Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 16, 2007 C/C Minutes SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16, 2006 Page 1 De Weerd: Thank you. Items 9 and 10 are public hearings on AZ 06-031 and PP 06- 031. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the South Ridge project. It's located on the south side of Overland Road, extending the entire mile between Ten Mile and Linder. The applications include annexation and zoning with a concept plan and a preliminary plat for a portion of the property. This is the aerial. As you can see it's largely undeveloped at this time. This is a revised preliminary plat. And this is the concept plann with zoning and I will leave it on this diagram as I explain a little bit more the details. Now, the applicant has a very detailed presentation and he will get into more of the design aspects of the subdivision. I'm going to hit the highlights of the staff report, which Mr. Hood was proud to say beat all previous records for length and complexity of staff reports previous to this item, so it is rather substantial. One of the applications is for preliminary plat approval. The preliminary plat approval is for 189 residential lots, 11 commercial or other building lots, and 31 common lots. The commercial lots are primarily in the northeast corner of the property and along -- extending along Overland Road. Of the 239 total lots, eight are mega lots that are going to be replatted. So, as you see the preliminary plat, you will see large lots that are defined by the road system that's proposed, but these are not -- they are proposed for ~- as a single lot at this time will be replatted. Of the 11 commercial or other building lots, nine are for retail, office, or other commercial uses; one is designated for an elementary school site, and one is designated for a library sight -~ public library. One of the common lots is also proposed for a city park and I have lost the city park. There we go. And a portion of one of the mega lots is also proposed to contain a future fire station and that will be near Ten Mile Road. It's located there. The average residential lot size, including the mega lots, 6,614 square feet. In this case there is a wide variety, so that is just truly an average. Approximately 13 percent of the site or 38 acres in total is being set aside for open space and the applicant, as he goes through the -- his presentation, you will note that they are proposing larger lots along the south where they border the rural estates. The gross residential density, again, not including the mega lots, is 3.22 dwelling units per acre and a net of 6.58 dwelling units per acre. Those are two -- the reason they are so different is that a lot of the public dedicated amenities are in the first plat. Now, I'm going to go through some of the highlights of the annexation and the proposed development agreement. The request for annexation and zoning is for 290.87 acres and they are proposing a mix of zones, including R-8, R-4, R-2, TN-C, L-O, and TN-A. As part of the submitted the applicant provided a master concept plan for the entire 290 acres and this is that one shown with the zoning, including how the mega lots will be developed in the future. So, you can see them sketched in here, but he is not asking for preliminary approval of those at this time. The applicant anticipates 1,252 total residential units on this property, 737 of those would be single family and 515 would be multi-family. Consistent with the draft Ten Mile area plan -- and I can get into that in a moment -- the applicant is proposing to relocate Overland Road. Instead of the straight alignment it will dip down to the south, to intersect Ten Mile Road approximately 2,100 feet south of its current intersection. And this was done and discussed during the Ten Mile charrette process to avoid the site constraints and DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16,2006 Page 2 development constraints associated at that intersection. It also helps to avoid some of the issues associated with the historic elements on the Ross property, which is in the __ just to the north and west corner of the -- so, it would be the -- sorry. It would be the southeast corner of the intersection or the overpass. The applicant is also proposing to construct streets from Overland and Linder Road through the site and as you can see there is an integrated system or network of streets. There are two public street intersections proposed with Linder Road on the east side of the property and there are four public street intersections and one driveway proposed with Overland Road. There is also one public street, the realigned Overland Road, and no driveways proposed to intersect Ten Mile Road. So, that would be the only intersection with Ten Mile Road. And the applicant is proposing to construct Overland Road from Linder Road to Ten Mile and Southern Way and South Ridge Drive and American Frontier Drive. So, those are the streets proposed with this subdivision. I did want to mention a little bit about the landscaping, because this was kind of a different policy. Generally, when a preliminary plat comes forward we do require street buffers along the arterial streets. In this case, because the preliminary plat is so large and includes the mega lots, the applicant has asked to tie the construction of those landscape buffers more with the redevelopment of the mega lots. So, we are platting the landscape lots now, but they will be constructing or installing the vegetation in phases. And that was kind of a new thing for the city to do, but staff agrees that it's the best thing to do, rather than have the landscaping all installed at once before we can get the systems in place. Property is currently designated mixed use community and medium density residential and that's on the current Comprehensive Plan future land use map and this proposal is consistent with that current Comprehensive Plan and I can show you the current camp plan. Oops. Wrong place. This is the current h the future land use map. You will notice the neighborhood center. The applicant has shifted the neighborhood center to Linder Road to better -- to provide better offset from the proposed interchange. So, this is the general area and the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan plan. Okay. As you know, though, we are working on the Ten Mile area specific plan and we have been working with the applicant -- or the applicant was willing to work with us at the charrette to incorporate and modify his design to be consistent with the Ten Mile charrette. So, this is the draft area plan. I just wanted to show it to you. It does show the Overland Road realignment and you will be considering this in the future. But this is consistent with that draft plan. The draft amendment at this time proposes a mix of mixed use commercial near the Linder Road - Overland Road intersection, medium high density along the south side of Overland Road, medium and low density further south, civic for the area shown as the elementary school site near Linder, and the fire station near Ten Mile and, then, open space and parks along the Ridenbaugh and the natural gas pipeline. This is the natural gas pipeline. And mixed use employment area on the north side of Overland Road. So, staff's assessment is that the proposed plan is generally consistent with both the current future land use map and the map amendment that's in draft form. I'd like now to go through some of the site specific development agreement provisions that are listed in the staff report. The first one is that all future development of the TN-C and TN-R zoned lots with frontage on Overland Road and Linder Road be subject to design review. And that all TN-C zoned lots contain structures that are at least two stories tall and that all commercial buildings in the TN-C zone be located DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16, 2006 Page 3 between the public street and the parking lots as shown on the original master concept plan. The second one is that all TN-R zoned lots .. here we have TN-A. This was the TN~C area. And uses will comply with the recently adopted TN-R standards. The TN-C zone area along Overland Road will include at least 20 multi-family dwelling units and the dwelling units being located primarily between Overland Road and any surface parking area. That there only be one n the one public street access to Ten Mile and no other, not including the fire station and it's subject to ACHD approval. And, then, that a maximum of two public street accesses and no direct lot access or driveways to Linder Road will be allowed on the site. Public street frontage as shown on the revised master concept plan is a cross-access ingress-egress will be provided to the out parcels located on Linder Road. So, that's that one. There are a couple of private lanes. Windy Ridge Lane and Old Thorn Lane, staff has worked with the applicant to make sure that those can go away over time. We believe we have solved those issues, but we are asking that the applicant release any interest in those lanes. Did ask that the city park be located in the first final plat for the development. We asked that any future buildable lot not be encumbered by the existing northwest pipeline easement, so we are basically asking for that to be a lot of its own. We are asking -- we are acknowledging the requested alternative schedule for construction of the required landscaping adjacent to Overland Road, Linder Road, and Ten Mile Road. We are also asking that the elementary school site and the library lot be within the first phase of the development. We are asking that the pathway along the Ridenbaugh be constructed with the first development up to the city park and, then, it will get continued after that. And that the applicant will provide the following amenities: A community clubhouse, pool area, and tot lot on mega lot four. Those are adjoining the public park. That the applicant construct the Black Cat trunk through this development from the intersection of South Linder Road and Ameican Frontier Drive with the first phase of this project. And also and finally -- long list. Sorry. We have asked that the .- or the applicant has agreed to limit the height of homes on the southern shared bondary with Val Vista Subdivision and Aspen Cove to a single story. He's also agreed to provide a greater than 15 foot setback along that southern boundary. I do have elevations. Several. They follow patterns or typologies, so here we have the American Farmhouse. These are the Craftsman. American Frontier. Pacific Northwest. Tuscan Farmhouse. These are some of the alley lots and the zipper lots with the offset garages. Some elevations for the Hillside lots. And the landscape plan of the northeast corner. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard these items on July 20th, October 19th, and December 7th. At the December 7th Public Hearing they moved to recommend approval. At that hearing Jim Jewett, Phil Hull, Dan Thompson, Jason Densmer, and Joe Atalla all spoke in favor of the application. There was a very long list of folks that spoke in opposition and those are detailed in your staff report. Commenting was Wayne Amand and we also received written testimony from a number of people, including the Majestic View homeowners association. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were density and transition to the existing lots to the south. The interconnectivity and stub streets to the Val Vista Subdivision to the south. A question of what happens to the existing Overland - Ten Mile Road intersection if Overland Road is realigned to the south. The fencing along the Ridenbaugh Canal. The Ten Mile interchange design and timing and restricting the height of homes to single story and increasing the rear setback on the DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16,2006 Page 4 south side of the project. The key commission changes to staff's initial recommendation were to limit the height of homes on the southern boundary that is shared with Val Vista Subdivision and Aspen Cove Subdivision to a single story and to consider a larger than 15 foot setback. To also require some L-O zoning along Overland Road to make it a little bit more consistent with the Ten Mile draft plan. To require the city park site to be done with the first phase. And to require at least one future -- at least one future stub to one of the lots within Val Vista Subdivision when Mega Lot 2 develops. The staff report lists three outstanding issues before City Council and, then, I have added a fourth just as an informative item. The first issue is that the Commission did recommend a larger than 15 foot setback for the future homes on the south side of the development. Staff asked that they define what larger than 15 meant and that was not included in their motion, so it is up to Council to provide some definition of that. Staff is proposing the following: That lots adjoining Val Vista Subdivision and Aspen Cove Subdivision shall have a minimum southern setback of 20 feet. So, if that's a side yard, then, it's still 20 feet, if it's a rear yard it's 20 feet. The second item was that as part of the revised master plan for the entire 290 acres, the applicant anticipates 1,252 total residential units on the property, as I mentioned earlier. Staff is requesting that Council add a development agreement provision that limits the maximum number of residents and requires a minimum number of residences. Not residents, residences, excuse me h for the property. With regard to that, staff is proposing the following language: A maximum of 1,252 residential dwelling units shall be allowed on the property, unless otherwise approved by City Council through subsequent applications. Future development shall include a minimum of 1,000 dwelling units and that was about a 20 percent reduction on the property, unless otherwise approved by City Council through subsequent applications. Third, during the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing the applicant showed several housing types, as you have seen tonight also. Staff has included these in the development agreement and we just wanted to make sure we had a process in place to make sure that those are consistent. So, we are proposing the following: Each residential structure shall be subject to design review. All residential structures shall be generally consistent with the elevations and pictures presented by the applicant on the hearing date 1/16/07 as determined by staff. Staff will insure that such structures are generally consistent with the elevations and pictures presented by the applicant, while providing flexibility and design to allow variety and avoid monotony. And, finally, I just want to -- there was a lot of written testimony about the stub street to the south and I wanted to take just a second to talk about that. You will see Val Vista is a dead end street that goes nearly 2,250 feet, so it's just shy of a half mile. What staff has said is that we need at least one stub street to here. The hope would be that we can eventually connect to Val Vista, which is a public street, to improve the emergency access to those homes on that street and to also allow for future -- the ability of these residents to get out to Ten Mile to a light, as traffic increases on that and if they need to make a left they will be able to do that at the light or to get to the realigned Overland. So, I just wanted to point out that it is a big issue for the neighbors, but staff feels it's very important for the future of the development of the city that we do have that access or that stub street to that property. And with that I will answer any questions or you may want to wait until after thegapplicant has done their presentation. DRAFT SouthRidge Draft January 16,2006 Page 5 DRAFT De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. That was a lot of information. Canning: Yes. And my eyes are going, so next week you get 14 font, instead of 11, so -- De Weerd: Sounds good to me. Council, any questions at this time? Okay. Okay. Is the applicant here? We have ten minutes for you. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Jewett: Madam Mayor, Council, my name is Jim Jewett. De Weerd: Fifteen minutes. We changed it. Just for you. Jewett: My address is 1560 Carol Street here in Meridian. With me tonight I have Jason Densmer and Dan Thompson, my structural and -- my design engineer and my traffic engineer for support for any questions that the Council may have. So, they won't be actually providing any testimony unless it's needed to hopefully shorten the process. I'm happy to -- De Weerd: Jim, just to let you know, that's part of your 15 minutes, so -- Jewett: Okay. De Weerd: Unless it's questions from Council. Jewett: Okay. I'm pleased to be here tonight to present to you South Ridge that myself and all the team has been working on and are very excited about. I'm going to go through just kind of how we have got to where we are in this process and point out some of the features that we have. As you look at the original n the existing conceptual plan, it shows a neighborhood commercial in this central area. The reason we relocated it over here was mainly topography. If any of the Council is aware of what this site looks like, it has a flat spot at the corner, it slowly slopes up to the Ridenbaugh Canal and, then, there is a bluff or plateau that sits above the Ridenbaugh. For everybody's information, this is the Ridenbaugh right through here. And everything above here sits on a bluff and it gradually slopes down. So, this area provided the flattest area, which most of Meridian is used to flat -- it provides the flattest area for that commercial development. The school district, which we made a commitment to very early on in the process, needed a very flat area for their school and the second flattest area was right in here and we thought it was important in our design that we incorporate the school, the library, and our retail together, so people coming and going from the school and the library could also use those facilities in the retail commercial, instead of having to pass through a subdivision, it all would be right there, so if they are bringing their kids to an event and they are there for two hours, there is other things they can do, as well as being there, trying to capture more traffic. So, that was the first component of why we brought it over here. And, then, we looked at bringing that traditional neighborhood, the TN-R design, as close to those facilities as possible to incorporate walking to those DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16,2006 Page 6 facilities. So, that's why you see our most densest product along these two roads along the school and the commercial, trying to promote walking and trying to make that -- we call it the village center.- very viable. As we move away from that up the slope, we go to a larger lot, offering a more -- different product type, offering a different design, until we reach up on top where we consider our estate lots. Within our first preliminary plat we gave a little bit of everything, so that we could start the subdivision off and as we move into our other phases we can offer a little bit more of everything and so that's why you see kind of an odd shape for our first preliminary plat and that was to accommodate a mixture of all the home types to really get this subdivision kicked off in the right direction. Also, as far as the recreational components of this, we located the park on -- we wanted to locate it on the bluff and let me scroll ahead to the park. This is the Ridenbaugh and this is up on top of the bluff. These are all bluff lots that would be considered to be a high end view lot. This is a vista point. As you come into this road in here the vista of the valley and what you see of Meridian and the foothills and beyond, will offer a different environment than your typical park. It will offer the ability to sit there and just ponder, to be able to read, to be able to just go out there and paint and to do other activities, other than just going and playing sports. And so it gives them that opportunity. Obviously, as well, it ties into our pathway system that goes along the Ridenbaugh. So, people can come to the park, they can take off and they can jog and they can walk and they can get exercise going up and down these paths. We also did a multi-level, we put a lower park and we have a street coming in here to another little parking lot and this is the lower park and, then, the upper park, which crosses the Ridenbaugh with a foot bridge, again, enabling some multiple uses. We offer the lakes or the ponds in there to offer, again, more of a setting or a feeling of place. Another component we didn for the park is we located out pool and clubhouse with a common shared parking lot. It's hard to see here, but there is a property line that goes about through here. This parking lot is for a pool and clubhouse. This parking lot is for the park facilities. So, we kind of -- we want to bring that clubhouse into the whole mix, not to make it feel like a neighborhood park or a park for that subdivision, but just so that there is a cohesiveness so that both uses can coexist. So, that's what drove us putting hte park there. Down in the school -- if you notice here in the school we have drawn in two what would be soccer fields. What our thinking was there, we gave about a two acre extra property to the school district, we donated two extra acres to them, for them to have those extra recreational facilities, so we have some more recreational facilities here, some more passive uses here that connect all the way through this pathway system. Off the map a half mile away, of course, is the Bear Creek Park, which offers baseball diamonds and across the street from that is the new middle school site, which will offer some other recreational facilities. So, I think what we have tried to look at is throughout this area how can we address everybody's needs and that's what we have tried to do. That's kind of how we drove our recreational facilities. As was mentioned by Anna, we do have the library site here. The library was a very important component of our village center. We wanted to have a tenant there that would bring people there to make that village center vibrant, that people would want to come to the library, then, go to a coffee shop or cafe or to a little boutique for clothing or a small restaurant. So, it's very important for us that we negotiate early on with the library to make the library a very viable part of our plan and that's located right here. It's kind of a focal point of our DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16, 2006 Page 7 entrance into that village center. The reason I want -- okay. There has been some questions before in the previous hearings on why the mega lots and I want to explain why we did the mega lots. The purpose of the mega lots was so that we could construct all the infrastructure needed -- that we thought was needed for not only our subdivision, but for the area as a whole, because it's been one of our conditions early on with ACHD that we would construct Overland for them under an impact fee agreement and they have moved forward and gotten Overland put into their work plans, so that we can accomplish that. But to do that we had to have platted lots to be able to do public right of way. So, that's why the mega lots. It enables us to build that infrastructure under policy and gives us the flexibility to design those future preliminary plats based on a master plan, but according to what the market is driving us to and what the conditions are needed two, three, five years from now when those mega lots may be replatted. We don't look at this as a two or three year project, but more like a seven to ten year project and we all can see how the market has changed over the last two years and three years. So, by doing the mega lots it gives us the ability to tweak those plats, as long as they are in accordance with those master plans, to adjust to what the exact needs are of the public. So, that's really why the mega lots are there to accomplish that goal. But, again, the master plan is, basically, laid out showing how the density could flow, how the roads that we are proposing to build would tie into the other roads. It also shows how we are providing diversity in this plat. You know, not in the first phase do we show any condos or town homes, but those will be a component of these larger areas here will be the condos and townhomes. But within the first phase we show alley loaded lots down to 35 feet and we show estate lots up to 120 foot frontages up to one half acre. The value of that and the benefit of that is a family or an individual or a couple can start at one part of this subdivision and through their years migrate up to whatever level they want to and, then, migrate back down to whatever level they want within the same subdivision and with the desired business center or employment opportunities that would lie along Overland Road between Overland and the freeway, especially with the new Ten Mile interchange, I think it's important that we offer that diversity of housing close to those employment centers to really be able to help attract the top end employers that will want to relocate there, knowing that the housing necessary for all of their employees exists almost within walking distance or I would say within walking distance. So, I think that's important to note in the plat. Let me go to the pathway. I want to touch on the pathway. Do we have a -- this just shows, basically, a pathway plan and the red indicates what would be your all purpose pathway and it does deviate from the Ridenbaugh on a couple of cases and I want to discuss that. Along Ridgenbaugh here we only own the downhill side of Ridenbaugh and through Ridenbaugh we propose putting the canal on the uphill side, which would be the safer side of the canal. But where we don't own it we propose bringing it down through a common areae through the site and, then, back up to the Ridenbaugh, so we propose this alignment off the Ridenbaugh through the site, back along Ridenbaugh and, then, through this proposed realignment, instead of trying to cross Overland here, we want to bring it up here to where we have an intersection and at this point I think what we'd like to propose for that pathway is a bridge that would cross over Overland Road. Right at this location there is a -- to make Overland fit in here we had to do a fairloy large fill in here and, then, a very large cut right in here. So, we are making this V cut in the road -- in the ground that DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16,2006 Page 8 would naturally accept a foot bridge that will go over top of it. So, I think that that u by bringing it away from the Ridenbaugh in this location and, then, we bring it over to the gas line until we come back to Ridenbaugh. Then, we are utilizing the natural terrain, we are utilizing some different components, instead of just the Ridenbaugh. We come in and out and I think it will just offer a lot more variety to the citizens. Also, it would help tie in this section of the gas line into the pathway system, because we connect right here. And, then, all these blue ones are just interconnecting pathways that would be able to allow people to choose different varieties of ways of getting to and from the multi-use back over to the park system, to the common area and back to the school and to the village center, which, again, we think is very important that we find n to make it easy for people to walk out their door and walk to those uses, instead of driving. So, I want to -- I would like -- I would ask for the consideration in looking at the pathway system as we have proposed it and not strictly being on the Ridenbaugh for its entire location. Now, you know, I will kind of discuss Overland. The original plan that we submitted back last spring did not include Ovelrand where it exists today, but through the charrette planning, which I thought was a tremendous asset to the city and the public as a whole this -- a realignment was proposed and I worked with the city staff to come up with what I thought would be a suitable solution, because there is a lot of physical constraints out there and what there is is -- the Ridenbaugh Canal is a very -- very difficult physical structure to pass and, obviously, anybody who drives Ten Mile can see that. So, there is a draw right here and there is a draw right here, so coming out that draw was the only option. So, choosing this location, that's what's driving this and, then, curving back over. The constraints of how the ground lies is drove the location. I was very supportive to the point where I amended my plat and resubmitted it to the city, in which P&Z made a recommendation of approval, which included the realignment. What I'd like to ask the City Council today is that if they are supportive of that realignment, that they, obviously, give an endorsement for the subdivision, but also a special endorsement and a recommendation to ACHD that they move forward on approval of the relocation, because ACHD is kind of stuck until this body gives them a direction, because what my offer is -- is like Anna spoke of earlier, is I will construct Overland in its entirety from Linder to where the limits of where ACHD has started their work today, I will construct it from here to here under an impact fee agreement, which will put a missing component of the public infrastructure that's needed out there in place in the shortest time frame possible. With that I think I'm running out. I would stand for any questions. De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions for Mr. Jewet? Bird: Not at this time. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I do have one. To clarify the elevations that have been shown, are those plans -- just to pick some of the names: Tuscan. Craftsman. Frontier. There were a DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16,2006 Page 9 Couple others. American Farmhouse. Is the plan that all of the Tuscans would be clustered in one neighborhood and all the Craftsmans would be in another or are these mixed among each other? Jewett: And I apologize that I wasn't able to touch on that, but what our idea is is to create a set of design guidelines that would address the entire plat that would set out architectural guidelines that would be the American Farmhouse or the Craftsman and set design guidelines throughout the entire plat that would cover the commercial or residential and the townhouses that would allow multiple builders to build under one umbrella saying that this is design guidelines that you would have to meet and there would be certain specifics. If they want to build h if they want to build -- let me get a blow up. Let's say we had one specific builder that wanted to build this block, they could choose four different types within that block, but they have to maintain those guidelines. There would be certain architectural features that will have to be consistent. Now -~ and I believe that those set of guidelines would be broad enough to allow three different of those styles in one block, but greater than one. I don't believe that one is appropriate. And with that I'd like to offer one other comment. In Anna's report it's recommending that these designs be somehow incorporated into a design review and I agree with that, but I would go a step further and ask that our entirety design guidelines booklet come back for design review approval and that way the entire plat is covered under that plan. So, instead of seeing it on some individual basis, that I be allowed to bring back an entire design review guidelines for the entire plat and that it be adopted. Did that answer your question? Zaremba: I think it does. De Weerd: It answered mine, too. You mentioned a bridge over the Ridenbaugh. Have you been working with the irrigation company and had those discussions? Jewett: Yes. Yes, we have. We met with John Anderson on both our two public crossings here and here and our one pedestrian crossing at this location. De Weerd: And? Jewett: My recollection of the meeting was there was no objection to that. De Weerd: Do you have it in writing? I'm not skeptical, but -- Jewett: I understand some of the issues that have been with that particular irrigation district on, but I find them to be -- on this particular project to be workable. They also have an irrigation facility that's going to be located within that same location and I think it would provide them some level of access to their own facilities, so maybe there was some underlying benefit to them that drove them to not having too much of an objection to us putting that bridge in. We already have an existing bridge that's located down, so this would be replacing one with another. DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16, 2006 Page 10 De Weerd: Okay. I also understand that the parks -- the parks commission is favorable and this park is a city park. What is the benefit of the community a large, outside of what the residents that would be using it within this subdivision, what would be the benefit to the general public? Jewett: Well, that was a -- that was a question that came up in our first parks meeting of what would the benefit be for the public as a whole, not just the subdivision, and as we worked with the parks department we made some changes to add some things that they wanted in the sports court and some other facilities. But I think overall what you're looking at is a different type of park that people can utilize and I think that the parks department has talked about doing some other sport facility at this park -- not your conventional sports facilities, I think that the parks department could probably answer that easier than me, but what it does it gives you the passive park, not the active. So, it brings the people who don't want to be next to the soccer or next to some activity that's a large scale, that's a small scale, the picnics, the social events, that they want to hold outside, because the vistas from this are going to be very tremendous. It's going to offer the citizen who lives in the north side of town to come over who wants to get a workout, who wants to be able to go up and down these pathways, because of the terrain, and be able to not only experience the outdoors in an active walking or jogging, but be able to have the vistas to go along with it, so u and what we also talked about with the parks department is -- and he bought the signage, because he wants to put signage at this location and we did redesign the roads a little bit to accommodate more of a straight shot into this park system, so that people can get to it, the know it's there. So, he had talked about signage at this location, so people could come right into the park and identify where it is, so it doesn't feel as much like a neighborhood park. I hope that answers your question. But I really see that -- that there would be a lot of people that come there that would bike, that would walk, that would jog, they would walk their dog, that would come there just for those activities, because they can use the pathways and still come back to the park. It has a restroom, it has other amenities. It allows them to drive, park their vehicle off the road, and be able to enjoy a wide range, because they can even walk down to the village center, they can make their way down to the village center and, then, back, since there is so many options. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: You heard the discussion from the planning administrator in terms of what their concerns were, issues were, or general comments were. Any of those in particular you have agreement or disagreement with? Jewett: There is only -- and I apologize, it was a very large packet and I did miss one item that Anna had spoke about and that is in in the TN-C I believe that she has stated there would be a requirement for two stories in the TN-C. My only objection to that is the DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16, 2006 Page 11 library, which as far as I know is the design of the library is a single story. It actually is on a sloped lot, so there is a basement, but it is a single story and, then, with the library we have proposed a day care in the corner and the day cares are generally single story. So, outside of those I believe the design review component of that would be appropriate, but I guess I would object to a two story on those particular uses and I may suggest that instead of just saying two story, recommend two story, but make it a requirement that we come back for design review. That gives the city the opportunity to look at everything. But I know the library design is done and I don't believe it's two story. Rountree: You mentioned that you want to develop design guidelines and you want that to be reviewed by the city. Can I take that to mean that you will do that and the city will have an opportuity to review that? Jewett: Absolutely. Rountree: And, further, can I understand that that will be done before any lot or phase of this subdivision is sold? Jewett: That is correct. Rountree :Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions from Council? Bird: I have none at this time. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Jewett: Thank you. I'm going to leave my presenter here, so that scroll back and forth and if they need to -- if anybody testifying wants to -- De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Canning: Madam Mayor, can I comment on a couple things before the public speaks? De Weerd: Yes. Canning: With regard to the design review guidelines, since we don't have them, one option would also be that they could just come in and modify the development agreement once we do have those guidelines in place. Also, I was remis in not explaining what happened at ACHD regarding this project and I think I can get this right, but it's a little confusing. The applicant's original application did show Overland in its current alignment and we did receive a staff report from ACHD on that alignment. When through the Ten Mile charrettee process it was proposed that the reslignment of Overland be changed, the applicant was willing to go forward with that. We took it back to ACHD. ACHD was uncomfortable making a recommendation on that until the City DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16, 2006 Page 12 Council had given some acknowledgment that they were in favor of relocating Overland. And that's why the applicant has asked that your motion include a specific recommendation on Overland, because they did not want to move forward with such a - - kind of a major change unless the city was comfortable with that change. So, they will go back and review it once they hear from Council with regard to your general thoughts on that alignment. De Weerd: And I realize that during that charrette we had our staff and our departments take a look at that. Any concerns of note from Chief Anderson or Lieutenant Overton in the concerns? Anderson: Mayor de Weerd, Council Members, our biggest concern is the realignment does not necessarily line up with the next road to the south on Ten Mile and I believe that's Lamont and this road is going to be -- I don't know how many feet, but a few hundred feet to the north of that. So, it's really going to create two intersections that don't line up there and that -- and I understand that the property owners to the south of there just were unwilling to sell the property. So, there is a little bit of an alignment problem with the intersectios where the road does curb up and, then, meet back up with Ten Mile and that would be our only concern with that. De Weerd: Okay. Lieutenant? Overton: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I participated in the charrette program as well and our main objective from the police department was the moving of traffic on Ten Mile with the new Ten Mile interchange and the realignment of Overland Road, moving it farther away from that interchange, was by far better advantage to moving traffic through that interstate. I do share the one minor concern, which is how close it is to Lamont. You have got now two intersections to the south so close together. Other than that I think it's a great advantage to what we had before. De Weerd: Thank you. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I have got a question for Anna and, then, one for Len, actually. Anna, in reference to our comments on ACHD, is it sort of a chicken or the egg situation that we are in? I mean to the extent that Council could very well approve a planned road alignment but, then, ACHD might not be in agreement with, versus -- do you see what I mean? Then it's perhaps too late when the entire design is premised upon a realignment. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Borton, my understanding of the commission hearing was more that they were just waiting to hear from you on your general thoughts. I think that the applicant has worked hard with DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16, 2006 Page 13 ACHD staff with -- to make sure that it meets their design criteria, so I don't think it's a chicken and egg. They didn't say, no, we don't want Overland realigned, they said, no, we want to hear from city council before we make any recommendation on the realignment. So, it wasn't -- it wasn't that they were opposed to it, they just wanted to hear from you all. Borton: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? Oh. De Weerd: Mr. Borton has one more question. Zaremba: I'm sorry. Borton: One question for Len and it's on page six of the staff report. It makes reference to issues and concerns and addresses the sewer main sizing and routing. I guess could you give us an update of what those concerns and statuses are with the sewer in this area? Grady: The best I can tell of what they are concerned about there is we have a lift station to the south, which we are finalizing design on, which will pump into this subdivision. So, until we get all that figured out there will be some variability in that -- i that sewer size. Otherwise, we have no concerns over the sewer, provided we can get our easement through the access road there. Borton: Okay. Thanks, Len. De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: If I may, I just wanted to perhaps add a philosophy to point from ACHD. In the past ACHD has been viewed as big foot and being nonresponsive. In the last several years, maybe even a few more, ACHD and the City of Meridian had an extremely cooperative and I think positive relationship. ACHD commissioners and staff are trying to be sensitive to Meridian's need to set the land use before ACHD, so that ACHD is not making the roadways set the land use and my instinct of the commissioners asking not to make a ruling is that they are deferring to Meridian to make the land use decisions first. They did participate in the charrette. They were on board with the realignment. I think they are just trying to be sensitive and not put themselves in a position of telling us what to do. They are asking us to make the decision first. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. I do have a number of people that have signed up. If, when I read your name, you would like to provide testimony, if you will, please, come forward at that time. And I will preface this by if I say your name really badly, I apologize. Susan Stone signed up against as is. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. DRAFT SouthRidge Draft January 16, 2006 Page 14 DRAFT Stone: Susan Stone. 2530 South Del Rey Lane. De Weerd: Thank you. Stone: And my concern is -- my major concern -- and I came to the parks department about it, to their meeting n was that to put a public park next to a private pool is discriminatory to the people n to the public that comes and cannot use the pool, so I expect it to be like the park in downtown Meridian where you come to the park or the pool and, then, to have it -- I think it shows segregation and we are better than you, this is our pool, and you can't use it. So, for people who don't live there I think that is unfair. De Weerd: Can you -- and maybe I should ask the director this, but did the commission discuss that and form a n if the city would be willing to partner to expand that as a public pool? Was there any kind of discussion like that? Stone: They n you know, it was the second meeting that I didn't attend. The first meeting I did bring it up and they added a few more parking spots, I think was their solution, and, then, my other question was who maintains the entire parking lot, the parks department or the homeowners association. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weer: I'm sorry, Mrs. Stone. Borton: Mrs. Stone? You bring up a point n and I appreciate you bringing that point up and I was at that parks and rec commission meeting and that topic was addressed by you and several others. That will be one of the questions that I'll ask the applicant to address. Stone: Welln and I h Borton: That would invite that confusion where people who want to utilize the city park and, then, want to go take a dip, I don't know how you control that. Stone: Well -- and I have a severely autistic sane that's 19, developmentally a two year old. He's bigger than any of you and you're not going to keep him out of the pool, whether he scratches out eyeballs or pulls hair and he ~~ and there is several special needs children on Lamont as well that will want to use the park and they are developmentally, you know, two year olds as well, so I think that it's not just one issue, there is several in the surrounding area. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. I should have asked my question, because I was going to ask that, but I didn't think I should drop a bomb. You know, I thought it was bomb, so n DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16, 2006 Page 15 okay. Scott Nichols signed up for with modification. Welcome. If you will, please, state your name and address. Nichols: My name is Scott Nichols. I live on 2730 West Val Vista Court. De Weerd: Thank you. Nichols: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, I think there was a clarification with regard to Ada County Highway District in their process of hearing additional public testimony or their decision on the city. I'm not sure if that was -- if you wanted to enter that into the record or not. Was that the case, Anna? We had several people at the Ada County Highway District and they wanted to make sure it was clear on the record that Ada County Highway District, they understood, was going to seek additional public input, not just City of Meridian input. So, for the record, but -- real quick. As I said, my name is Scott Nichols. I also represent the Val Vista homeowners and water users association. There are 14 residences on Val Vista Court and if I can figure out how to use this A~ probably -- the interconnectivity plan is probably the best map to use here. Val Vista Court .. De Weerd: There is a little pointer on there as well. Nichols: I have got it. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Nichols: Val Vista Court, as they said, is 2,200 feet long. It was designed as a rural residential street from Ten Mile, comes down here and dead ends on a circle. This is an unimproved county road. It has no sidewalks. Bare dirt on the sides. Well crowned. Well drained. The owners in this area all have five acre or better lots along Val Vista. We all have stock. Everybody rides horses. Has dogs. Farm fields. The acreage right here I still pasture that in alfalfa. Had a number of comments about this. First of all, we don't object to the subdivision and we think Jim's done a good job, really, in putting up with us and listening to everything that we have had to say. We sort of chidded each other there. It was Ten Mile terret in some cases, but our primary concern is how those lots right there will affect Val Vista -- ingress and egress from Val Vista. We felt so strongly about that that we actually went through the neighborhood and we signed -- when we organized the homeowners association we all established the couple of items for ourselves and that was that we wanted to form the homeowners association. We oppose further development of individual lots within the Val Vista Subdivision. Those lots were not designed and our covenents were never intended to allow redevelopment of any individual five acre lots. They were designed as estate residential. They were sold a view lots. And they do have a great view. Now, we can put up with the development, but we would really like to ask you to take a look at that development again and work with us just a little bit, so that this whole process can go forward. Because after you see the master plan it really does look like a pretty good plan for all that acreage. I can't fault Jim on that. So, the second thing we ask as noted in our sort DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16, 2006 Page 16 of declaration is that we oppose extension or connection to Val Vista Court to other adjacent residential areas. We like the fact that it's quiet, that it's a cul-de-sac. That's why people moved there, because there wasn't any interconnectivity. It was all by itself. We really saw that area as an area where people will look out in the future and say, wow, those are five acre truly estate lots, multi-million dollar homes, that was really preserved and, you know, for walking paths, fine. If we want to put a walking path in there and have interconnectivity for walking dogs or whatever, the pipeline is probably a good opportunity for that. But last -- I shouldn't say lastly. We are opposed to any stub street, like I said, and we wanted to insure our covenants were strong and that we opposed any redevelopment of our subdivision into high density. The thing that really, I think, was very disconcerting is that there are a couple of lots that have changed hands and not only did the stub street appear on the very narrowest lot in our subdivision, but it also has already been platted. Or at least put on there by the engineer. And I understand Jim h you know, he had an interest in the property at one time, I don't know what his interest is now, but we really took exception to have that layed out and the engineer probably said, oh, this is what you might be able to do with it. But that's exactly what we don't want in our five acre subdivision, that is not incorporated into the city. It's still in the county. A couple things we would recommend. First of all, it's important to us that the requirements for the master are set now, because we don't want to be back in two or three or four years wondering what's going to happen. And we feel like the issues that we brought up here really focused on the issue of the connectivity -- the connectivity I think that the Council is seeking -- and the protection that we are really looking for in terms of the preliminary and, then, in the final plat. So, here are the things that we'd like to address. First, as the final plat -- or I guess this is the preliminary; correct? As the final plat is established we'd like to make sure that the final plat moves that stub street off of that narrow lot. Whether you want to put it on a 900 foot section of lot over here or my lot to the west or the next lot to the west, doesn't really matter. But it doesn't make sense to put that little stub on that little 250 foot section right there. It's-- we are about the two closest houses in the entire neighborhood and it virtually aims all of the car lights right in my bedroom window. So, I'm definitely not in favor of that. But there is lots of room over here. Now, Del Rey comes right here and that would be a stratight shot right to this subdivision over here. Likewise, you could align a road down here if you ever had to in the future or you could align one out here onto Val Vista here. The further west you put it, the less impact there is to our community. The second thing we would like to address is fencing. We would really like to have some sort of solid fence. A vinyl fence we really didn't feel was acceptable. We'd like to really go to a solid concrete stamped fence. Is it okay if I finish? De Weerd: If you will -- yes. We gave you an extended time as the spokes person for your subdivision. Nichols: I will finish up in one minute. De Weerd: Thank you. DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16, 2006 Page 17 Nichols: Okay. We agree with the setbacks. We would request that a 50 foot minimum setback, not a 20 foot minimum setback as suggested by staff, with a 22 foot maximum height houses on the they houses. The houses that have been proposed may do that now, but we'd like to set a height limit, not just one story, because there could be differences in that story -- the height -- the elevation of the house. I want to summarize just by saying the stub street -- oh, the stub street was critical. It needs to be moved to one of the other lots. Lastly, if that stub street is ever put in is there a commitment to rebuild Val Vista, because Val Vista is not constructed to the standards that the rest of those streets are. And I have been in situations before where a street is connected and the street that it's connected to is never upgraded, the street lights aren't put in, the sidewalks aren't put in, so there should be a requirement there that if it -- if it is ever connected -- and the best thing to do would be actually just to put a foot path in with an emergency access, like we have seen in other areas. That would make us the happiest, so to speak. But, again, I want to thank Jim for a good proposal and you all for listening to my testimony. Thanks. De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, I guess I have a question in terms of your subdivision and the five acre lots preserved. Nichols: Right. De Weerd: Can those five acre lots redevelop? And I guess since I see some of that, looks like it possibly can if that owner were to sell his five acres. Nichols: As the homeowners association we have adopted the bylaws. We have had an attorney look at our bylaws and the attorney has suggested changes to those bylaws to -- I want to say improve or strengthen the language that already exists in our homeowners covenants and our CC&Rs that says they are not to be redeveloped. At the point right now our CC&Rs currently say that there shall be only one building lot on each of those five acres and we have talked with him extensively about that and his intent was they were not to be re-divided. Our intent -- in fact, all of the owners in our subdivision have agreed it is not our intent to re-divide We don't want to re-divide. Now, we have made an out clause, because we recognize that in the future you can't -- you can't predict the future. If someone were to walk in and say, yeah, we will give you two million dollars apiece for everyone of those lots, we'd probably all pick up and move. But it takes the majority. It is either all or none. But not one. And that's really what we are opposed to, so n and that's why we really want that, because that lot is for sale right now, it's been for sale twice in the last four months, it's an attractive sort of nuisance to us. It's a headache. We have to worry about it. It's like, now, man, what are they going to do to it? Are we going to have to fight this and for how long? We don't want to fight it. There is several people in our subdivision and we have talked about this, that we would really like to dress this up, we'd like to work with the irrigation district. It needs to be landscaped. It's needs to be improved considerably. The weed control needs to be done out here, so that we have a much nicer entryway into Val Vista than what we have now, because there is some limitations because of the irrigation easements, but, you know, DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16, 2006 Page 18 that right there is the attractive nuisance and we don't want to have to deal with that and we will insure through our covenants that there is no subdivision of an individual lot. De Weerd: Thank you. Nichols: Sorry for the lengthy explanation. De Weerd: No. I appreciate that. Mr. Rountree? Rountree: Madam Mayor? Mr. Nichols, you have confused me as to what is part of your subdivision and what is not. You have indicated that all of your subdivision has entered into an agreement to modify your CC&Rs or your covenants to not allow replatting of your five acre parcels. Is that one lot that's been for sale most of the times in your subdivision? Nichols: It is. Rountree: Is that one lot in your terms of all the subdivision? Nichols: The homeowners on this side h that one house that is not -- that is for sale, he's the only hold out. He has not been willing to sign that agreement. That agreement is not part of our CC&Rs. That was a separate -- just intent. We wanted to issue to you a -- a consistent front, I would say, you know, to be consistent and Mr. Ballard said, well, he says, if Mr. Van Hees signs the agreement he said I will think about it. Mr. Van Hees was kind enough to say, Scott -- he didn't talk to me about it, but he would sign -- Mr. Van Hees signed last night and I did not get a chance to go back to Mr. Ballard and say, Sid, we have got everybody, you know, rallied around this. We all -- none of us bought these lots -- you know, it really is just a statement that none of us bought these lots to divide them up and the situation changed in his life, the lot's for sale, you know, we don't want to have to fight potential development in our own subdivision. This has really rallied our subdivision to come together and make sure our CC&Rs are strong and that we all agree on where we want to go as a subdivision. De Weerd: You know -- and I think we appreciate that. But more often than not we make modifications and concessions and work with those that are affected and, then, two months later we see the five acre lot back in front of us subdivided and it's like, oh, wow, this is -- so, I guess I appreciate what you're doing as a neighborhood in trying to be on a unified front. Nichols: Madam Mayor, could I respond to that? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Nichols: That's why we understand your position. You understand.. I understand the history you have seen and that's why we simply ask that that stub be relocated off the DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16,2006 Page 19 narrowest lot in the whole front. Locate it on a larger lot. We are not going to object to the stub, just move it to a larger lot. De Weerd: Mr. Rountree, you h Rountree: You followed up with what I was going to say. De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry. Rountree: Just to point out we see these almost on a weekly basis. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Presbis. And I look forward to you stating your name and address. Presbis: Presbis. De Weerd: Presbis. Presbis: I live at 2530 South Del Rey Lane. De Weerd: Thank you. Presbis: And I concur just about with everybody Scott said. There is one thing I want to touch on, the 22 foot height, because you can have a single story and have a game room, which is not considered a second story, and they can get pretty tall. They can go up quite a ways, especially like a 12 and 12 pitch. That's why we are setting a -~ ask to set a 22 foot height limit and on this proposed road -- I don't know if you -- ACHD has h if you have heard anything from ACHD. One of the concerns was who is going to build a road from where Overland ties into Ten Mile back down to the interchange. Right now it's only slated up so far from the interchange and it's not in their plan for ten, 12, 15 years they said. And they want to know where the money is going to come from for that and who is going to do it, because if they put this big road in and this interchange in, then, you're going to come from four lanes to two lanes to four lanes and it's just going to be nothing but a big bottleneck. Okay. I also ask for 50 foot backyards. We have -- we have to be at a hundred feet and, you know, we don't mind -- I agree with their subdivision one hundred percent. I mean I think it should go through. But with a few conditions. The stamped wall -- the concrete wall, we burn -- we burn our fields sometimes, we burn ditches, and I think it's a safety feature for one thing that if it was a wood fence, a vinyl fence, it would go up in smoke real quick. I mean there has been fires -- a couple fires there that got out of hand and they move very quickly, if you see five acres of weeds before they are plowed. Also, if there is to be a solid concrete fence, I'd like to see it put in before construction starts, that way it will keep some of the dust down, because that place is very windy -- I mean it could be calm as heck over here and the wind's blowing 15, 20 miles an hour up there. And all that dust is going to be blowing right in -- there is, actually, four, five houses that's really going to take the brunt of this subdivision and that's on the north side of the -- the south, but the north side of DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16, 2006 Page 20 the subdivision and if these few things are put into place -- I know we will probably have to come back, because it's in one of the mega lots where we are at and if they are going to be redesigned again we are going to have to come back again and again, so -- but I ask if you put in the record now or put into place these few conditions that we ask. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Wayne Amid signed up against. Amid: My name is Wayne Amid. I live at 2155 West Overland. Right there, the little outparcel. Nobody seems to want to mention all the roads and stuff. Where is my egress going? Is the city planning on taking it. Is that what we are proposing here? We are not talking about it. How about the drain water? Where is all the storm water going? It drains right down to my place. I don't see any plans. In fact, I came -- me and my attorney showed Wednesday down at Planning and Zoning to go over these plans -- we couldn't, because the staff is going over it. So, how can we even protect my property rights? By the way, Ada County Highway District at those meetings was concerned about property damage with the realignment. Have we studied that yet? No. Maybe we better look at this real close, because this has really affected me a lot and I am going to protect my property. Thank you. De Weerd: Sir, could you point out where your property is? Amid: Right there. Nobody has even tried to work with me about this. I have even been questioned. De Weerd: Okay. We will ask the developer. Thank you. Lyle Brainer. Bryner. Bryner: Lyle Bryner. 3050 Val Vista Court. De Weerd: Thank you. Bryner: I wouldn't want to take up anymore of your time, because I agree with the two other gentlemen and fully in support of their comments. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Okay. And Bonnie Bryner is well. Thank you. Ken Fawcett. Okay. And Sherry Fawcett as well. Fawcett: I'm Sherry Fawcett. I live at 2755 West Val Vista Court and it's across the street from the property that is for sale. Scott has done a wonderful job of commenting on our concerns. However, I stated at the city Planning and Zoning that there seemed to be some confusion as to the Ada county decision on Overland Road. I got an e-mail from Mindy Wallace stating that the design of the interchange had to be done first before they would approach the realignment of Ten Mile Road and that they felt additional public comment was needed. If that document exists and it's here, I would like somebody to read it, because at both meetings there has been I feel misrepresentation about what Ada county said at that meeting. People who were there also felt there has DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16, 2006 Page 21 been great misrepresentation to the City Council and Planning and Zoning as to what was stated. I also commented about the elementary school. It's wonderful that they are providing that elementary site, but those of us that live south of the freeway and have children at Mountain View High School, recognize the elementary school is not where the problem lies and I know that with every one of these big developments there is a statement on record from the school district saying you can build this density, but we do not have places to put these children. My children keep getting moved from schools everytime there is a development like this put in. Bear Creek, we got moved. Bear Creek went in, everything started getting a little bit more balanced, more development up north of the freeway, we got moved again. As a Meridian School District patron we are a little tired of getting moved every time somebody decides to put a new development in. This is not planning for our children's future. De Weerd: Thank you. Fawcett: That's all the comments I have. De Weerd: Mel Shoemaker signed up against. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address. Shoemaker: Mel Shoemaker. 1620 South Ten Mile. De Weerd: Thank you. Shoemaker: The corner of Overland and Ten Mile. I have a letter on record -- De Weerd: Yes. Shoemaker: -- with a number of issues and I'm sure you have probably read it. The other .- I'm not going to take my three minutes to go into those issues. They are in the letter. One of the items that I think has not been addressed is when Mr. Jewett, he's going to dump these 1,252 homes out onto Ten Mile, which will now go north on Ten Mile and I don't think there has been any discussion that I have really heard of, number one, those of us on Ten Mile, I imagine you're probably thinking in the back of your mind that, my, my, you're going to be a victim that is going to take the gaff here, but there is also Tasa -- there is nothing been ever discussed about Tasa and Davis Drive. And if Ten Mile is widened to the extent that it looks like Eagle Road, which it will, both of those places will u in other words, Mr. Jewett's kind of representing that he is building a Shangrila up there and is taking everything into consideration, but I don't think those of us that have lived there .- we have lived there 31 years -- have really been taken into consideration. So, I think in my mind there is kind of a preliminary jump here on the whole interchange process and I think if somebody was really doing some good thinking, they'd look at moving that interchange to the east and going up over to the east of Mrs. Weist's house, which she sold to the developer, and take that interchange across the Ross property and, then, drift it back to Ten Mile and I think that would clear up problems at Tasa, clear up problems with Davis, and a number of issues there. And DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16, 2006 Page 22 certainly clear up my problem. And I think -- I think that really sincerely and truly needs to be looked at. And I think it's been skipped over and I think it could even -- if that was the case -- if that was the case and it was taken up to the east of the -. Mrs. Weist's house -. which she no longer lives in -- and, then, ties back into Ten Mile, this Overland thing wouldn't even have to happen. You could still come down Overland and tie into that interchange road -- , mean it's a possibility and, then, tie back into Ten Mile. And it would take you away from all that existing -- those existing neighborhoods and h I guess I'm done. Am I making any kind of sense here? De Weerd: Can you show us, Mr. Shoemaker, where you live? Shoemaker: I live on this -. I live on this piece of property right here. 'live right here. This is our property. And I think the opportunity that's being missed is if the freeway interchange was put in here u actually right here would be a good alignment point right in the middle of these two fields and come up across here and, then, drift around back to Ten Mile. And I think -- I think if somebody was to go out there and look at that and study it, they would see an opportunity that's being overlooked and I think -- I think when this thing is insisted upon going right down through here, it creates a Tasa problem, it creates a Davis problem. It certainly creates my problem. But I don't think -. , think this Shangrila that's being developed over here is not a Shangrila for the rest of us here. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Shoemaker: And I hope somebody looks at that a little further. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Shoemaker? Shoemaker: Yes. De Weerd: Did you participate in some of the public open houses-- Shoemaker: Yes, I did. De Weerd: -- on the Ten Mile interchange? Shoemaker: Yes, I did. De Weerd: And you submitted your comments for their consideration? Shoemaker: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Shoemaker: And I'm still not done talking. DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16,2006 Page 23 De Weerd: Okay. Those are the names that signed up on the sign-up sheet. It is a Public Hearing. If there is anyone who would like to provide public testimony that did not sign up, if you would like to come forward at this time. And state your name and address. Van Hees: My name is Larry Van Hees. I live at 2540 South Del Rey, just off of Val Vista. De Weerd: Thank you. Van Hees: Meridian is growing and there is nothing that gets us all gathered together and gets our talk going than the effect of development around us. We live on the lots that Scott's discussing that are all over five acres. Scott, you did a great job. I just want to tell you I think you really presented the feeling of the community. The one thing it's really done is we as neighbors are talking to each other right now, discussing how to make our subdivision better. We kind of like it the way it is. We like the fact that we have a rural setting in close to the community of the City of Meridian. The one thing that does concern us is we like the road without a lot traffic on it. It's been there for some time and I know your concerns and I have watched you a little bit when people said we are not going to break up our place and we have all agreed to do that and I saw the grins on your face and I know -- and the one thing being a builder-developer that I have always maintained with the ownership of property, the right is there to do with it what you want to do. However, I told them I would be the last one to sign and I waited until pretty everybody stepped up and said, hey, this is what we want to maintain and I threw my hat in the ring and I agree if there is any way possible to maintain the integrity 0 that road without traffic and to -. if there has to be a street that goes into it, that it be at the least intrusive way to get there and if it could be just an emergency path with breakaway gates and whatever and maybe walk paths to go to the walking path, that would be really great and we could all go with that in a very good fashion. I thank you very much, Mayor and Council, for listen to my say. Thank you very much. De Weerd: It's ways good to know where you live, Larry. I marked it down. Okay, sir. Alton: I'm Curtis Alton. I live at 2906 West Val Vista, which is right on the corner of the subdivision that's being planned. I am not naturally against development of the subdivision, but, again, Scott covered a lot of the things that I had -- would like to see changed on it. A couple of things that I would really like you to think about is the traffic patterns. Right now on Overland sometimes it's backed up all the way down to the -- all the way down to the RV center down there. It takes two, three, four lights to get through it now. You put another 900 homes in there and even adding another lane, what a lot of those people are going to do, they are going to take an alternate route. If there is any road into out subdivision we are going to have a tremendous amount of traffic there. And to reroute Overland up or, in other words, to the south and come out up by Lamont is going to take and detour a lot of that traffic to the south, then -- which is going to have to go back to the north again, which is an illogical way to route all that traffic and there is no traffic pattern set up. I haven't heard anything set up as far as a traffic light or so DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16,2006 Page 24 forth, which would be two busy intersections just a matter of a few feet apart. Our road in our subdivision is strictly a blacktop. road. It has no sidewalks, has it was mentioned, and to route or allow more traffic to come through there would be just a disaster. There is no street lights. Kids are walking h use this for riding bicyles, horses on it. It's strictly a rural -- a rural road and to bring any amount of traffic through there would just totally disrupt the character of our subdivision. We purchased in the subdivision just because it had a little bit of a privacy and a larger acre lot and now to see any of them developed and start to develop just totally destroys what we bought it for and the stub road, if you ever are going to put a stub road out of there, I would like to see it more toward the -- toward the west and -- because, then, it could go directly out to Ten Mile without going down through the road that is now there, which is Val Vista, and it could go through -- basically through my pasture. I'll just point it out. De Weerd: Sir? Sir? If you can use this microphone. Thank you. Alton: Okay. Instead of bringing all that traffic in down here and running it all the way out through Val Vista, which would ruin the integrity of our subdivision, if we come out through n if it come out through like say even here through my pasture and possibly through the Brenner's pasture, it could out through Ten Mile and not disrupt most of the residents of Val Vista. And any other lots I would rather see it than the one it is, because the one -- being it has already been planned to subdivide that lot, the intentions are already there is to split it up and put in nine houses right in the middle of our subdivision. And I think that's ridiculous to break up a subdivision n a subdivision putting nine houses right in the middle of it and destroying the whole integrity and character of our subdivision. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony? Canning: Madam Mayor? Oh. Grubaugh: My name is Suzanne Grubaugh and I live at 3475 West Tasa. De Weerd: Thank you. Grubaugh: And I'd just like to say that Mel did a very good job of explaining how he feels about what's going on there and I may own a multi-million dollar home, but I do own a little piece of heaven and our feeling is that our little piece of heaven probably isn't going to be there very much longer and we will probably have to move. But I would like to thank the developer, he's done a very good job of putting a school in, which most developers don't, they put in a subdivision and they don't plan for schools and I think that's -- I think that's a nice thing for him to do and the library and all the rest of that and it encompasses a lot of things, but I would like you to look at the flow of traffic with the interchange going in and Ten Mile cutting across there -- or Overland cutting across over onto Ten Mile. I think you're going to have the same problem that you have with Tasa now, because Overland comes down and, then, cut across and sometimes getting across Tasa onto Ten Mile during rush hour, you know, is really hard, especially if there DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16,2006 Page 25 is an accident on the freeway and everybody gets off and jogs over that way. So, you know, what -- I think what Mel said was -- was a good thing to look at. I think we need to look more at planning of the traffic and the flow of the traffic and that sort of thing. I think I told you once that I didn't think our old piece of heaven was going to be there at a meeting at one of the elementary schools. But I certainly feel like if there are -- if that's going to happen, I don't want to see what happened on Eagle and Meridian and -- you know, with the traffic and all the rest of it. I'd like to see a better flow of traffic and if most of it went this way it would be better for everybody. De Weerd: Thank you. I wasn't going to ask you if you went, because I knew you did. Any questions, Council? Okay. Thank you. Grubaugh: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any further testimony? Okay. Would -. oh, Anna, before I ask the developer to come and summarize and respond to that questions h Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, several of the public raised questions about various transportation issues and I feel it's probably my responsibility to address those more than the applicant,j so let me take a stab. First of all, I will read the paragraph from Lor; Din Hartog at Ada County Highway District regarding the commission's action. It says: The Commission heard testimony from district staff, the applicant, adjacent and nearby property owners and City of Meridian planning staff. Based on the testimony presented, the commissioners determined that a different pUblic involvement process would be necessary for such a major realignment of a principal arterial roadway. The ACHD commission also determined that acting on the proposed application would be premature due to the fact the City of Meridian has not completed the public process for the Ten Mile area plan and has not yet formally adopted the plan. In addition, the commission determined that it would be critical to know the interchange design selection for Ten Mile prior to acting on a realignment of Overland Road. The reviewed South Ridge Subdivision proposed was remanded back to district staff with no definitive date to reschedule the item back on the commission agenda. So -- and I explained this before. What they said was this is a big change and they weren't willing to act on that change, because the Ten Mile plan is not officially adopted. So, there is no officially adopted plan that has that alignment of Overland Road on it. So, they wanted to get your take. They also talked about additional public involvement. Well, as part of the south Meridian area plan, the -- there was a concurrent effort underway by ACHD for a transportation plan for that south Meridian area and this is one of those areas where those two plans overlap. So, we do have in our possession -- we picked this up last week. It is still in draft form, so the public would not have heard of it yet, but it's the Draft South Meridian Transportation Plan, Overland Road Connection Memo. And this was prepared by Washington Group with funds from -- or as a consultant to the Ada County Highway District. And the first bullet -- recommendations on the last page say Washington Group recommends including the realigned Overland Road connection from Black Cat Road to Ten Mile and furture transportation plans based on our analysis and, then, it lists some reasons. Ten Mile interchange design and specific area study DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16, 2006 Page 26 both recommend the removal or relocation of the Overland Road and Ten Mile intersections provide better traffic signal spacing and access management on Ten Mile Road, as it leads to the proposed interchange. The environmental impacts are minimal with this alignment. Historic area will not be disturbed. The Ridenbaugh will only be crossed one time at an existing crossing. Topography of the area is fairly consistent from Ten Mile Road to Black Cat Road. The portion from Ten Mile Road to the east will be constructed by the developer. The roadway can be designed to make a smoother transition by regardign the developer's side. Right of way will be provided by the developer. And, then, it also has some reasons for not following the straight alignment. So, they have done some additional studies since that commission hearing. They have new documents, they have new studies that they will be considering for that area. De Weerd: Anna, can you give those to the clerk and get copies, so Council can have those in front of them? Canning: Right now? De Weerd: Yes, please. Canning: Okay. I do need to state, once again, that that's a draft document. With regard to the realigned interchange, we did consider it for a day, a full day at the charrette, which one out of four days is a lot of time. We had a whole alternative set of land uses and roadway connections based on a different interchange alignment and the general thoughts from the transportation agencies were that that was not appropriate, so ultimately we shifted it back to its current location. So, that was considered during the charrette process and it didn't seem to work as well as we had hoped. I mean we did it because we had hoped it would work, but, unfortunately, it didn't solve as many problems as it needed to. Zaremba: I'm sorry, Madam Mayor. Anna, I got lost in which worked and which didn't? Canning: The shifting to the east did not work for the interchange. Zaremba: Shifting Ten Mile. De Weerd: Shifting the interchange to the east did not work. Zaremba: Thank you. Canning: Okay. Sorry I wasn't clear. My understanding -- there was questions about who would do the improvements on Ten Mile and from our meetings with Lochner, who is the consultant hired by the state to do the interchange project -- the list of consultants on these projects is enormous and difficult to keep straight, but my understanding from Lochner was that the interchange project would need to come all the way to the Ridenbaugh, because of the elevation differences that they h and challenges that they had in this area. So, the interchange project will come to this corner of the Ridenbaugh DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16, 2006 Page 27 and, then, the applicant's project picks up after that. So, we would get the necessary Ten Mile improvements, because ITD would, basically, to do them to the Ridenbaugh and, then, the applicant would be responsible for the remainder of that business. So, that's doh. And there would be a light at the realigned Overland. All the concepts have talked about having a light at that facility, not a stop sign. And I think those were the roadway ones -- the questions that I heard come up with regard to the larger roadway issues and the interchange. Because of the elevation difference -- you know, just for the Tasa neighbors that took the time testify tonight, there is some opportunity with the realigned Overland, because of the elevation differences here there may be an opportunity to actually bring Tasa underneath the Ten Mile and back onto this property up here. And, again, it's just -- it may be an opportunity. They have been working -~ talked to Jim about possibly redirecting that, so they can get those folks so that they can still get in and out of their neighborhood. That was alii had. thank you, ma'am. De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions for Anna? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Jim. Jewett: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council. I'm going to just touch on the transportation issus real quick and, then, move onto the other comments that the folks had. Just for everybody's information I was involved in all the meetings, I was on the advisory committee for the Ten Mile interchange, so I'm in constant contact with ACR, maybe as much as your own staff, on what the process is going through. And if you -- I'll get them there. That's fine. Right now within the scope of what the interchange will encompass -- like Anna said, it will take Ten Mile to the Ridenbaugh. It will also connect Tasa either to Ten Mile, which is not likely. Most likely it will bring a new road from Tasa all the way back over to Overland and so with the realignment they will simply reconstruct a new road over. So, they are going to address those. They have to address Tasa. It's part of what they need to do and the proposal that seems to be most likely is a -- they will bridge Ten Mile over Tasa and Tasa will come back over to either Overland's concurrent location or to Overland's relocated. And ACR is patiently waiting some decision on that relocation of Overland, because they can't, as an agency, address how they could design to it without somebody saying that's going to happen. They already understand from us that it just already a funded project that some agency says goes. So, they are ready to address that. So, I just wanted to add that little bit onto Anna's comments about transportation. There has been a lot of comments about the stub street and about Val Vista and about that one particular piece of property, so I will try to answer those questions real quick. During the process of subdivision that property that they spoke about came up for sale. I did have a contact to buy it. I did look at how a stub street would connect to Val Vista. I did go to the homeowners and meet with them. They are very passionate about their subdivision and how their quality of life would be affected by that. Having heard that, as well as some other issues, we decided not to move forward and purchase that property. Understanding their commitment that they -- they have preserved their subdivision, you know, that, obviously, is this Council's decision where DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16,2006 Page 28 they want this stub street. I simply show it there for the purpose of future transportation. You know, this body's decision is -- I will more than adhere to. Fencing and how that would affect their subdivision and dust -- I will talk about those for a second. First of all dust. Think nuisance dust is a problem for all existing homeowners. And from our company point of view, we take the position that we do everything we can to mitigate dust -- you know, nuisance dust. So, that means we water, we do everything we can. So, a fence isn't going to stop that, but we do everything we can. We work diligently to try to make sure that we have water trucks going all the time during the summer when dust can be a problem to mitigate dust leaving the site. I don't think a solid fence is going to change that. Where I am against solid fencing is -- especially a cement solid fence, is it almost seems like you're trying to block them off and the rest of the community. I understand their desire to be independent and have their own rural lifestyle, but I don't think a solid fence accomplishes that. Our proposal is a wrought iron fence. We like that open feel. We think that promotes good neighbors. But, again, we will go with whatever condition that's placed on us by the Council. If they want a solid fence, we can put the solid fence up. My personal opinion is it just doesn't create the right atmosphere. As far as moving the stub street, there is some good points. If you move the stub street to the farest west it will impact Val Vista at a minimal to the future, if it ever does extend to -- down onto Val Vista. The impact from there back to Ten Mile will be minimal. Obviously, there will still be some people affected, but it would preserve the majority of Val Vista to be still in that rural environment. So, again, if this Council wants to say move it as far west, it's completely okay with me. Mr. Aman talked about access, drain water, and property damage. With our agreement with ACHD, our proposed agreement with ACHD, is that right now without an approval of the realignment of Overland we would construct Overland from here back to their existing construction limits they are going, which is about a hundred and eighty or ninety feet west of Linder Road. And that crosses in front of Mr. Aman's property. With our proposed agreement with ACHD, ACHD would have to go acquire that easement access from Mr. Aman. That is not something that I would do, that's something that ACHD would have to step forward, like they would do on any project that they would build, they would have to acquire that right of way. I think that ACHD and ourselves are just waiting for this approval, then, we can finish up our agreements and that process will move forward, just like it has from Linder on back to Meridian Road. All those properties have been acquired through the normal process of ACHD. As far as drain water, as far as storm drain, that's a process of our construction drawings. Again, my engineer is here if there is a specific question that Council would have, they are more than -- I can call them up, but I think we are all aware that we have to meet the Public Works approval and that is a process that has to go through. This is the first process and that's the next process. I believe Mr. Aman's property will be well protected by both my engineer and the city engineer and their review process of any construction drawings. So, I believe that his -- the issues will be answered. Schools. Obviously, we have an elementary site that was identified in the camp plan and we worked with the city. I was directly involved in negotiating the middle school site for the city -- for the school district next to the Bear Creek park and I have been working with the school district in trying to identify a high school site south of this location and I believe they are pretty close to getting there. So, I think that we all know that the high schools do need to DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16, 2006 Page 29 be addressed south of town and I believe the school district is committed towards moving towards that. As a developer I think I have done my part and I have continued to do my part in helping the school. I have three kids in school, one in Moutain View and two at Lake Hazel. So, I'm very aware of the schools out in that area and my kids have been moved twice, too. So, I think we are moving towards having more consistency with the new schools that we are getting. I'd directed Tasa and Davis. I guess the last thing that -- the rear setbacks. We have on our lots adjacent here we have set a design guideline of a minimum of 130 feet deep. So, if we look at that, we have a 20 foot setback on the front and if they propose a 50 foot rear setback, that would leave us a 60 foot building envelope and that's probably adequate, even though that 50 feet seems a little extreme on a setback, I think anything -- I think 20 feet can be enlarged. 'think 30 feet might be appropriate. I just wanted to give you the design critera that we have. We have 130 foot deep lots, so if you did want a 50 foot setback, it would leave a 50 foot building envelope for any home on those lots. So, there was talk about a height restriction and the height restriction might be a better avenue than the single story. It actually sets a permanent number. I think that may be easier and I'm not objectionable to the 22 feet. The last thing to talk about will be the park. Oh, one other thing. I'm sorry. One other thing. There was talk about how Lamont would tie into our relocation of Overland. And during the charrette that was addressed and how it was addressed was that -- oops. Sorry. Lamont in some way h it's showing on this map, but it's right in here. That this connection off Lamont back to the future realignment of Overland would relieve that and we would, eventually, take the Lamont connection to Ten Mile away in the future. Albeit it might be a way future, that's how you would eventually deal with that traffic issue. So, down the road that has been addressed through the process, so -- these are yours, Anna. Can you go to mine? Okay. Okay. On the park. At the first meeting there was a discussion of how the pool would intermix with the park and the conflicts that could potentially exist. Well, we would -- what our proposal -- which may not adequately be depicted here, was to move the pool completely behind our clubhouse, so it's not visible, and so that this parking lot -- and there would be good signage right as you enter the parking lot identifying the parking lot for the clubhouse. The pool would be identified clearly behind. You would enter through some type of security gate. So, that's our proposal and I believe that's what was accepted as an answer to the Parks Department. Now, the idea of having some joint use pool is another idea that -- that could be looked at. I think that's one facility that Meridian is still probably lacking in is a pool. How we look at that -- I'm wide open. But we need address the issue of trying to not appear as if the pool is part of the park. So, if I missed anything that the Council would like me to address, I certainly would try to do so, but I believe -- the last thing is the flow of traffic. I think that we have done -- and I got my traffic engineer. I think we have done an excellent job addressing the flow of traffic and how it could work. I'm happy to see that there is a report by another body that supports relocation of Ten Mile, how that it will help traffic. I think there has been a lot of process in looking at how the interchange will work and how locating them to one -- and one of the plans that is existing of the six plans on the interchange was relocated it to the east and it is the most expensive and the least favorable and has the worst level or service. So, I think it has been addressed and I think the answer is that it simply isn't the best for the public as a whole. With that I would stand for any questions. DRAFT SouthRidge Draft January 16, 2006 Page 30 DRAFT De Weerd: Council, questions? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: You indicated that on your reconstruction of Overland Road that you would be working on concert with ACHD and in acquiring any ~- or ACHD would be acquiring any property rights to expand the width of the road, which is what they will be doing anyway with or without this project. But you said that you would be buying access and I'm not sure that -- that's a controlled access facility, so you'd probably not be buying access from Mr. Aman, he'd still have access to his property from Overland Road; am I correct? Jewett: Let me address that. Yeah. I may have stated that wrong. Mr. Aman's property is right here. What ACHD would be -- would be acquire the additional right of way and I'm assuming -- and what we have done and when we tried to do with this master plan is to provide Mr. Aman's property with superior access in the future. So, he would still have access all along this proposed road and these proposed stub streets. So, his access -. his access will be protected in the future. Now, if ACHD allows him a temporary access while he lives and enjoys his property the way it is, that is what ACHD must determine. Well, all we are saying is we are planning for it in the future and it has been addressed. Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, additional questions? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: You had indicated in your comments -- I have a couple of questions. The first one that struck me when you were -- one of your earlier comments about the mega lots and I wrote down what you said and I might have wrote it down wrong, because it doesn't make much sense. You indicated that the mega lots will allow you to change your plat and design in the future to meet future market demand at that time, yet you're representing now that you're not going to be varying this master plan and those seem to be in consistent. Jewett: Yeah. So, let me clarify that. The master plan is intended to show how the transportation -- how the roads would work and how the roads would tie into the lotting that's proposed on the master plan. What the mega lots allow us to do now is to plat this infrastructure you see. These series of roads are out platted in the mega lots, it provides all the utilities to those mega lots and provides transportation, but what the master DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16,2006 Page 31 planning and the mega lots also allow us to do is when we come in for the particular preliminary plat on this area right here, we have a couple things. The development agreement said, for example, along the south boundary you have to maintain this, this, and this. So, those are set. But right in here if we want to put in a 72 foot wide lot, instead of a 76 foot wide lot, because the product type that we are using, that's what drives that. So, it enables us to tweak the intricacies within that subdivision with the particular preliminary plat, not change the -- the staff has already stated we'd have a minimum and a maximum density, so I don't think it changes that, it just changes the way h because within our design guidelines we are specifically going to lay houses out to maximize the properties, to maximize the way the driveways and garages are a work in concert. For example, if you go to some of the architectural designs -- and let me get to one here and specifically show you -- did I go past the zipper lots? Okay. Zipper lots. What this does here -- what the zipper lot -- you can see the zipper lot -- we call it zipper, because it goes like that and what it allows us to do is pull one driveway back and one driveway forward. So, how we design this frontage -- for example, this is a 45 foot wide product, but this lot's 50 and this one's 40. So, what it does it allows us to line these driveways -- these garages up, because of the zipper and that's the type of flexibility we are looking for, so we can create some architectural design, seeing that this garage will be pulled forward and this one will be pulled back and we are offering that variety through design guidelines. So, when we develop the design guidelines, whatever particular product that we would use within each preliminary plat as they move forward, we would identify that from our design guidelines. Does that, hopefully, clarify it? Borton: It doe. Jewett: Thank you. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: One of the suggestions that staff has proposed is that you agree to both a maximum and a minimum, since the mega lots are not subdivided yet and that's something you will be doing in the future, they have set the maximum at what you're asking for, what you have proposed, and the minimum a thousand residential lots on this entire property. Is that acceptable to you? You haven't stated a -- Jewett: Yes. I did not see the numbers until tonight, but I think they are appropriate. I believe that as we move forward in urban development that we need to look at more minimums than maximums, because one benefit that this subdivision has -- and when we talk about the people south of us -- let me go to that. When you look at what's developed south of it, we looked Aspen Cove, we looked Val Vista, we looked at Majestic View, and we looked at the potential for redevelopment as being unlikely probably in my lifetime and because of the transportation that's being built there you want the density next to transportation, because if we don't we are just going to leap DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16, 2006 Page 32 frog beyong these people must faster. So, the more density that we put closer to the infrastructure, the more these people are going to be protected long term. So, having a minimum is an agreeable situation. It most likely could be higher than that, but it is acceptable. Zaremba: Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Madam Mayor. We don't have a streetscape or a typical section on the roads. Have you considered when you have looked at those to provide for transit, you have got a fairly extensive parkway system, does that correspond to possibly a park and ride area or possibly a bus pull out with benches and covers and that sort of thing, at some point in time we might get the buses in the valley? Jewett: That has been discussed a few times n it was discussed through the charrette and it's a very good question and we have an area over here next to the library that potentially could be a park and ride, some sort of bus pick up, especially with what we are looking at north of Ten Mile or north of the freeway on Ten mile with some of the rail possibilities. Having some sort of a transit from this area down to that is a possibility, but incorporating bus turnouts anywhere down in the village area is an excellent idea and any suggestions or conditions that you could place on us that would drive us towards making sure that a bus system can be accommodated is certainly something that we would support. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I think you made reference to the ilbrary earlier, but you actually indicated the fire sation area. Jewett: I'm sorry. I indicated -- the fire station is where I was referring to. Rountree: Thank you. Jewett: If I said library, I apologize. But having a bus system going to the library is a definite plus. Rountree Thank you. De Weerd: I guess I just want -- I know you touched on you would be willing to consider expanding your recreational area with your pool to be maybe a public facility. That would change that quite significantly and needing more parking, then, and a larger spot for a pool. You are willing to go into discussions and see if that's something that the city would be interested in doing? DRAFT SouthRidge Draft January 16, 2006 Page 33 DRAFT Jewett: Absolutely. De Weerd: Okay. Anna, would that be a significant change? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't believe so. The Parks and Rec Commission would have -- they probably have more to sayan that issue than the planning department. De Weerd: Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: From my perspective, for what it's worth, it would be a massive change to the extent the city would ever be involved in providing a pUblic pool within a subdivision and that impact on the parking and clubhouse, in order to make it useful for the public would be traumatic. I mean if it doesn't make each of those amenities four or five times as large as they presently are in order to actually do it right for the benefit of the public. If you're talking about venturing down that path, that's what I would have in mind to even begin a second discussion. Jewett: So, you would be talking a very large scale facility. Borton: If it's a city pool, yeah. Jewett: Okay. Yes, I would agree with you. I would agree that it's an undertaking. I agree there is need. I don't know if that size is maybe appropriate right here and I can go on and on about the public recreation, having three children and looking for more avenues for them within the city. So, maybe it's not a discussion for this, but a discussion for some other day, but I do agree that having public -- more public facilities is a good thing. Whether this is the right place for a large facility, I will defer to your decision on that. De Weerd: But you're at least open for discussion on both sides? Jewett: I think that my commitment to the library -- to the library, to the school, to the fire station, it shows that my public involvement here is steadfast. De Weerd: Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16, 2006 Page 34 Borton: Follow up on that comment with regard to those amenities. Have you completed either a donation or a sale of those parcels to the library district or the school district? Jewett: The school district transaction is all signed and the closing is soon. The library just needs to finalize the contract. , think we are all aware that their bond failed in November, but they are going to redo the bond and they think they have learned from their mistakes and they are going to redo the bond in May, but they are committed to close on the property now. They want to commit and we want to commit. The fire department is waiting for the approval of the relocation of Overland for them to finish up any negotiations with us. In both the transaction with the library and the school district, there was a partial charitable donation and a partial cash. Basically, we sold it to them for 50 cents on the dollar. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions at this point, Council? Anything from staff? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, with regard to the pool, one option may be -- or we have had developers in the past offer to make the homeowners association facility available to some of the surrounding rural subdivisions. So, that may be an opportunity, rather than making it a large scale public facility just to have -- open up that opportunity maybe to some of the surrounding subdivisions. De Weerd: , think it's just worth pursuing at least having the discussion and seeing -- I would agree that if it were to stay as is there needs to be better shielding or screening type thing. Okay. If there is nothing further from Council h Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: I found another question that' had written down. I'm unclear as to what the amenity is with the irrigation canal remaining uncovered. They would normally be tiled north of the school site and I don't see a -~ Jewett: This area right here? Borton: Correct. It appears to be an attractive nuisance. Jewett: Okay. What our vision was there -- first of all, its primary use right now is as a drain ditch from the farming that's upstream and those farming operations upstream were Bear Creek and Bear Creek West. You know, Bear Creek West -~ Bear Creek is obviously done and the church -- it starts with the Nazarene church, then, Bear Creek, then, Bear Creek West. So, with all those projects being approved or completed or moving forward, the amount of drain water will be minimized. So, what our vision was to make it a riparian area that would still accept whatever drain water did come down, but have some natural vegetation to have a more esthetic appeal than just tiling it over. That's what our vision was. And I don't have a blow up of that and I apologize. Maybe, DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16, 2006 Page 35 Anna, one of your drawings that blew up the area for the school. Let me just touch on that first. Oh. Back one. Okay. This was a -- just a drawing of what the library would be. It's a lot different configuration. But one component that we did want to tie in with the school and the library is this outdoor amphitheater and another pedestrian crossing of this drain way. We want to bring the school into the library and the library into the school. One of the things you notice at most elementary events -- you can't find a place to park. Having this parking lot here now when you come to an event at the elementary school, you can park here and come across the pedestrian, but, then, you can have teachers within the school go over to the amphitheater during the day and do book readings, plays -- there is options there. So, a component we tried to bring to this whole thing is an open air feeling and I think that what we want to do is this riparian area here just adds to that. I don't think we intended to make it a nuisance. I think we intend to make it something that possibly some wildlife, some water fowl could still inhabit, because there is a lot of duck, geese, quail in this area and this still would give them some area to live and give something for kids and teachers to talk about. That's what our vision was. We don't really think it's a nuisance. Borton: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Okay. Thank you. Jewett: Thank you. De Weerd: Len, I guess we had several of the neighbors that surrounded this had some concern about storm water and maybe also what this might have to do with their drinking water. Could you address those concerns? Grady: Madam Mayor, as far as storm water, we certainly could take a look at their drainage plan. If you want to -. I mean if there is a concern, we can require a drainage plan and review that as part of the final plat process. De Weerd: I think if you can just kind of u what is our process of review. Grady: Well, in a case where we do have concerns we require a drainage plan and we review it just to make sure that things are draining properly. De Weerd: And the primary review, though, is through Ada County Highway District? Grady: As far as any of the roads, you're correct. So, any of the normal storm drainage would go through Ada county. De Weerd: And do those take into consideration runoff and flow, so it doesn't affect personal wells -- into individual wells? Grady: Yeah. There shouldn't be any drain ditches or any of that type of stuff near any of the wells. I think -- I don't believe there is going to be any problem there. And as far DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16,2006 Page 36 as the quality of people's wells, I'm not sure what the depths of those wells are, but I'm going to guess they are in the 100 to 200 foot range and to my knowledge nothing in this area will affect that. There is no ~- there is no conduit available that would get down to that aquifer and affect it, to my knowledge. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, I would like to ask Mr. Nichols to come forward. I just wanted to get a response on the fencing type. I know that you had mentioned vinyl. We had another suggest a concrete masonry -- stamp concrete type of thing and the developer's preference of wrought iron. Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we were just discussing fencing in the back of the room and we -- the difference in land use on Val Vista and the rest of the subdivision I think is substantial enough that you need a solid fence. I mean a solid fence of some sort. And I'm sure there is give and take there. You know, what will happen next is that we need to pipe the irrigation ditch along our property, along the north side of Val Vista, our property, there that borders South Ridge. But whether that be vinyl or concrete, you know, cedar or whatever, you know, I think we are all emphatic it needs to be .- should be solid. I think we all agree that, you know, if there is going to be a walking path, an emergency way, or something through there, you know, that's reasonable, if it ever connects. I don't want to speak for the rests of the residents. I certainly u you know, I understand my neighbors' perspective on the concrete wall, the stamped concrete wall, but I also understand the cost and I have lived with cedar fences before and I have had vinyl before, so I don't really have a preference, as long as it's solid. So, from that perspective does that answer your question? De Weerd: Well, yes, but, then, it creates another one. Then, how do you maintain the property up against the fence? You know, I guess I'm envisioning this five acre parcel and you have probably a lot of property up against that fence. Do you use a weed whacker? Do you burn it? I mean h Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I would use a weed whacker. I mean, obviously, you're not going to burn it anymore. You know, that's just not going to happen. We happen to have horses up against that property line. Curtis Elton to the west has horses up against that property line. My neighbor to the east is an open space. Quite park like. But, yeah, you would use a weed whacker on it. And I would need to, you know, obviously, pipe the rest of my irrigation ditch. It's the very end of the line. Curtis and I are on the end of the line there. So, that's what we would do, I think. De Weerd: Okay. Nichols: Okay. De Weerd: Council, does that -- I know you didn't have the question, I did, but does that create anymore questions for you? No? Thank you. Nichols: Thank you. DRAFT SouthRidge Draft January 16, 2006 Page 37 DRAFT De Weerd: Mr. Jewett, I guess I have one more question for you. While I appreciate your desire to include design criteria into the development agreement. I agree with that. Because what we are also seeing a lot of is not just the redevelopment of these five acre lots, we see a lot of developers flipping their property. And so the nice pretty pictures we always see up on the screen, you drive by the subdivision and they don't look like the pretty pictures that you thought they were building. So, if we were to tie those pretty pictures into the development agreement until something is submitted to change that, are you okay with that? Jewett: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council, if there is no further questions or information needed from staff, I would look for your direction on how you would like to proceed. Rountree: Madam Mayor, if there is no further comments, I would move to close the Public Hearing on Items -- it's been so long I forgot the numbers. De Weerd: Nine and ten. Rountree: Nine and ten. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 9 and 10. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Discussion? If no discussion-- Rountree: Madam Mayor, just a comment about the transportation issue. It is an issue and it's an issue with me and certainly an issue with some of the folks out there, as well as the developer. It seems to me that the answer or the solution is going to come once the transportation entities recognize what's going to happen in the immediate area around Ten Mile. So, if you want to term it in the classic chicken and egg argument, that's probably where it is. But I think we have an opportunity here, either way we go, to send a message on what the transportation mayor may not look like in that area. In addition, there has been some information provided this evening that sounds as if it might be final. I think the question as it relates to transportation are not final and won't be fional for some time. Any land use that is progressing will be to some degree dictate what those final solutions are going to be, however. So, there is, no matter which way we go, a bit of known here. I'm a bit uneasy with the mega lots, but, on the other side of the coin, it's a pleasure to see something done in a master plan scale, as opposed to five acres at a time, which we do get, and we have all kinds of issues with, many the DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16,2006 Page 38 same as this large parcel and some of them even more difficult to solve. My inclination, based on what I have heard this evening, is to probably lean towards approval with the conditions that there are unknowns and that approval may have to be retracted. There are some conditions that need to be added to staff comments. There is a significant amount of work that needs to be done on a development agreement to cover all the issues and concerns that I have seen. So, any approval that we would move forward with I would suggest that those kinds of things need to be addressed in the motion. If, on the other hand, it's determined that we deny the application, we certainly need to move forward with the Ten Mile master plan for the city Camp Plan amendment in order to have some idea for the transportation entities to plan to -- to ultimately get to a Ten Mile interchange, which we all have been desirous of for a number of years. So, those are my fence sitting comments, if you will. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'll get in the middle of the fence, too. First of all, I'd like to -- Mr. Jewett, you have got a nice design. I like it. I'm like Councilman Rountree, I like you coming in with everything. I have some real concerns over the mega lots. This is one Councilman that you can keep your swimming pool and your recreation center for the subdivision. I don't want the city having to own a swimming pool. I think it's just great the subdivision has one. My real concern on traffic is -- I like the restructure of Overland Road, but I wished -- we don't know know when west of Ten Mile, Overland, though, takes off, so we are creating quite a bottleneck between Lamont and the new Overland Road. How many wrecks, deaths, or something before they start that, we never know. And you might never have a wreck there, I foresee -- I think that I'm like Mr. Rountree and the development agreement, we need to put some -- tie some stuff up that we feel is necessary, so that this does stay a number one development and we don't affect the people around it. Mr. Shoemaker had some very good points about the traffic, about the runoff and all that stuff, which we can take care of in the development agreement, but while we don't want to hinder any of the existing subdivisions and stuff, we will -- you know, we should allow you to go forward with a nice development, which I think you have got planned. So, that's my fence sitting. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Bird. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: If I may throw in some additional comments. I have appreciated all the public testimony and everybody's time to come and makes suggestions and offer things. I'm not as uncomfortable with the mega lots, perhaps, as some of the others. We have had other projects that have come through where there were several large lots reserved for future re-subdivision. In this case they are probably bigger in size than any of the DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16, 2006 Page 39 previous issues, but the applicant has supplied a concept plan for them. When they are resubdivided or replatted they will have to come back through I would assume for public hearings -- I'm getting a nod from Director Canning. So, it isn't that we are just saying, okay, the mega lots can be anything. They will come through again. I would comment on the mega lot closest to Val Vista and the subject of the stub street down there. I am actually pleased to hear that the Val Vista people are getting together and attempting to strengthen their subdivision ordinance, so that -- one of the things that's difficult is having a five acre lot in the middle of a subdivision like that get redeveloped. I'm in favor of your move to prevent that. I think that's a good idea. Years and years and years in the future that -- what makes that even better for the City of Meridian is instead of having five acre redevelopments, if your entire subdivision has to agree to change the nature of your subdivision, then, you're talking about all of you getting together on what would be, what, 70 acre parcel-- that to me is more attractive to the City of Meridian and that could be 50 years from now, it could be, you know, two months as the Mayor says. I suspect it's not going to be, but it could be 40,50 years from now, and, then, the opportunity to look at it as a 70 acre parcel to me is attractive, however long from now that is. The issue with the mega lot next to it and where the stub street goes, I agree that it mayor may not be the right alignment to have it focused on your current narrowest lot. The purpose of having it there is that some day, 50 or 70 years from now when that develops, that there is an alternate circulation pattern that's available and as with many other subdivisions around the city, for a long time the stub streets don't go anywhere. It does not -- it is not going to connect to Val Vista until all 14 of your agree that you're going to resubdivide your lot. It will be a stub street that ends somewhere. I agree with moving it when that mega lot is finally determined where it's location is. It doesn't need to be where it's currently depicted as far as I'm concerned. But to me I'm in favor of Val Vista strengthening your CC&Rs. I think there is a much future benefit to that a long way down. I do agree with having a stub street there somewhere, but I also want to say that doesn't mean it connects to Val Vista. It stops at the property line that currently exists. The other parts of the transportation aspects are actually exciting to me. I know there is issues that need to be worked out and they are not all going to be final until the conjunction of the Ten Mile area plan and the south Meridian area plan and the interchange -- there are going to be some things that perhaps need to be flexible until it's actually put into concrete. But my feeling is on whole this is a project that would be of benefit to the City of Meridian. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Borton. Borton: Madam Mayor -- and I agree with and echo many of the comments the other Council members have shared and some, you know, of the specific concerns. You know, I asked questions about -- with regards to the park. I agree with Councilman Bird, I'm not -- not only am I not necessarily in favor of this this pool area becoming any particular city amenity, I, for one, am not in favor of the park itself becoming a city park, as opposed to being a neighborhood park. I think the comments -- I think it was Mrs. Stone who articulated it very well about the problems created by having a private park next to a -- excuse me -- a private pool and a clubhouse next to a public park. It's not a problem I would want to take on for the city. I think a lot of the discussion about setbackc DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16,2006 Page 40 requirements and road alignments n Chief Anderson made reference to the alignment with the Ten Mile and the lighted intersection very close to a secondary intersection with Lamont. The vast unknowns which come with what could take place with an Overland realignment as you head west and the gravel pit and the implications of that, versus an Overland realignment, which I am in of, but perhaps one that extends further south, perhaps providing temporary access onto Ten Mile until it can connect further south at the intersection of Ten Mile and Lamont. There is opportunities to do things that should we proceed forward with some of these questions that we are all a little uncomfortable with. We are very impressed and pleased with what the developer has done to try to master plan it. It sort of sets some things in stone which I'm uncomfortable with. And in light of -- I think I made earlier remarks, if I recall, at the -- I think it was the Bear Creek West discussion, I made some general comments about concern with infrastructure from transportation, to school capacity, there is a variety of sewer capacity and things Mr. Grady made reference to. There is a variety of things that make me not particularly rushed to approve a project like this. My inclination is to not proceed forward with it in light of the concerns and in saying that I'm not expressing dissatisfaction with the entire project by any means, but all in all the questions are too great for me to proceed forward with approval. De Weerd: Council, I guess I hear a couple of questions and it might be worthy of continuing this to allow the developer time to maybe bring back why connecting to Lamont ~- I know it's been discussed. It was discussed during the charrette, it's been discussed during the Ten Mile interchange design, and so I do think that he needs a chance to maybe bring some of that back and we probably need a response from Ada County Highway Distrist, too. A little bit more specific than we have gotten to this point. I would also like staff to maybe bring back language on that stub road that we want to move westward that impacts Val Vista. I believe that in -- it was Redfeather that had a impact on a private lane and it was suggested if that were ever to redevelop, that stub street would, then, go forth and that it addressed the road improvements that would be needed to that rural built roadway. So, maybe we could reference that development and some of the things that were brought forth on that, because we do know when roads are connected, rural and lack of sidewalks and all of that is a major concern, if that ever were to happen. We have asked our community to develop larger, so we start seeing greater -- bigger picture things. Too often we get five acres here and 20 there and 60 there and we never see a picture and so I appreciate the neighbors working with this developer in trying to find something that -- they know it will eventually happen, because you can't run out and buy every field behind you. I know. I tried. My kids have moved schools -- my 13 year old I don't think has ever gone to a school her sibblings have gone to, because of the boundary changes. But that's n that's kind of the growth pattern that we are in. I was amazed when I found out that Mountain View a couple years ago, 40 percent of the kids in that school were from Meridian, the rest were from Boise. So, it's not just Meridian that's filling these schools, it's everyone, and that's why it always shifts and has an ebb and flow to the attendance districts. It concerns me, but it is -- it is part of the aspect. I would ask staff that if Council decides to move forward with this, to put in something a little greater on the dust abatement and I think it's a standard comment that we need to knew put in all of our subdivisions and maybe that the DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16, 2006 Page 41 developer were to hand out his personal phone number, because I have been one of those houes that gets inundated with dust and it's not pleasant and it may be temporary for six month, but it certainly effects your quality of life during construction. Council, I guess I would ask for your direction, if some of these questions are pressing enough to continue for a week to get further information or if you are at a point where you can make a decision. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: On whether we want to go forward or do it now -- but my main concern is if we go forward, would the clerk get the minutes from all the ACHD meetings, because we have heard two or three different testimonies on what was said and what was implied and stuff, so we can read them. I would like to see that. Right now I don't know if I'm prepared to make a motion and get everything in the development agreement that needs to get there, if we go ahead with it. I would be in favor right now of reopening the public hearings, continuing it for a week, unless we are filled up next week, if -- so we will go two weeks or three weeks and just come back with the certain ideas that we want to hear, not the whole publiC that we have already heard. I'd like to see the minutes from ACHD, because we got three or four different views on what transpired at the ACHD hearings and what was said and what wasn't said, so I'd like to hear them and I have got some other questions I'd like to be able to look into. De Weerd: Mr. Berg and Dean, maybe we can get a copy of the Council portion of the discussion and staff can bring back information for -- that helps address the concerns that have been expressed and maybe bring back further information from Ada County Highway District on some of the discussions they have had and perhaps we can ask Gary to be prepared to testify and give us an update as well. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I was unclear on the first thing you said about getting u De Weerd: Getting a copy of the minutes, so you know what all the comments or issues have been expressed by Council. That might help you in preparing for when this is brought back. Canning: So, you _w I'm sorry, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, what -- the request I heard of staff was to bring back langauge on moving the stub west, to provide what will become a standard condition regarding dust abatement and Jim Jewett's phone number. I have that. And to get -- the clerk was going to get minutes from the ACHD meeting, but if there are other items I would prefer you -- if you could tell me what they are, because I'm not sure what I would be looking for in the minutes. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Zaremba? DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16,2006 Page 42 Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I was going to kind of go this direction in support of Councilman Bird as well to perhaps reopen the hearing and continue it. And my thought was that what I would like to see would be a more final version of what the development agreement is going to be, the items that Director Canning has already mentioned and what I was going to do was add things to them. An agreement on what the minimum setback would be. I -- we haven't discussed that, but my personal opinion is that we already have an ordinance that defines the setbacks. The applicant is offering out of his own goodness to increase that to help satisfy the neighbors. My personal feeling is that 50 feet may be a little excessive. The applicant's compromise of 35 or 40 sounds better to me. Same thing in the development agreement about the heights. If 22 feet is the agreed amount, then, we -- I guess what I'm looking for is a final version of the development agreement. It would include in it the statements the staff has asked for about the design review and about the maximum of 1 ,252 and a minimum of 1,000 residential units through the whole thing. I assume the eventual decision about the fence needs to be in the development agreement. Am I missing anything? I'm just trying to make the list and support the idea of seeing the development agreement before we make the final decision. De Weerd: And that would include the language that we had h and I pulled the subdivision out of my head, so -- I think it was Redfeather. If you could bring that and if the stub were ever to connect, who would be responsible for the road improvements and those kind of questions, because we did have this discussion a couple years ago on that. Fencing type, Council, that's something that would have to be stated as well. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Zaremba: Just a comment on if Val Vista ever redevelops, they may have an entirely different road alignment that would satisfy that redevelopment. I wouldn't -- normally, whoever does the subdivision, it's their responsibility to connect to the old stub road and whatever improvement they need. De Weerd: Well, I have already been sold on Mr. Nichols' vision that those will be preseNed to five acre paradise in the middle of an area that u and that sold me. If I had the money I would buy a lot, the one that needs to be sold. Zaremba: Well, Madam Mayor, that being true, the stub street -. De Weerd: But, then, you would have to annex it, because I have to live in the city limits. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, that being true, then, the stub street would never connect, so it doesn't become an issue until all the property owners agree they want to re-divide the whole 70 acres and, then, it would connect to probably a totally new street. DRAFT SouthRidge Draft January 16,2006 Page 43 Bird: Madam Mayor? DRAFT De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: What's the consensus of the Council? What do you want to do? I mean I'll vote, I'll continue, whatever you want to do. I can vote tonight if somebody can make a motion to get all the points in. Rountree: Madam Mayor, my preference would be to not see a final development agreement by any sense of the word, but at least an array of the things we have talked about tonight, to commitments that have been made by the developer in testimony. A couple things I would add to Councilman Zaremba's list is that there be solid fencing. I would be inclined to agree with vinyl. In terms of a setback, I believe 30 feet would probably be adequate. I would like just to explore the opportunity to provide a stub p. and it could be one or two lots to the west of where it's proposed on the current map. A 22 foot home height I'm okay with, but we need to establish the base line. Is that from the center line of the road? Is that the highest grade of the lot? You know, what's the point of reference? And I think we have some standard language that will address that in Public Works. I would like to see the streets accommodate to the public transit in terms of bus stops, benches, possibility of some park and ride near or at major intersections within the development. I'm inclined to agree that it probably ought to be a private park and pool. I have the same issues that Mrs. Stone has about you have one or the other. Having been in the park business and still in the park business occasionally, it's very difficult. If this does come to pass, the folks that live out there are going to have extreme ownership in that, so I think probabley that might be the best thing and not have the city involved in it. Speak specifically about the architectural guidelines and when they will be done and the city will have input in those and a say in them and that they will be done before any land transactions take place. I want it made clear in the development agreement that on the mega lots that at some point in time in the future if there is variances required in order to make it fit the particular zoning designation that might be assigned, don't bother coming back. Going to make it work. And, then, on the other side of the coin, take a look at the public interest for the City of Meridian on whether or not this is the right thing and the right time to do it. So, I'm not precluding the possibility of a motion that would deny the request. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I can help you on all of them but the last one there. De Weerd: And that's the chicken and the egg question. He just wanted you to bring that one back. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16, 2006 Page 44 Borton: In light of the list, which I do think would be extremely valuable, additional information for all of us, the choices, Anna, to provide that response appear to be one week or three. It looks like agendas and things to be opened are January 23rd or February 16th. I'm curious how much time do you think you would like? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the items that you have included I think could be n with the help of city attorney's office we can get a draft development agreement to you. Usually, we just give you the provisions of that development agreement in your staff report, but we can go ahead and do a draft development agreement. Most of them, from what I'm seeing, shouldn't take us long to prepare, it's just a matter of adding language to that document. So, I think we could shoot for next week. To get that in your packet we have to have it to you by Friday. So, it is a short turnaround, but I think it would be doable. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, the thing is, though, even getting it to us would be nice and sooner would probably be better. But we got to get it to the developer so he can have any -- his responses to it. And we need to get that all back by -- you know, his responses should show up here by Monday. De Weerd: I'll bet he will be right there when she has it done. I just suspect that. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I have to confess, I made a commitment to Mr. Jewett when he agreed to realign Overland Road at our request, I said I would help to keep this on track and if .. because he did that at our request. So, I would like to shoot for a week. If we don't hit that target, we could continue it, but I would like to shoot for the one week, if possible. De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Just to clarify -- maybe I'm not getting the semantics right. I'm not sure that I, myself, or other of us are actually asking to see the finished development agreement. The normal list that goes into the report cleaned up is what I'm looking for. Canning: Okay. Zaremba: And I think that can be even faster. De Weerd: Appreciate that clarification. And in regard to the chicken and the egg, I still think that we do need to have that information on why the alignment did not work with Lamont and a response from ACHD. I think that would help perhaps with some of the DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16, 2006 Page 45 discussion that we have had. I certainly know on both sides of me that it would have been. Canning: And the response from ACHD is just with regard to Lamont; correct? De Weerd: Lamont and the public process-- Canning: Okay. De Weerd: ~- of this realignment. And perhaps -- I think it was -- oh, we have that in front of us. So, give Council a chance to look through what Lochner and Washington Group have put together, too. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would comment that I don't believe anybody who testified has left the room and I would, therefore, offer a motion to reopen the Public Hearing and continue it to January 23rd, 2007. Bird: I would second that and, then, I want discussion. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second with discussion. Well, I usually -- you don't have discussion on -- Bird: No. Just open it and, then, we will talk. De Weerd: All those in -- Zaremba: Other than to clarify I meant the Public Hearing on AZ 06-031 and PP 06-31. De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor of the motion please say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: On voting aye on reopening this, I don't want anybody to think that this one Councilman is not still openminded and it is definitely not a slam dunk or a denial, either one. I'm here to listen and -- but by reopening it it is not guaranteed favorable to the applicant. DRAFT SouthRidge Draft DRAFT January 16, 2006 Page 46 De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Bird. Are you opening it for limited -~ for what you -- Bird: Well, I hope we are just limiting it. That's up to the maker of the motion. Zaremba: That was my intent. I perhaps didn't phrase it carefully, but it would be to basically review the elements of the development agreement, I believe. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, in your motion to continue this matter you can certainly limit the testimony that you want to receive at the next heearing and maybe -- I think what I have heard and Mrs. Canning has heard is you want at least a rough list of the conditions that you have discussed and placed on the record and the developer has agreed to in regards to some of the limitations on this project, you wanted information from the highway district in regards to the reasons that they had or concerns their staff may have had regarding the alignment of the Overland with Lamont, as well as what future steps they wish to take in regards to that discussion and how that's going to be done in regard to the Lamont-Overland with the connections in that area, as well as the intersections. I think if those are the areas I thought I heard, then, you can just include that in your motion. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: With great appreciation to Mr. Nary for having expressed exactly what I was thinking without clarifying it -- Nary: Lucky guess. Zaremba: u the maker of the motion incorporates what he said. Bird: Second agrees. De Weerd: Okay. And is that what we all voted on? Oh, we didn't vote. Okay. If there is nothing further, we do have open an Public Hearing and direction to come back next week. Thank you. Thank you all for coming this evening. Okay. Item 11 is a Public Hearing on Proposed Fees for the Mayor's State of the City Address. Council, I'm going to break for five minutes. (Recess.) DRAFT