular courtyard design? Canning: Yes, Madam Mayor. As I understand it, it's probably the size of the lot. I'm guessing that they are not 4,000 square feet; is that correct? Because the flags would be allowed. It's not -- the frontage is not a question, it would just be the size of those lots. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Can I ask another -- and that's why I had asked Anna about the -- Daren, what's to say, though, if we -- if we approve the R-15, that the lots you say are not -- that are Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 52 of 58 16, 15, 14, and those lots there, by the time final plat comes in if they haven't been changed into the smaller lots also and, then, done in that type of a set up? What's to say that don't happen? Because it does happen. Fluke: Madam Mayor -- well, I guess two points. One, I will commit to you right here and now that it won't happen. But, two, and more importantly, the conditions of approval require compliance with the preliminary plat and if we want to -- you know, we are -- I don't know how we would get more lots in than that and comply with this preliminary plat. This was what the applicant wants to build, this is an upscale project to match what's being built around us, particularly Cedar Springs to our south and it doesn't benefit this developer, nor the projects around us, to try to put in something else. So, we will -- if the conditions of approval require it, we will put it right in the development agreement and that's what you will see when the final plat come in, I guarantee it. Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Anna. Canning: Councilmember Bird, the development agreement currently includes provisions that there be a maximum of 68 dwelling units and the applicant commits to construct the town homes according to the elevations provided with the preliminary plat application. That development agreement would just apply to the R-15. Fluke: Anna, do we not have a condition of approval that requires conformance to our preliminary plat? Canning: There is always that. Bird: That's standard. Fluke: And to me that says it all. If I was the staff and a final plat came in that looked one lot different than this, you don't take it forward. At least I didn't when I was staff. You know, you just don't. That's -- conformance with the preliminary plat is conformance with that picture you see right there. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions? Thank you. Fluke: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, if no further information is needed, we can close this Public Hearing. Bird: Are we done? Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 53 of 58 Bird: I would move we close the public hearings on RZ 06-006 and PP 06-033. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the public hearings on Items 16 and 17. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I guess now it's my comments on the project -- sorry, Madam Mayor, we seem to have a microphone issue. My comments on the specific development are related to zoning and some of the comments, you know, from the planning director about our planning and Blueprint For Good Growth, I wouldn't tie our need to be in that or need to be out of that to one development. There is plenty of reasons for both sides of that argument. But in this specific case I think we are talking about the common drive area that this Council has sort of struggled with on other applications, regardless of zoning, they need to have that zoning to do the specific application. Actually, I hadn't seen before the planning director's presentation, which is another application on the actual application of common drive aisles and I think the presentation that she made is compelling enough for me to agree that it can -- that it can work. It's not right for every circumstance, but that really is the question in my mind for this application, so -- but that is kind of the question I think that we have in front of us as a Council and this decision will definitely give the director some guidelines to go forward. De Weerd: Thank you. Any further discussion? If not, do I have a motion? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I will make a motion and see if I get a second. I move that we approve Item 14, AZ 06 -- I'm sorry. Item-- De Weerd: Sixteen. Wardle: Sixteen. Thank you. Item 16, RZ 06-006. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 16. Is there any discussion? If not, Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 54 of 58 Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, nay; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. Berg: Tie breaker, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Aye. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS. MAYOR AYE. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we approve Item 17, PP 06-033. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 17. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, nay; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. Berg: Madam Mayor, tie breaker. De Weerd: Aye. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS. MAYOR AYE. Item 18: Public Hearing: VAC 06-011 Request for a Vacation of the public utility, drainage and irrigation easement common to Lots 3 and 4, Block 3 for Jayden Village Subdivision by Beachwood Builders, Inc. - 3059 & 3077 N. Christian Way: De Weerd: Okay. Item 18 is VAC 06-011. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Assuming I'm still the planning director, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Jayden Village application for a vacation. It is for Lots 3 and 4 of Block 3, Jayden Village. It's located south of Ustick, west of Black Cat. The single family -- Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I -- just to intertwine a brief discussion about vacation applications, we don't bring these to you until we have relinquishment. If you would like to speed up these public hearings, I would suggest that it may be appropriate to ask in advance if there is anyone actually here for the hearings, because I have never seen anyone show up for a vacation hearing yet. If there is I would be happy to give a presentation, but if there isn't, it would -- certainly we could just move on. Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 55 of 58 De Weerd: Okay. Anyone here in the public who is here for this item, No. 18? Canning: He is the applicant. De Weerd: Other than the applicant? Would the public that is here like to hear a presentation or -- Rountree: Sign him up. De Weerd: All right. We like you. Okay. Anna, you have your answer. You don't need to go into detail, unless Council would so desire. Council? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: The only thing I'd ask -- everything is in line, which it says on there; is that not right, Anna? Canning: Yes, sir. We have all the necessary relinquishments. Bird: Okay. Let's go for it. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item 18. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close Item 18. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve Item 18, vacation for V AC 06-011. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 56 of 58 De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 18. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 19: Public Hearing: MI 06-007 Request for Modification of the Development Agreement for Cherry Lane Christian Church for removal of the Conditional Use Permit requirement for construction north of Ten Mile Creek by Cherry Lane Christian Church - northwest corner of W. Franklin Road and N. Ten Mile Road: (request to be continued to 9-19-06 due to posting requirements) De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Item 19 is Public Hearing MI 06-007. Okay. I do need to open the Public Hearing and this has been requested to continue. Do I have a motion from Council? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we continue MI 06-007, Public Hearing, due to posting requirements, to September 19th, 2006. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue Item 19. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 20: Ordinance No. 06-1263 : AZ 06-004 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 358.57 acres from RR to R-2 (66.02 acres), R-8 (167.02 acres), R-15 (79.82 acres), C-N (17.26 acres) and C-C (28.45 acres) for The Tree Farm by Treehaven, LLC - north side of Chinden Boulevard on both sides of Black Cat Road; west of Spurwing Subdivision: De Weerd: Okay. Item 20 is Ordinance No. -- Bird: 06-1263. De Weerd: -- 06-1263. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read this ordinance by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. An ordinance No. 06-1263, an ordinance for annexation of property being situated in Section 22, Township 4 North, Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 57 of 58 Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said lands from RUT to R-2, R-8, R-15, C-C and C-N in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Berg. You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in it entirety? Seeing none. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve Ordinance No. 06-1263, with suspension of rules. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and second to approve Ordinance No. 06-1263. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Council, just one thing before we adjourn. We are holding a faith community luncheon on October 5th at Cherry Lane Christian Church. Certainly would like to invite you to attend, if you would have an interest. We will get further information out to you when it is available. This was our luncheon that we have with our faith community to talk about community issues. Okay. Rountree: Madam Mayor, if I might have a moment. And this for Anna. After the confusion and her scolding. I'm not opposed to density and my comment wasn't about density, my comment was I saw no reason why they couldn't do the same thing with an R-8. The lots could have been a little bigger and they could have done the same thing. That's my -- that was the intent of my objection to it is that I -- you know, they could have done it with the current zoning. The fact that the last one we saw that the applicant took back on their own accord that came back as an R-4 was just -- you know, they go back, they look at these things and they think about them and they come back with something that they feel is maybe more marketable. But an R-8 would have given them six to an acre, if they designed it right. Or could have. Not that I'm opposed to density, because we approved a big one tonight. We approve them every week. So, in terms of direction, keep doing what you're doing. Meridian City Council September 12, 2006 Page 58 of 58 Canning: Okay. Thank you. And I'll have a comment once you're off the record. De Weerd: And, Anna, I guess it does go back to, you know, it's not density for density's sake, it is density where we have transportation corridors that will -- that will allow that density to move and that's where it does make sense. So, that's my soap box, two seconds worth. Council, if there is nothing further, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Rountree: So moved. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:43 P.M. ~ MAYOR Y DE WEERD ,11"11' Ill/ii/II \\' (ji- UE"~II/ ...,.',\\ " ..........~ <'//... ;:.... ..~~ \1.-"'''5- 2 U" ''b ~ ' "0 _ ~~ ff ST . ~ A ~ \ .. 8iAlJi,.f. 1LLlAM G. BERG J ., CI Y CLERK ~ "1:~~r 1S~ . .p ~ '" .... " ",.. 4".' " ...... ~. .. _I .... ...' //1 ,~,. \" 1111 \", 1/1'''"1111\\'' It? / Itl / blb DATE APPROVED