Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 08-20Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:40 P.M., on Tuesday, August 20, 2002, by Mayor Robert D. Corrie. Members Present: Mayor Robert Corrie, Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Cherie McCandless, and William Nary. Others Present: Chris Nye, Gary Smith, David McKinnon, Brad Watson, Will Berg, Ken Bowers, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. __X Tammy de Weerd _ X__ Bill Nary __X Cherie McCandless __X Keith Bird __X Mayor Robert Corrie Corrie: I will open the Meridian City Council regular meeting, Tuesday, August the 20th , at 6:40. Sorry for the delay. I want to welcome everyone here this evening and thank you for coming. Council, we will have roll call attendance, please, Mr. Berg. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Corrie: Number 2 item is adoption of the agenda. Is there any changes at this point? Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve the adoption of the agenda as published. Corrie: Okay. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes from July 23, 2002 City Council Regular Meeting: B. Approve minutes from August 6, 2002 City Council Special Meeting: C. Approve minutes from August 6, 2002 City Council Regular Meeting: Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 2 of 41 D. Approve minutes from August 13, 2002 City Council Special Meeting: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 02-012 Request for annexation and zoning of 2.02 acres from RUT to R-4 zones by Jerald S. Frank – 2310 South Locust Grove Road: G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: RZ 02-001 Request for a rezone of .97 acres from L-O to C-G zones for Lot 3 Block 2 of Amended Magic View Subdivision for a Subway sandwich shop by Blaine and Cynthia Jacobson – northeast corner of East Magic View Drive and South Allen Street: H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 02- 016 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an 11, 700 square foot multi-tenant flex space office / warehouse building by Falash & Ross Construction, Inc. – 150 S. Adkins Way, Lot 5 Block 2, Medimont Subdivision, northwest corner of E. Franklin Road and S. Locust Grove Road: I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 02- 017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an 11, 700 square foot multi-tenant flex space office / warehouse building by Falash & Ross Construction, Inc. – Lot 10 Block 2, Medimont Subdivision, northwest corner of E. Franklin Road and S. Locust Grove Road: J. Development Agreement: RZ 00-010 Request to rezone 8.88 acres from an R-4 zone to an L-O zone for proposed St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center Ambulatory Care Center by BRS Architects – southeast corner of Cherry Lane and Ten Mile Road: K. Development Agreement: AZ 01-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.764 acres from RT to R-40 and C-G for proposed Locust Grove Place by L.C. Development, Inc. – west side of Locust Grove Road, south of Fairview Avenue: L. Water Main Easement, Sundance Investments – Sunstone Building in Silverstone Subdivision: M. Contract for Reimbursement by Kevin Howell for sewer services off the White Drain Trunk through Cedar Springs Subdivision: Corrie: Item 3 is the Consent Agenda. Are there any items we wish pull off on the Consent Agenda, A through M? Bird: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 3 of 41 Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we pull Item E, Order Granting Appeal for Walt Morrow, to Item 5-E on the Regular Agenda and with that change I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda as published. Nary: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda with E being removed to go to Item Number 5. And any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Motion is carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Department Reports: A. Public Works Department: 1. Award of Meridian High School Main Line Project: Corrie: Item Number 4, Department Reports, Public Works. Gary Smith. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. The item we have tonight is an award of the Meridian High School Main Line Water Project. Four requests for price were solicited and three construction firms responded. The low bidder was Star Construction and they have done several projects for us in the past and have done a good job for us. We would recommend that the Council award this contract for the Meridian High School Main Line Project to start construction in the amount of 18,972 dollars, authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest the agreement. Corrie: Okay. Council, any discussion? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion on the request. McCandless: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. McCandless. McCandless: I move that we award the contract for Meridian High School Main Line Project to Star Construction in the amount of 18,972 dollars, authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 4 of 41 Nary: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to have Star Construction for 18,972 dollars award of the bid. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Smith: Thank you, Mayor and thank you -- Item 5: (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) E. Tabled from August 6, 2002: Order Granting Appeal: AP 01- 002 Stop Work Order at 2340 West Franklin Road by Walt Morrow: Corrie: Thank you, Gary. Item Number 5 has been moved from the Consent Agenda, Item E, which is the Stop Work Order at 2340 West Franklin Road by Walt Morrow. Council, you got a letter of memorandum from the attorney in reference to the specific issues raised. Paragraph 2 on Page 4 of the order, the building shall only be used for storage and loafing area for cattle and any expansion or use of this building will require a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Morrow requested that Paragraph 2 should read, this building could only be used for storage and a loafing area for cattle -- and you have two other alternatives there, so I will -- discussion, Council. Walt, are we doing that -- is that what -- okay. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: The computer is smarter than me. I knocked my computer down, so I can't read the letters, but the way that the motion and everything read is what is on Page 4, Paragraph 2, when we appealed that it should read, the building should be only used for storage and loafing area for cattle. Any expansion or use of this building for anything other than what is allowed under our current I-L zoning is prohibited, unless appropriate application is made to and approved by the city. That instead of having the way it was -- the way it did read was the building shall only be used for storage and loafing areas of cattle. Any expansion of the use of this building will require a Conditional Use Permit. That's not -- that's not what the appeal or minutes say, so I would state that in the findings that paragraph that I read first would be inserted at Page 4, Paragraph 2. Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 5 of 41 De Weerd: Was that a motion? Bird: That's a motion. De Weerd: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Okay. Roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Ordinance No. : RZ 00-010 Request to rezone 8.88 acres from an R-4 zone to an L-O zone for proposed St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center Ambulatory Care Center by BRS Architects – southeast corner of Cherry Lane and Ten Mile Road: Corrie: All right. Well, we got it done now, so -- Item Number 6. Ordinance -- number, please. 02-970. This is a request to rezone 8.88 acres from an R-4 zone to an L-O zone for proposed St. Alphonsus Medical Center and Ambulatory Care Center. At this time I would like to have the City Clerk read Ordinance Number 02-970 by title only. Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 02-970, an ordinance finding that St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center is the owner of certain real property and has made a written request for rezone in the zoning classification for real property at the southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Cherry Lane, Meridian, Idaho, that lies within the boundaries of the City of Meridian, from R-4, low density residential zoning district to L-O, Limited Office District, as defined under Meridian City Code 11-7-2(G), repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders and parts thereof in conflict herewith, and directing the city engineer to add said rezoning designation to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho. Corrie: Okay. You have heard the reading of Ordinance Number 02-970 by title only. Is there anyone who requests to have the ordinance read in its entirety? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion on Ordinance Number 02-970. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I move we approve Ordinance 02-970, request to rezone 8.88 acres from an R-4 zone to an L-O zone for the proposed St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center Ambulatory Care and ask the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest, with suspension of rules pursuant to state code. Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 6 of 41 Bird: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve Ordinance Number 02- 970 with suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Ordinance Number 02-970 is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Ordinance No. : AZ 02-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 196.20 acres from RT to R-4 zones for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – west of South Eagle Road and south of East Victory Road: Corrie: Item Number 7 is Ordinance Number 02-971. This is a request for annexation and zoning of 196.20 acres from RT to R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership, west of South Eagle Road and south of East Victory Road. At this time I would like to have the City Clerk read Ordinance Number 02-971 by title only. Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 02-971, an ordinance finding that said land to be known as Tuscany Lakes Subdivision, located west of South Eagle Road and south of East Victory Road and which lies contiguous and adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, and finding that the owner Marty Goldsmith, Walter Sigmont, and Raymond Smith, Jean and Richard Bernett Family Trust, which persons make up Farwest, LLC, and has made a request for annexation in writing to the Council and that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian with zoning designated Low Density Residential District (R-4), and declaring that said land by proper legal description as described below be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith and directing the city engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada County recorder, auditor, treasurer and assessor and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215. Corrie: You have heard the reading of Ordinance Number 02-971. Is there anyone that would like to have it read in its entirety? Okay. I'll entertain a motion on the Ordinance 02-971. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 7 of 41 Nary: I would move the approval of Ordinance 02-971, the request for annexation and zoning of 196.2 acres from an RT to an R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership, west of South Eagle Road and south of East Victory Road, and for suspension of rules pursuant to the Idaho Code. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Motion for the Ordinance Number 02-971 is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Ordinance No. : AZ 01-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.764 acres from RT to R-40 and C-G for proposed Locust Grove Place by L.C. Development, Inc. – west side of Locust Grove Road, south of Fairview Avenue: Corrie: Item Number 8 is Ordinance Number 02-972. This is a request for annexation and zoning of 11.764 acres from RT to R-4 and C-G for proposed Locust Grove Place by LC Development, Inc., west side of Locust Grove Road, south of Fairview Avenue. At this time I would like to have Ordinance Number 02-972 read by title only by the City Clerk. Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 02-972, an ordinance finding that said land to be known as Locust Grove Place, the location of which lies contiguous and adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, and finding that the owner LC Development, Inc., has made a request for annexation in writing to the Council and that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated High Density Residential District (R-40) and Community Business District (C-C), and declaring that said land by proper legal description as described below be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith and directing the city engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada County recorder, auditor, treasurer and assessor and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215. Corrie: Okay. You have heard the reading of Ordinance Number 02-972. Anyone wish to have it read in its entirety? I'll entertain a motion on the order 02-972. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 8 of 41 Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I move we approved Ordinance Number 02-972, request for annexation and zoning of 11.764 acres from RT to R-40 and C-G for the proposed Locust Grove Place by L.C. Development, Inc., and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk attest, with suspension of rules, pursuant to Idaho state code. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve Ordinance Number 02-972 with suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, please. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Motion on Ordinance 02-972 is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Public Hearing: Property Exchange with Farmers & Merchants State Bank: Corrie: Item Number 9 is a Public Hearing. This is a property exchange with Farmers and Merchants State Bank and the City of Meridian. At this time I will open the Public Hearing and invite staff -- any comments? Okay. So the general public would know what happened here. We are having a Public Hearing on an exchange of the old fire station property for three other properties in the amount of 260,000 and having a Public Hearing on that. Next would be the bank if you have anything that you want to say. Thank you. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have testimony on this request for exchange? Okay. Council, any discussion? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Hearing no Public Hearing on the matter I will -- I'm sorry. Berg: Mr. Mayor, just a comment to the public, just so they will know. This property exchange also deals with a cash settlement also for the balance of the value of the properties that we are exchanging. It isn't an exact exchange of property, but it also has a cash sum to it. Corrie: Okay. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I believe that this is in the best interest of the city. The current property that we are exchanging for the three lots is not in a place that the city can do any business with it. It's really not of value to the city at this point or any anticipated future use. The Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 9 of 41 current property that we are exchanging them for will really benefit our community with their location next to our old police station and I think it's in the best interest of the city to move forward with it. I guess with that said I would move that we close the Public Hearing. Bird: I second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing. Further discussion? All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: Okay. Public Hearing is closed. I will entertain a motion for a resolution to authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest to the proposed exchange and the exchange agreement. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we enter into an exchange agreement with the Farmers and Merchants State Bank for the fire station property located a 716 North Meridian Road, Meridian, Idaho. For three lots in the original town site of Meridian at 221 East Idaho Avenue, 223 East Idaho Avenue and 237 East Idaho Avenue, exchange titles, and the bank will pay the City of Meridian an extra 22,269 dollars and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. De Weerd: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Motion is carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: FP 02-017 Request for Final Plat approval of 4 building lots and 1 other lot on 20.01 acres in a C-G zone for Willey Subdivision by Roylance & Associates P.A. – 3710 East Franklin Road: Corrie: Thank you. Item Number 10 is a request for Final Plat approval of four building lots and one other lot on 20.01 acres in the C-G zone for Wiley Subdivision by Roylance & Associates, P.A, 3710 East Franklin Road. Staff. Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 10 of 41 McKinnon: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, this property is located at essentially the 20 acres where the R.C. Willey property sits right now on the corner of Franklin and Eagle Road. The applicant submitted a final plat that's in conformance with the preliminary plat, as approved on May 7th and adopted -- and with the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law that were adopted on the 21st of May of this year. The applicant has requested one minor modification on this final plat that was not requested on the preliminary plat. If you can open up your staff report to Page 3. In the recommendation there are two separate options for you to adopt this night concerning the sidewalk on Eagle Road. The applicant has requested that instead of installing the sidewalk on Eagle Road -- it's Eagle Road -- on Eagle Road at this time, they would ask that they be able to bond for the improvements on Eagle Road until such time that ACHD can arrange for the design of the sidewalk from Eagle Road to Lanark Street. Instead of putting something in that does not match ACHD's design, they be allowed to match something that ACHD would put in. I have given two options to you that would be recommendation 7-A or 7-B. Staff is okay with the adoption of either of the options. Option A gives until 2004 -- the final day of 2004 to install the sidewalk and to bond for that, and 7-B states that they should install it at time prior to the applying for a building permit for this property. With that I would ask if there is any questions. Corrie: Any questions of staff? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Dave, I notice that the bond amount is 120 percent and I guess I'm used to seeing 110. McKinnon: Our ordinance allows for either 110 percent with a letter of credit or 120 percent with a bond and I probably should have clarified that to match exactly with the ordinance. Nary: Because is there a reason for one -- I guess it needs to say either 110 -- McKinnon: 110 or 120 percent. Nary: -- with a bond or 120 with a letter of credit. Okay. Thank you. Corrie: Is the applicant here? Give your name and address, please. Rennison: Mayor, Council Members, my name is John Rennison with Roylance & Associates, 391 West State Street in Eagle. Just to add a little bit of clarification there, what we became aware of since the Preliminary Plat is that ACHD, in fact, has design plans for the sidewalk to -- I guess it goes all the way up Franklin Road there on the bottom of the page east-west. Then it turns and goes north along -- parallel to Eagle Road, obviously, all the way up to Lanark Street there. They already have plans, so we just kind of become aware of this, they are supposedly 75 percent complete, which actually called for a sidewalk. It's on their plans, so if they want to build that, that's -- we Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 11 of 41 would be okay with that. Furthermore, just to -- not to complicate things here, but to clarify the request. Since ACHD does have plans in place and as far as I'm aware and we are aware, intend to build this thing in 2004, that we would also request that consideration be given to bond for the improvements for that additional sidewalk from -- just from Lanark Street to the north property line, as opposed to the entire length of the Eagle Road right of way. That's all I have at this time. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: Have you seen those plans? Are they planning for a detached or an attached sidewalk? Rennison: I believe that, if memory serves me right, I have seen the plans and if memory serves me right it is an attached. De Weerd: Who would want to walk on a sidewalk -- Rennison: Very good question. De Weerd: -- in that area? I just don't get it. Is there something that our staff can look into, perhaps? Would you be amenable to a detached sidewalk? I mean probably paying the same thing. There would be a right of way issue or -- but would you be willing to work with that? Rennison: Absolutely. De Weerd: Good answer. I appreciate that. Rennison: In our opinion, yes, we would much rather -- my personal opinion I'd much rather walk on a detached sidewalk, if I was going to walk on that road right of way. De Weerd: It just makes sense there. Rennison: I would probably pick an alternate route to begin with, but if I had to walk on it, detached would be the much preferred option. Again, in ACHD's plans that we saw, I believe if memory does serve me right. They were stamped 75 complete, which is -- I think there is a few items to be worked out with that design that I'm not real privy to, but who knows, there could be some opportunity for that sidewalk to become detached on their plans as well. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess if staff could contact ACHD regarding that and depending on the answer it might be an item for discussion at our next joint meeting. Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 12 of 41 Corrie: Maybe we'll get good results this time. McKinnon: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, could I ask a question of the applicant? Corrie: Sure. McKinnon: John, up in the -- I guess it would be the southwest corner of the property we have some elevation that drops off rather rapidly, don't we, into the site? The southeast corner of Eagle and Franklin? Rennison: The southeast corner or southwest -- McKinnon: Southwest corner. Thanks. Southwest corner. Doesn't the elevation drop pretty rapidly towards the northeast? Rennison: That is correct. McKinnon: And so that might be part of the reason that they are going with the attached, rather than the detached. Rennison: That could be. That could certainly have a -- play a role in their design. However, I couldn't say one way or another if that dictates their design or not. McKinnon: Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I guess one further question. Corrie: John, I guess -- sorry. De Weerd: You want to bond or do a letter of credit? Rennison: In the past I guess R.C. Willey has chosen to write a letter of credit to the -- to the city. I would suspect at this time that they would prefer to go that same route as what they have for the Evans Drain, for instance. If it's possible to leave it open to either bond or provide a letter of credit, that would be -- De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Corrie: Any further discussion? Okay. I'll entertain a request for Final Plat approval. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I move we approve the request for Final Plat of four building lots and one other lot on 20.01 acres in a C-G zone for Willey Subdivision, to note in staff recommendation that -- to reflect the comments on development of a sidewalk to be a Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 13 of 41 detached sidewalk and to ask the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Division of Order. That's it. Bird: Second. Corrie: Okay. You have heard the motion for the request for Final Plat on Willey Subdivision. Further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Motion is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: Public Hearing: MI 02-006 Request for an Amendment to the Area of Impact by Capital Development (Bristol Heights) – southeast corner of Chinden Boulevard and North Locust Grove Road: Corrie: I apologize to the audience. Our picture screen is kind of fading. We have to buy a new bulb. It's on order, so -- we found out the cost of a new bulb and a machine. The bulb is 500 dollars and the machine is 7,000. He's going to take it out of his budget. That's what we were discussing. I apologize for the poor quality of that, but hopefully there will be a new bulb in there. Item Number 11 is a Public Hearing. This is a request for an amendment to the area of impact by Capital Development, Bristol Heights, southeast corner of Chinden Boulevard and North Locust Grove Road. At this time I will open the Public Hearing and on the -- first hear from staff. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. You have heard this item before, so I'll keep it brief. We are talking about the 9.25 acres just south of Chinden Boulevard and east of Locust Grove highlighted on the map in front of you. The property has requested to be placed in the City of Boise's area of impact and removed from the City of Meridian's area of impact. The City of Meridian Planning and Zoning and Public Works staff agree with the applicant that this property should be moved to the City of Boise. In order to service this area with gravity sewer three to four feet of fill would have to be placed on the property to elevate the property to be within the City of Meridian's service plan. Gary, do you have any comments? Smith: No. McKinnon: With that I'd just say that this is supported by staff and we'd ask if there are any questions. Corrie: Questions? Bird: I have none. Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 14 of 41 Corrie: Okay. Is the applicant here or representative here tonight? Okay. Is there anyone here that would like to issue testimony on this exchange of amendment to the area of impact? Okay. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess I have a question regarding the process for this. We just adopted a new land use map. This is one amendment, we know of two more coming down the way. Why are we doing this one at a time? Why don't -- I thought when we talked about the land use map and the process to amend, at that time we wanted to see these all together. Why are we not seeing them all together? Corrie: Well, I think one would be a timing element here. Not everybody has asked to do it and has adopted a procedure. This is one that has been on the request for quite sometime by Mr. Yorgason and we have another one that's coming through where this is the first time we have had a chance to really know what we are doing as far as changing area of impact and we are finding out how the procedure goes. If we want to change the area of impact with Boise, we have to initiate it, and the other is Boise needs to be initiate theirs to get back to the City of Meridian. I suppose mainly is a timing schedule. De Weerd: But these all should go together to Ada County at the same time and isn't there something in the land use law by state you can only change your map every six months? Does this -- does this stall the applications, then, for the Moore property and the Caven property? Again, I guess that's why I thought we would see all of these at the same time. We have been talking about all of these at the same time and how this one got on Planning and Zoning last week and ours this week where the other ones have a process, they are going through. I guess I would like to see fair and equitable and the same treatment for all of these and that's why I have a concern here. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Member of the Council. If I could just comment. I agree with you, Tammy that we need to be fair and equitable on this. As far as terms of legal matters as to how this changes the map and whether or not this is a land use map change, the future land use map change, you're book ended by two attorneys on either side of you that might be better asked that same question. My understanding is that removing an item or a piece of property from the area of impact does not make -- is not a change to the comprehensive plan map, it's a removal from the area of impact, which is a separate issue. It would not be considered a change to the Comprehensive Plan. At this time the one that was just adopted, that was approved, by the Commission back in December and if it were we would be the six-month time frame out, but my understanding is this is not a change to the Comprehensive Plan, but a change to the area of impact. De Weerd: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 15 of 41 Corrie: Any other questions? Mr. Berg. Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, just to make a couple comments. We are talking about three parcels together, but yet they are separate situations. The Winston Moore property, it is coming into our area of impact, so it's kind of a reverse roll that it will be talked about at the County and then we will accept it. All of these three are, hopefully, to be at one meeting at the County for all three projects. That's the way the County wants to handle it and that's how we are proceeding. The other I think is a timing issue that the instructions would be Caven -- or, excuse me, with the Capital Development project was to rush it through, because it was implied or thought that we had already done that at a meeting about a year ago and I guess we did not follow proper procedures, so it was rushed through. Then I guess the applicant for the other came in and doing the timing of getting it noticed, you know, the 15 days prior to the meeting, I'm just following the instructions. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I think the whole process -- maybe it's been a learning process for all of us, staff included, and I think that probably what is necessary for the future, because see Mr. Smith's memo tonight is another similar request to -- by an individual and Mr. Grove had given his testimony about that property and I guess it's the same kind of thing, but I think Mr. Berg's right, the property from Mr. Moore is asked to be placed in our area of impact and has to be approved by the City of Boise first, it's their area of impact. This one should have been done first here, then with Boise, but I think Boise's already approved this. It's just because there was some misunderstanding of when it was accomplished. And the other one -- actually, Mr. Caven's property is the one that appears to be done properly and the process is the way it should be. This is just an error and a misunderstanding and miscommunication about how it gets done. I think it's all on track and there isn't an issue about the change in the land use map, so -- De Weerd: But we will meet on all three in one week. The three different meetings or -- yes. Corrie: We hope to. I don't guarantee it. Berg: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. I was just inquiring if you had gotten the recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission on this item? There is a cover letter from the attorney and then a one-page recommendation, just so it's a matter of record. Corrie: Oh. I'm sorry. Okay. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 16 of 41 Nary: Just one other thing, really, for the record and I brought this up to Mr. Smith previously and I think this application, as well as the inquiry regarding this Dunbar Estates Subdivision really goes to the issue that I guess has been before both our city, as well as the City of Boise, is that all along the area of impact boundary this issue is probably the most prevalent thing that we are going to see, whether it's serviceable by our sewer or by Boise's sewer, and what I think needs to be done and, as I said. I proposed this to Mr. Smith earlier, that there be some discussion between both our Public Works staff, as well as the Boise Public Works staff, to see whether or not some of these issues can be clarified by both our Council, as well as Boise's Council, so that we aren't going to piecemeal this all the way down the line. We are going to have some clear cut view of what can be serviced and whether the impact boundary needs to change anywhere down this line from a serviceability standpoint. There may be other issues, planning, ownership, other things that may come into play, but at least this we won't have to revisit every single time and that's something I think Mr. Smith has in the priority things to do and something that I think we'll see get accomplished here, so I think that will clear a lot of this up. Corrie: That was one of the main reasons that we have the area of impact given, so that the drainage and the sewer, gravity flow, and this just happened to be one that it worked the wrong way that we thought after the fact. The rest of it we can make sure we can do it right. That's correct. Any other questions? Discussions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. I'll entertain a motion, then, to close the Public Hearing on the request for annexation of Bristol Heights. Bird: So moved. Nary: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: All right. Any further discussion on the request? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I just -- a further statement, I guess. I have no problem with it, but I would prefer to see them all come through at the same time and so I still -- I don't need to say anything more. Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 17 of 41 Corrie: I think we all agree with that. That's not a problem. A crystal ball may make the change for us, but I hope not. Okay. Any other discussion? I will entertain a motion, then, for the request for an amendment to the area of impact for Capital Development. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Nary. Nary: I move we approve the request for an amendment to the area of impact by Capital Development of Bristol Heights, southeast corner of Chinden Boulevard and North Locust Grove and for counsel to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order. I guess I'm not sure from the information on whether an ordinance is necessary to amend the area of impact or a resolution. I don't know if it's - - if we simply need to do a resolution and then county would do an ordinance to amend it. To prepare an ordinance that amends the area of impact as well. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All. Okay ayes. Motion is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 02-013 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for four 4-plex units on 1.08 acres in an L-O zone on Lots 4 and 5, Block 2 of Scottsdale Subdivision by C.W. Construction, Inc. – West Alden Drive, at the southwest corner of West Franklin Road and SW 7th Avenue: Corrie: Item Number 12 is a Public Hearing. This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a four 4-plex unit on 1.08 acres in an L-O zone on Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, of Scottsdale Subdivision by C.W. Construction, Inc., west of Alden Drive at the southwest corner of West Franklin Road and SW 7th Avenue. At this time I will open the Public Hearing and invite staff's comments first. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. If I could direct your attention to the overhead that you have in front of you. The highlighted area is the subject area for the four four-plexes for a total of 16 apartment units. The property is located one block south of the Dreamland Day-Care Center. That's the very obvious day-care center with the castle turrets on Franklin Road. The site, as you can see, is a vacant lot right now. Just to the east of the property, there is some four-plexes. There are a number of other apartment units as well, including an eight-plex. As you can see from this photo, you can see Dreamland Day-Care Center to the north of this project. Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 18 of 41 On this photo, if you can look at the lower -- I guess the lower half of the photo you can see that there is an asphalted area, that's the darker area, and that will be something that the applicant has proposed to use for a driveway for parking for the project. This asphalted area is actually an asphalted drive where a sewer line comes through. This is, actually, a common lot owned by the homeowner's association and the applicant has received approval from the homeowners association to use the asphalted area as a driveway for their parking lot on the north side of their building. As you can tell and as the Mayor apologized for the lighting of the projection, it's coming out very lightly, but this is a -- this is two four-plexes on each lot. As you can see, the buildings are set back approximately 30 feet from the fence line adjacent to the single-family homes there on -- it would be the top of this photo, which would actually be to the west. The four-plex units would be two-story units and the Planning and Zoning Commission has made a recommendation that those units not be allowed to have any balconies on the second floor. In addition to that, they have allowed only two windows on the sides of the structures that face towards the homes to keep the privacy of these -- of the people who live in the single-family homes to the west. If this came out a little bit clearer you could tell that the buildings are actually oriented towards the center of the project and the buildings face towards -- the side of the building that -- or the elevation that faces towards the single-family homes are the sides that have only one window. That window is a kitchen window. The project has its amenities, half court basketball facility that will not be lighted at night, in addition to some picnic areas and at least 10 percent open space. The calculations are provided within the staff report for that. With that I'd ask if there is any questions and turn the time back over to you. Corrie: Any questions from Council? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Corrie: All right. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone from the public that would like to issue testimony on this? Just request that you limit it to three minutes, so -- McCarthy: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? McCarthy: It is. Corrie: Name and address, please, for the record. McCarthy: My name is Mike McCarthy. We own 250 South Outfield, which is -- if you look at the chart, the top corner right there, we are pretty much right behind the first building. Okay. Could you go to the picture that shows the field? Corrie: Can you hang on just a second? Is the applicant here tonight? I got us out of order. I'll hear yours after we hear his. McCarthy: All right. Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 19 of 41 Corrie: We need to hear what he has to say. I apologize. Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Breinholt: Yes. Corrie: Name and address, please. Breinholt: My name is Richard Breinholt. I am the owner of the application. I appreciate the time to visit this application. The staff presented our project fairly well. The only thing I would add to their comments is that through the hearings we have also put in the recommendations that all of the lighting will be down shielded. I would point out also along the back property line, which is where all the single-family residences are. There is a 20-foot privacy buffer, which was put into the subdivision. That buffer has been spec'd out with higher than normal density of trees and landscaping, not to be encroached in by the buildings and so on to protect the privacy of those people and that's a fair size amount of our land that we are dedicating to that privacy. Also, the developer put in a new fence all along the backside of that to help appease that issue. We have gone to a great expense in reorienting the buildings, eliminating balconies, and so on to also protect the privacy of that issue. We feel like this an appropriate project. It is within the proper zoning. It's in like use. There is -- along the other side of the subdivision the four-plexes, which are adjacent to it, and my understanding is that there is also more four-plexes being proposed on those locations, too. Without going into any further extent, I just would like the City Council to recognize the efforts, which we have gone to to protect the privacy and the neighborhood issues that, might be considered. Do you have any questions of me? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Since you were sworn before, just give your name and address for the record. McCarthy: Mike McCarthy, 250 South Outfield is the property we own. Before we purchased our home just a little over two years ago we made a phone call to the city and Planning and Zoning informed us that the lots -- vacant lots behind us were zoned L-O, which they currently are today, and we were told they were to be like professional office buildings with a brief explanation of what was going to be back there. As a result of that, we did purchase our home and have enjoyed it quite a bit over the past two years. We have helped our backyard flourish into what it is today and we do enjoy our outdoor garden hobby. I know the residents that are my neighbors also feel -- and we are also in a single-story neighbor. We were not allowed to have any two-story homes in that area. Now we are faced with two story four-plexes behind us and I know the construction company has eliminated the balconies, which is a help. However, we still feel that when we enter our backyards we will be in more or less a fish bowl. The buffer zone of 20 feet, which can be seen in the pictures here actually towards back. I know it's hard to see. There are existing trees in place, they are fir trees, and most of them cannot be seen above the fence. They offer very little privacy. The kitchen windows Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 20 of 41 that we are talking about up above, I know as you stand in a kitchen window you're pretty much bored doing dishes or getting a drink of water, you look outside, what are you going to be looking at. You will be looking right in our backyards. We will always be looking over our shoulders. Yes, there are other four-plexes and other apartments in the immediate area. They are away from our house and none of them, not one building, backs up to a single-story or even a two-story residence. They all go to commercial property. Every one of them. Most of them back up to the Acorn Apartments -- or Acorn Storage buildings. We are also concerned about additional noise. Again, we are only 20 feet away, our fence line, and a commercial office, as an example, would probably shut down by 6:00 in the evening and the noise would go away, such as a doctor's office. This is about the time most of these residences will be returning home and that noises will start. Of course, there is no control over something like that. In conclusion, I really just want to say that our feelings are that apartments are probably not in the best interest of the neighborhood or the city and we hope that you kind of side with us on this. Thank you for your time. Corrie: Thank you, Mike. Any questions of -- is it David and Joe Bingham? Beamon? Okay. Both of you wanted to speak? Okay. Mike. Or David. Excuse me. Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Beamon: Yes. Corrie: Okay. Beamon: David Beamon, 226 South Outfield Way. Like my neighbor said, when we purchased our house we were told that it was zoned for L-O, light office space, so we thought it would be like an insurance, you know, building or something like that, something that would shut down in the evenings. With knowing that we went ahead and purchased our house and we were really, surprised to hear they wanted to build a four-plex behind our house, being told what we were told in the beginning. So -- and we went to the public Planning and Zoning and we told them about our privacy issue and to get to the point, I don't really have too big a problem with it anymore. The main thing is like the trees that they have back there they barely stick up above the fence. We are wondering if there is additional landscaping that's going to be put back there or what -- how big these things are going to be, how much privacy are they going to be able to provide. Right now there really isn't much back there. The trees that are there are about 40 feet apart and they are only about five feet tall. That's one question that I have. Corrie: Questions? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess just a clarification. Our Planning and Zoning Commission went through the process there, they answered a lot of your concerns. Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 21 of 41 Beamon: Well, they did. The first meeting it was recommended that the applicant go back and see if they could make it a one-story apartment complex and when they came back they said that they couldn't make money at it, so they went ahead with the two- story anyway. De Weerd: Well, you made a statement that you don't have -- after that meeting you're not as opposed to it or they solved -- they answered a lot of your questions? Beamon: Well, I was disappointed that they recommended that it be one-story and since the applicant couldn't make -- it wasn't reasonable for them, that it was kind of blown off that, well, he can't make money, so we'll let him go with two stories. De Weerd: And your feeling is now -- I'm just trying to get an idea of what your feeling is. Beamon: I just -- I kind of want to know what -- where is the ultimate call going to be made? At the first meeting I felt like, okay, this is what they have recommended and this is what's going to happen and each meeting that we went back to -- we went through three meetings and the story kind of changed each time. I'm kind of wondering where is the final call going to be, because we have seen a couple different plans and it's changed numerous times. I'm just wondering, you know, what's said tonight, is that going to be the way it's going to be, or is it going to change again? I just kind of want to know what's going on. De Weerd: Well, what is decided here would be the end of it. Beamon: Okay. De Weerd: So it wouldn't change again. Beamon: And my other question is are they going to add additional landscaping? What's back there isn't going to provide much privacy for us. I guess he did mention that there was going to be landscaping. I don't know if they are adding more is what I'm curious about. De Weerd: Thank you. Corrie: Steve Cloyd. Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Cloyd: Yes, sir. Corrie: Okay. Name and address, please, for the record. Cloyd: Steve Cloyd. 232 South Outfield Way. Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 22 of 41 Corrie: Three minutes. Cloyd: Pardon me? Corrie: Three minutes. Cloyd: I purchased my property 11 months ago. One of the initial questions that I asked of the homeowner and the real estate agent is what's going in behind us. We were told office buildings, a dentist, insurance agencies, and things of that sort. As other people have attested to, when you think of that you think they are going home at 6:00 I'm going to have some peace and quiet, I'm not going to have a big building looking into my backyard. I can tell you for a fact if there were four-plexes built there when I looked at the property I would have not bought it. I would not have bought it if I knew four-plexes were going to be built there, as a concern, as a concern to my neighbors, a concern to me. It only affects five or six lots and the majority of us are here to object to that today, that we are concerned about four-plexes. A single-story property I would have no problem at all with. I would actually encourage the duplexes. I know that there are properties in town that you can build duplexes on very nicely, keep everybody happy, and basically improve the neighborhood. Property values, you know, my opinion is if there is such concern about people purchasing, you know, houses with townhouses behind there, your property values are an issue. I know for a fact that my neighbors currently have their house on the market, they had an offer as contingent upon your decision tonight. If those townhouses go in, their offer is void. So they are going to lose their sale if you guys approve this. As far as quality of living is concerned, I spent a lot of time in my backyard. I have a hot tub back there, I'm a single father, my son and I spend a lot of time throwing the baseball around, playing with our dog, doing things in the backyard and I don't want to have to worry about who is looking at me out the window. Where my house is located, it is directly behind one of the units that they have proposed. One thing I would like to encourage you to think about is the 20-foot or 20 yard buffer. What that's going to do is that's going to give everybody a better view of our yard by moving it back from the fence they are going to get a better angle then to our yard and they should be able to see a lot better. That's a concern. I guess -- I guess what I would encourage each one of you to do tonight, if you could put this decision off, drive over to the subdivision, and drive down 7th Street, you're going to see numerous four-plex units in there, you're going to see basically they are all rentals. I don't know where you folks live, typically rental units don't tend to be kept up quite as nice as privately owned residences. If you drive down the street you're going to -- you will be able to notice that, because you drive right through all those rentals and you can definitely see cars that are being worked on out on the street, trash is left out, it's just not as clean. I would like to ask each one of you to consider the fact that if you lived there, would you want 4-plexes going in behind you and I'm concerned that if you approve this, my property values will go down, my quality of life will go down, and basically just for the profit of a building. Thank you. Any questions? Corrie: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to issue testimony? Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 23 of 41 Doherty: Yes, it is. Corrie: Name and address. Doherty: My name is Joseph Doherty, 264 Outfield Way. Okay. At the first meeting with Planning and Zoning they denied the two-story buildings. Okay. C.W. Construction was asked to revise their plans to single-story. We all agreed on that. At the next meeting, all they did was reposition the buildings, take out the balconies, make a few changes, and ask to submit a Landscaping Plan for the third hearing. What happened to the single level buildings? Why did C.W. Construction get a second shot at redoing it? They were already denied once the first time. Once again, we were all told when purchasing the homes, like you have all heard, that it would be single-family -- or single level houses. How is this project going to be an asset to the neighborhood? It's low income housing, it's more traffic, more noise, more school buses, crime, garbage -- would you like that behind your house? In July you denied a bar downtown, okay, because the local businesses did not approve. Well, if the neighborhood does not approve of this project -- and we also have a petition signed for evidence from everyone in the neighborhood, which we went around and submitted to everybody, and you already know we currently have 14 two-story four-plexes. One being an eight-plex and the other 16 duplexes, the 14 two-story four-plexes overlook, like they said, a storage shed and vacant land. We also have a big eyesore there, the castle, and the day-care center. We realize that the zoning can be changed by whomever, but we are hoping that you will be on our side, the homeowners, and take pride in our privacy and that's it. Thank you. Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else like to issue testimony? Okay. Hearing none, developer, you have the last answer to any questions here. Breinholt: Mayor, I think I can answer some of the questions of the issues that they have brought up. The additional landscaping, what is on the property at this point is on the plot plan, what is spec'd out is the evergreen trees and I think that in your packet is a copy of this -- I'm losing papers here. Is a copy of this plot plan? The evergreen trees are the ones that are dark here along this property line. In between all of those are large deciduous trees and shrubbery to be added to that and so there will be additional landscaping put in. As I stated before, it will be even denser than is normal placement of trees and shrubbery. It's a very -- it's a very thick buffer that's going to be put there. As far as the two-story issue, the discussion of a single-story project was brought up by the people from the subdivision behind, but that was not a requirement that was placed. It was just a matter of discussion, and we went back and changed the orientation of the buildings, we looked at all kinds of different scenarios, going daylight basement and different things, but because of the egress problems and so on we weren't able to do that. Also the attractiveness of the buildings becomes an issue, too, and that single story becomes more of a motel-like appearance then it does a townhouse type. We have gone to great efforts to make this an acceptable project. We are doing stucco exterior with stone amenities on it and so on. As far as the crime and the trash issues, actually, we have more control on who comes in and out of a rental by way of our ability Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 24 of 41 of who we rent to when we renew their contracts, than the people in the single-family residences do. We can screen them and if they are not acceptable, then they go down the road. Our trash -- we have trash enclosures that's the latest technology that makes availability and enclosures that will keep the trash from scattering, drawn into our plans. What we have now is simply the neighborhood dump where all of the lawn clippings and whatever else are deposited in the neighborhood. I feel like this would be an improvement to the neighborhood, rather than a deterrent. That's all I have to say, unless you have some questions. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Could you show me -- and maybe, David can -- show me where it says in that Landscape Plan that you just showed us in relation to these people's homes. Breinholt: Yes. The dark -- the dark trees on this line here are the evergreens and they are placed along this 20-foot buffer here and in between those are probably twice again the number of those trees are deciduous and then in between those are bushes. Nary: And, Mr. Breinholt, I notice that the Planning and Zoning Commission -- that your testimony was, at least from the landscape folks that you had talked to, the two inch tree would grow faster than the three inch tree? Breinholt: That's correct. Nary: It would basically be quicker at covering this area? Breinholt: Within one year the two inch tree will equal the height of the growth of the three inch tree and also after that period they grow faster and thicker. A three inch tree becomes very stressed when it's transplanted and also the availability of them is almost not available, not to mention the cost difference in just that number of trees was close to 3,000 dollars for the investment of it. Nary: But isn't -- I guess -- and part of the question from the neighbors is -- I mean I recognize most of them are saying they don't want this at all, but, obviously, part of their concern is the screening of this property from their property. I guess what I'm hearing you saying, though, are that for a year they will have less screening than if we required three-inch trees there. It's the long term it may or may not impact them, but the immediacy would be screening quicker. Breinholt: The screening that will be there -- well, what is there now are evergreen trees that are only about six feet tall and so they are about the same height as the fence. Now is the time that they will take off and they will grow about two to three feet a year, but the trees that we will be planting should be about somewhere between 15 and 20 feet tall and so there will be a screening there immediately. Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 25 of 41 Nary: The two-inch trees will be 15 to 20? Breinholt: That's my estimate, yes. Nary: Okay and the three inch trees would be how big? Breinholt: First of all, they are not available and so I'm not sure, but in my recollection the ones that I have seen would be about 20 feet tall. I think if you did the geometry that on the actuality of their yard that it's pretty well screened. Nary: Thank you. Corrie: Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: You did say the balconies were going? Breinholt: The balconies were taken off. That was part of the changes. We also turned the buildings, so they were side wards away from the back fence line and we limited the number of windows, just a kitchen window on that side. Corrie: Thank you. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: David, I noted in the Planning and Zoning minutes talked about the required buffer and all of that. Could you maybe repeat that again? This separation between this project and the neighbors? McKinnon: I sure can, Councilman Nary. The 20-foot landscape buffer actually came about from the annexation of this property and the developer was required to install all of the evergreen trees for this property at the time of the annexation. As part of the development agreement, all of the people who subsequently developed the property in the future are required to put in all of the deciduous trees. Rather than put all of the onus on the developer at the time to develop the entire area, they asked that the developer be allowed to put in just the evergreen trees and then as developers come in, like Mr. Breinholt, it is requested that they would put in the rest of the required deciduous trees and so there are a number of trees that are required as part of this. They currently only have a conceptual Landscape Plan, but we do have a Landscape Plan that shows the number and the required number of those trees. As you noted at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting it was discussed very heavily the difference between a size three and a -- a three inch caliper tree and a two inch caliper tree and the Planning and Zoning Commission had originally requested the three inch caliper tree to provide more visual screening at an earlier time, rather than at a later time as Councilman Nary pointed out. Planning and Zoning Commission changed their Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 26 of 41 minds at the third Commission meeting and decided to go with the two inch caliper tree and make that a requirement. We do have a Landscape Plan and prior to construction a new landscape plan showing all the species of trees will be required at that time and that is in compliance with the Meridian City Code Landscape Ordinance. If there are any other questions I haven't clarified, a specific question regarding the current landscape plan, I would be able to answer that if you have a specific question. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess my only question, David, is in our ordinance the 20-foot buffer is required, they are not required to have a further buffer away correct? McKinnon: That's correct. Nary: And the landscape requirement is required by our ordinance as to how much landscaping they have to have and they are complying with that as well? McKinnon: That's correct. Nary: All right. Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess just a question to staff. In the L-O zone, apartments are acceptable with a Conditional Use Permit? McKinnon: That's correct. De Weerd: And if a neighbor were to call and say what is it zoned behind me, would they have been explained all of that, or usually it's just zoned L-O, which is limited office, and you probably don't go through the whole list of permitted use -- permitted uses or uses allowed with a Conditional Use Permit? McKinnon: In my experience whenever someone asks me what the property is zoned and what the property can be -- what can be placed on that property -- and we do receive that question quite often -- inevitably the conversation reverts back to the schedule of use control. It goes through and says what are permitted uses and what are conditional uses within that zone. When I talk to people I offer that to them, it is available via the website that we have, and we can send that to people. If they are willing to wait on the phone and let me read through everything, I have actually done that a few times as well. We typically do discuss the schedule of use control and state that just one or two uses, such as office only in the L-O zone, is not the discussion that I have seen among other staff members, including myself. We usually discuss all the Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 27 of 41 uses. If someone asks for what a definition of an L-O zone is, the definition will be given. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Corrie: Any other discussion? Okay. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess, David, if you could kind of walk us through, what has changed in this application since the beginning of the Planning and Zoning meeting? I'm assuming that these buildings have been turned and windows taken out, balconies taken out. Could you kind of walk us through the steps of what has happened with this application through this process? McKinnon: Be happy to. Actually, David Beamon and Joseph Doherty kind of hit the nail right on the head when they talked about how there have been a number of changes. Actually, Joseph actually explained all three meetings fairly accurately. At the first meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission heard the request for the four four- plexes. The Planning and Zoning Commission was ready to make a motion to deny the project outright, because of the location adjacent to the single-family homes on the east side of the property. Prior to making that decision they asked Mr. Breinholt if it would be okay for him to take a look at it to see if it would be feasible to go to single-story. Mr. Breinholt said that would be -- he would be grateful for that and was very accommodating and said that he would come back with a new site plan. I do have a copy of the original site plan that was presented at that meeting. It includes four windows on the south -- on the side elevations, rather than one, and the building orientation was such -- and it also included balconies. The building orientation was such that the rear of these buildings did face some of the single-family homes. Prior to the second meeting on this project Mr. Breinholt submitted a new plan that still showed two story buildings. He submitted two separate elevations, one that included a balcony and one that included no balcony, and basically stated that he would be agreeable to either, if they were approved as part of this project, he would provide that and reduce the number of windows on the second story. It became apparent that it would not be economically feasible to do the project without having a second story, so he felt that it would be best to provide the additional screening by changing the orientation of the building, reducing the lighting on the rear of the buildings, as he stated earlier the down shielding on the back, and he basically made those changes in addition to some parking changes from the first meeting to the second meeting. Prior to the third meeting a couple of changes took place, that was dealing with the lighting and dealt with the three inch caliper trees and the two inch caliper trees. It also dealt with one other issue -- I'll have to refer to my notes on this. That -- well, actually, those were the basic issues that came back from the third meeting. They were about ready to go with it on the third meeting, but they wanted to make sure that they had all the items written out and staff comments regarding the two inch, three inch caliper trees, the lighting Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 28 of 41 issues and the balcony issues. They wanted that all included in the staff report. We revised the staff report rather quickly, in about a week's time, and had it back on the third meeting about two weeks after the second meeting with all the revisions and modifications from the Planning and Zoning Commission. That's what we have in front of you tonight is all their revisions based upon those first three meetings. De Weerd: Thank you. Corrie: Any other questions? Okay. Then no further questions I will entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I move we close the Public Hearing. Nary: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item Number 12 for Scottsdale Subdivision. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: Comments? Questions? Decisions? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess my concern is that when you do move in most often people don't know what is zoned in their backyard and this is actually zoned, it was zoned L-O. I'm amazed that the neighbors actually even asked what was in their backyard, so that's the first good thing. The second good thing is whom goes further than, you know, means L- O limited office. This use is misleading and that's why there is a Conditional Use Permit attached to it, but the applicant would have to go through a Public Hearing process, so that neighbors have an opportunity to comment. I'm sure no one was trying to be discriminatory to apartment dwellers. I had been an apartment dweller until I was a rather old age. I'm not old but, you know, people go to apartments for various reasons and, I'll tell you what, I have seen a lot of apartment complexes that are much more well kept than many single-family housing out there and so that's not an issue with me. What is of concern is the L-O appearance of this to existing housing or housing that was developed in the meantime and the potential of who their backyard neighbors would be and limited office are generally single-story buildings and no one would anticipate this and I imagine that was what Planning and Zoning concern was originally as well. We don't let existing landscaping as a buffer to single-family housing in an industrial complex. It has been a bone of contention almost every time an application comes in on that development. It's not sufficient for a two-story building, you know, especially when this was zoned L-O to begin with and so I really understand the issues that the neighbors have. I appreciate the developer trying to reaclimate the buildings and all of that, but, you know, you have to have window in an apartment and people do Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 29 of 41 look out them. I just would agree with the neighbors that it's a use that is not just probably a good place for it, in my opinion, so -- McCandless: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. McCandless. McCandless: The same thoughts have been going through my mind and I was going to talk about them, but Councilwoman de Weerd has said just about everything I was going to say, but I feel the same way. I have a great deal of sympathy for the neighbors, because I think they truly believed that what was going to be in back of them would be one-story homes -- or offices and it would be a shame to put a two-story complex behind them like that that looked right into their backyards. I wouldn't like it, I know that. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess the only comment I have is that the -- I guess I would concur with Council Member de Weerd that it is not appropriate for us to make a ruling based on your perception of what apartments dwellers are like. It is not appropriate as to whether or not it would be maintained at the same level as your neighborhood, because it may be. That's not -- that's not what our ordinance talks about and I think our ordinance is working properly. It is an L-O zone, there are other uses besides offices that can be in an L-O zone and what our ordinance allows is exactly what's happened here. You get notice, they ask, we decide whether or not it fits. It's working the way it's supposed to, but I guess where I would concur on this is that the transition between the types of housing that we have here is something we tried to take very seriously in making decisions. We do this all over the city in trying to decide the level of density and type of housing between one another and we look at two-story homes versus one-story homes, single-family homes, and what kind of -- so that they are compatible. I think the problem here is, is that it's a pretty abrupt change between single-family homes and two-story apartment buildings, with very little buffer in between. I recognize that 20 is allowed by our ordinance and that's a general overview, that's for the whole city, that's not just for individual neighborhoods and now we have to look at the individual neighborhood and say does that fit, is that compliant, and is that going to fit in the conditional use requirements that would be compatible with the neighborhood and I don't think it is. I think that -- I think the change is too abrupt, I don't think the 20-foot buffer is adequate, I don't think there is adequate screening, I think everything else about this project is fine and if it was across the street these folks wouldn't be here. I think it's a nice project, and I think that developer has done a very good job of trying to change it to make it as compliant as he can and to be able to build it and be able to do something with it. I just think trying to put a two-story building, apartments right adjacent with only a 20-foot buffer between this project and the neighbors is too close, it's not compatible, and I guess I would agree with Council Member de Weerd and McCandless that I couldn't support it either. Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 30 of 41 Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. If there is no more discussion, I will entertain a motion on the request for a Conditional Use Permit for four four-plex units in an L-O zone in Lots 4, and 5 of Block 2 of Scottsdale Subdivision. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I move that we ask the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order to deny the request for a Conditional Use Permit for four 4-plex units on 1.08 acres in an L-O zone on Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, of Scottsdale Subdivision by C.W. Construction and to include -- well, and not to include all staff comments, because they don't apply. I would state for the reason of the two story buildings and the incompatible transition from single-family housing into the L-O zone. Nary: Second. Corrie: Excuse me. Motion has been made and seconded to deny the request for Conditional Use Permit to Scottsdale Subdivision. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk, roll call vote, please. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Motion for Conditional Use Permit is denied. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: VAR 02-010 Request for a Variance from the minimum lot frontage requirement for Lot 1 Block 3 of Bear Creek Subdivision by Bear Creek LLC – Lot 1 Block 3, 714 West Calderwood Street: Corrie: Item Number 13 is a Public Hearing. This is a request for a Variance from the minimum lot frontage requirement for Lot 1, Block 3 of Bear Creek Subdivision by Bear Creek. At this time I will open the Public Hearing and invite staff's comments first on the request. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. I assume you have read the staff report. The project that we are working on tonight is for a corner lot located in the Beer Creek Subdivision. It's the red highlighted lot on the map ahead of you. It's on the corner of Calderwood and South Bear Tooth Way. I'm sorry for the visual. You guys have a better copy on your -- actually, on your own laptops. Just to give you a simple overview, on the Final Plat that was approved by this body there was an arrow placed on the plat that delineated the fact that the house should front the direction of the arrow Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 31 of 41 and not any other direction. The direction of that arrow was towards Calderwood Street and not towards Bear Tooth. The reason that the arrow was added to the Final Plat, besides just for clarification that the property did not have enough frontage on Bear Tooth is just to alleviate any question. The applicant was -- the applicant actually submitted this plat and -- for approval and it was approved with this and now they are asking that the home be able to be located towards Bear Tooth Way. When we make a determination on the frontage on a corner lot, we take the length and then half of the cord length around the corner. We don't count the entire cord length around the corner. In our Meridian City Code it's not apparent this is exactly the way it shall be measured, but that has been the commonly approved practice in the City of Meridian. Gary Smith is here tonight. He may have some additional comments concerning this, as it does affect public works as well. However, we are dealing with essentially a five-foot lack of frontage on South Bear Tooth that keeps this home from being able to be built facing Bear Tooth -- actually, six feet. Bruce Freckleton from the Public Works Department did the math and it showed it's a 74-foot frontage on South Bear Tooth. If you have read through the Variance report there was nothing special or unique about this piece of property. We deal with many variances for this very similar issue. We deal with fence Variances often on these corner lots, because people do not believe that they have enough rear yard because of the orientation of the building. We have actually taken the building that's been proposed here and cut it out, flipped it, placed it on the map facing towards Calderwood, rather than Bear Tooth. The property does fit on this exact same piece of property, the exact home could be built, and however, you reduce the amount of usable rear yard by doing so. There is nothing in the code that would state that there is any special reason this Variance should be approved. However, we are dealing with an issue of six feet and we have actually requested that you deny this Variance, because there are no special mitigating circumstances surrounding this piece of property that shows that any home could not be -- that could be build facing Bear Tooth Creek be built facing Calderwood. With that, I would ask if there are any questions. Bird: I have none, Mayor. Corrie: Questions? Okay. Gary, did you have any comments? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council Members, I would like to make a couple comments. This -- the policy that I initiated some years ago in measuring the lot frontage on a corner lot is -- we have been adhering to that and it was challenged by a developer sometime ago on another subdivision and was brought before you for discussion. The policy that I had established was upheld at that time and that is that the street frontage, as defined in the ordinance, is actually measured across the frontage of the street and not across the width of the lot. Simplistically I just split half of the cord length or half of the curb, as it used to be, and assigned half of that to each side lot line to determine what the street frontage is on each side street. The city ordinary states that the frontage of the lot in an R-4 zone is 80 feet and so in that regard half of the cord length, plus the side length -- side lot length is to be 80 feet. In an effort to provide some constellation to the developer, we have allowed a lot to go foreword without a side lot dimension of 80 feet as long as one side lot dimension of 80 feet, as long as the other side lot does measure 80 feet. To make sure that everyone understands where the front of the lot is, we have asked that the developer place an arrow on the lot designating the front and that has Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 32 of 41 been our policy. As David mentioned, we do receive a significant amount of requests for variances to establish the six-foot fence in the side yard setback area on corner lots. I think we did a little research and in the last 14 months we have had 44 requests for variances to set a six foot fence in a side lot setback and the reason for that is because the corner lots historically are not large enough with two 20-foot setbacks on each side to provide an adequate backyard. I think the Fence Variance Committee as it exists today has, in most all cases, granted that Variance, just because of the problem that an adequate backyard on a corner lot presents to a homeowner. I think they don't really realize until they get the building structure built what kind of backyard they end up with. That's a little bit of history on how we are where we are today and the reason for the policy that I established a number years ago in trying to be fair with establishing a frontage for a corner lot. Thank you. Corrie: Thank you, Gary. Any questions of staff? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Which is the city ordinance, Gary that you're talking about? Smith: The ordinance, Councilman Nary? Pardon? Nary: The ordinance you said that talked about the measurement. You said part of it's policy, part of it's an ordinance. Smith: The ordinance states that a lot in an R-4 zone is to have 80-foot street frontage. David says it's 11-9-1 is the ordinance. I'm sorry. Nary: That's fine. Thank you. Corrie: Any other questions? Is the applicant here? Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Schultz: It is. Corrie: Name and address, please. Schultz: Matt Schultz, 660 East Franklin, Meridian. Bear Creek LLC. I represent the applicant, myself, and the owner of the lot, which we sold the lot to, Borup Construction. On that site I do appreciate the intro by staff. Before I get going I'd like to hand out my little exhibit. This may be a little bit clearer than what is on the board there for you, if I could. What you have on the first sheet is an improved plot plan than what was submitted to the building department by the builder a few months back. Sheet two and sheet three is a copy of the recorded final plat, which shows an arrow. You look at the arrow, you look in the legend, and on the third sheet, and it says lot front orientation. Because that was on the Final Plat, the Building Department official said, Mr. Builder, we are not going to let you build what you submitted here as shown, which is a Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 33 of 41 standard house on a pretty standard large lot, an over 10,000 square foot lot, standard front facing house, which is the general orientation of most lots. Not all, but most lots and what buyers typically want and what they prefer to have. So we have this little dilemma of, first of all, why did that arrow get there -- or how did it get there, because it's the only arrow on the whole subdivision plat of 128 lots, and what are we going to do about it, because we really don't like it that way. That's really how we looked at it. The builder had a hard time coming up with a desirable floor plan. It's not that you can't do it, because, believe me, for a 45,000-dollar lot you can find a way to do it if you really, really have to, but it's just not preferable. We believe it's unfair and it's unreasonable how staff has been enforcing an ordinance for I don't know how many years, that essentially the measure into halfway of the cord. Which you can very clearly see I came up with 71 feet and Bruce came up with 74. I don't know how he measured, but if you just come back to the front of the lot -- of the house, it's 84, it’s 85, and we probably wouldn't have to ask for a Variance. We would just -- the arrow would never have been put there in the first place. To recreate how -- you know, Mr. McKinnon did state that the applicant did submit the Final Plat for approval and we did get it recorded, so we put that arrow on there. Well, to kind of give you a little bit of a background on how things happen. The arrow was put there in response to a comment from staff in the 11th hour, the Final Plat coming through. There are 127 other lots that are waiting to get recorded and sold, the developer is saying record that plat, record that plat, and the surveyor said, well, put an arrow on there and get this thing recorded. We are now a year later going, well, you know, we were involved to say, yes, that was okay, but he didn't want to argue with staff, even though he might have liked to, because it's kind of unfair how that's done. Even though it is standard, it doesn't say that in Code anywhere. When I came here two years ago I didn't know that's how staff did it until you get -- until you design the lot it's almost too late to change it. You know, we are kind of caught by this we-have-always-done-it-this-way attitude that -- I have never seen it done this way anywhere else in the world, but that's just me. What we are asking for is the ability to build a standard house on a fairly standard lot that meets all the setback requirements, we are not asking for a fence variance or anything like that, it's just -- it seemed to be a little bit of an arbitrary way to measure lot frontage, in our opinion. If that is, indeed, the policy, we are asking for the Variance. If it's not the policy or if it's not an ordinance, then we wouldn't have to ask for a Variance. What we would have to do, though, is file a -- I think around here they call it an affidavit of correction for a Final Plat. A survey or record to go to the County Recorder and file a document that says that arrow, which now points south -- there is only two ways to do it. You can correct it to face west or you can just add another arrow so it runs both directions, so the builder would have the option of building it both ways, as long as it meets setback requirements. I guess with that I'll stand for any questions or any other comments that Mayor and Council may have. Corrie: Okay. Any questions? Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 34 of 41 Bird: Matt, when the purchaser purchased it, he did see the Final Plat. Did he see the note with the arrow and everything? Schultz: He did. Bird: Okay. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Schultz, is there some way you can tell me that the -- that if we didn't grant this that it would be an extraordinary hardship because of the unusual topography of the land or the nature and condition of the development or other physical condition? Schultz: Well, off the top of my head I looked at this corner lot and see that there is a little curve in it and the rest of the lot is plenty wide. It's just right on the narrow part of it and the fact that the surveyor decided to draw a straight line on the cord -- and I know that's how they measure the cord, but it just seems to be a very arbitrary way to do it. This one particular lot is -- I believe was unfairly pointed out as how to rotate a house. It's a nice big lot, there is plenty of opportunity to build a nice, adequate size house on it because of the arbitrary way of measuring that and because the curve of the street comes in, it places a hardship on the builder to have to come up with some fairly extravagant and creative ways of dealing with this. It's not impossible. I won't stand here and say it's impossible. Nary: Well -- but didn't I hear you say -- actually, your testimony was that they could build it, it's just that they don't want to build it this way? Schultz: It's not desirable and the buyer does not want it -- they'd prefer not to have it. There are extra doors you can put on it, there is different things you can do. Nary: And aren't all of these issues regarding the arrow and the orientation of the house and all of that, couldn't that all have been done at the final plat before we approved it? Schultz: Yes and in theory. We would probably have to delay the recordation of the final plat to come to this point to overrule -- to try to get an overruling on the staff decision to place -- to require us to place the lot frontage arrow on it, which at that time would have been fairly costly and time prohibitive to do. Nary: So it was expeditious to get it approved when you had it approved, but it wasn't certainly -- and we did a Final Plat tonight. We do one every week. The comments said that this one lot was a problem, we need to fix that before we get to finalized, here is what it is, before we grant a Variance and we get a clarification on how you measure it, all that could have been done before we approved the Final Plat, couldn't it? Schultz: Theoretically, yes. Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 35 of 41 Nary: Theoretically? You don't think you could have done that? Schultz: I couldn't have, because I wasn't around, so I can't answer -- Nary: But you do this all the time. Can't you, before the Final Plat, come in and make every one of these requests that you have made without having to do a Variance? We could have readjusted, we could have redrawn it, we could have done -- at the Preliminary Plat we could have done it, the Final Plat we could have done it, well before it had to be a Variance correct? Schultz: I agree wholeheartedly. Corrie: Any other questions? De Weerd: He's hard to argue with sometimes. Schultz: I have been here before. De Weerd: But, you know, you got hooked on your word arbitrary. What's arbitrary about when you put that arrow on there? I don't know -- are you -- Schultz: It's also a vague term, you know, lot front orientation and arrow on it, it's very vague, it's -- I would ask that -- just for the sake of new engineers and planners and everybody that doesn't know somebody that knows somebody that knows what the rule is, that that should be put in the ordinance that that's, indeed, how it is measured. It seemed to be a very complicated, you know, mathematical little thing that was done by your -- you know, when Mr. Smith is gone in 10 years it could come up again. Maybe from our standpoint we would just appreciate in the future that that would be more spelled out in the ordinance than it is. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Would it be clear, Mr. Smith, if the ordinance said -- well, I guess Mr. Schultz asked for it to be lot frontage and our ordinance says street frontage. Is that -- Schultz: Does it say street frontage? Smith: I believe our ordinance says street frontage. Schultz: I don't know that it does or not. I think that a lot that -- Nary: So if it says street frontage that would be fairly clear. Smith: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Nary, I have got a -- Bruce Freckleton wrote the definition of frontage on this memorandum he gave to me. The frontage of the lot Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 36 of 41 measured along the street from side property line to side property line. On corner lots and through lots all sides of the lot adjacent to street shall be considered frontage. Nary: Now I guess the question is, is that in our ordinance? Smith: That is. Nary: The term street frontage. Smith: I am reading from Ordinance 12-13-5 under definitions. Nary: I can't think of anything clearer than if it says street and it says lot orientation. You and I both know what that means. I don't think that's that confusing to people. I guess we disagree on what it should say. Schultz: Yes, we do. Corrie: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony? Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Borup: It is. Corrie: Name and address, please. Borup: Keith Borup, 2250 North Meridian Road. I originally was not planning on testifying, but it looks like too much fun. I'm not sure what -- just some of the thoughts I had in listening and I think Mr. Schultz got into that, but -- and I got to say when I bought the lot I saw the arrow, I knew what that meant. De Weerd: I would hope so. Borup: I'm not making any excuses there but I have spent since last year trying to find someone that would come up with a design to orient it the other way and have not been successful. We have a plan that's selling very well and people want the plan and will want this lot. I guess the point -- there is no written definition in the ordinance on how -- on how it is measured. We are talking about streets, street frontage. I believe the post office -- and I suspect the city talks about street frontage to the middle of the intersection. That's how you tell which way a house is facing and where the street ends. You know, that's another 25 feet beyond the property line if we are talking about street frontage. Our reason for coming here, really, is not that we couldn't get the house to orient on that lot it is what's the most acceptable, pleasing, and reasonable site design. The house would rotate the other way and give us a six-foot backyard, which I don't think is a pleasing design. The City Ordinance also calls for a 15-foot minimum setback in a backyard. Well, this corner -- I believe it's in the same ordinance, it says if you have a corner lot and you don't have enough room to have a 15-foot setback in the backyard, you can designate the side yard as the backyard. That's how this would Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 37 of 41 comply. What our entire side yard is would become the backyard by definition. Then the setbacks do comply. The way that it would comply is to have a door facing Calderwood and not change anything else from what you see and what the application is. Having the door facing the other street doesn't make that as the front of the house, which just means a longer access around. You know, to me probably another necessary design change to make, which, again, probably is not that esthetically pleasing, but I guess my point in saying all this, it can comply, but I don't think it's the best design and best interest of the neighbors and the neighborhood. I don't believe I have other comments, unless you have any questions. Thank you. Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else like to issue testimony? Okay. Council, any other discussion with the Public Hearing? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. McCandless: Mr. Mayor, I move that we close the Public Hearing. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All those in favor say aye. Opposed no? The Public Hearing is now declared closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: Discussion on the request for variance? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I'm sure most everybody can see where I feel on this. The ordinance says what it says. I think the street frontage is -- I think it is clear. I think it is required for the staff to interpret it. From what I heard from Mr. Smith's testimony -- or Mr. Smith's statement, this is the way we do it all over the place. If we want to reinterpret this for the Public Works Department, then we will have to reinterpret it for everyone, not just this lot. If we were to grant it for this lot, then we'd have to make a finding under our Variance requirements and I just don't think there is enough evidence to provide that. It is -- it may be inconvenient. I have seen some corner lots -- I happen to live on a corner lot. I have seen them, they are a little -- sometimes the houses are a little goofy, you have got a garage on one side and a door on another, and sometimes they are a little bit odd, but they can be done and our ordinance says they have to show a hardship that's extraordinary, not inconvenient. This is something that probably should have been cleared up at the point that the final plat was done, it wasn't, they want to leave it for a Variance, that's the risk you take that you're just not going to have enough to show extraordinary hardship, that there is unusual topography, there isn't -- there is just Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 38 of 41 nothing that's required by our ordinance. I feel for the builder and I understand the dilemma, but I just don't see any reason that our ordinance be granted a Variance when I think everything done by the Public Works Department was reasonable. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I think since Mr. Nary is being so easy on this builder -- I think I remember less than a month ago it was a little different. Now I looked at the reasons to grant a variance and I just don't see any of those reasons really meeting the intent of this variance. I would concur with Councilman Nary of his rather eloquent synopsis of the situation. Corrie: Anybody else before I editorialize here? Get in trouble. All right. If there is nothing else, I will entertain a motion on the request for the Variance. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I would move that we deny the request for Variance on the minimum lot frontage requirements for Lot 1, Block 3, for Bear Creek Subdivision by Bear Creek LLC, Lot 1, Block 3, at 714 West Calderwood, and for counsel to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law consistent with that denial. As well as incorporating the testimony from this evening. Bird: I would second that. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Motion to deny is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies: Corrie: Ready for the next one? Okay. Next is the delinquency. This is to inform you in writing if you so choose you have the right to a predetermined hearing on Tuesday, August 20, 2002, before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and defend a claim made by this city that your water, sewer, and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel and this service will be discontinued on August 21st or August 28th , unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present that wishes to have his or her water, sewer or trash delinquency contested? You are hereby Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 39 of 41 informed that you may appeal or have the decision of the city reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho State Code. Even though you do appeal, your water will be shut off. The amount of the shut off list is 31,072.30. Council, you have seen the list of delinquency turn off schedule. What is your pleasure? I'll entertain a motion to approve the turn off list. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve the delinquency turn of list and to have the turn off date as August 21, 2002, and August 28, 2002, unless payment is received in full and the amount is 31,072.30. De Weerd: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the delinquency turn off schedule. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Motion carried to approve the delinquency turn off list is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: And that ends the agenda. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we adjourn the August 20, 2002, Council meeting. Nary: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to adjourn the meeting. All in favor say aye. Approved at 8:34. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:34 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: Meridian City Council Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 40 of 41 / / ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK