Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 13, 2004 C/C MinutesMeridian City Council Meeting January 13, 2004 Page 47 of 70 De Weerd:. I believe that those are clarities or things that we can make clear in the findings. Any further discuss? I would entertain a motion. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we approve AZ 03-026, request for annexation and zoning of 5.11 acres from RT to C-G and I-L zones for Cortabitarte Annexation by Jack Cortabitarte, south of East Fairview Avenue and west of North Eagle Road. To incorporate all public and staff comments and direct Council to draw up appropriate Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Nary: Second. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Thank you. Does that motion that's been moved and seconded ask the attorney to make clear the comments that Councilman Rountree cited? Wardle: Yes. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve AZ 03-026. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 17. Public Hearing: AZ 03-021 Request for annexation and zoning of 114.52 acres from RUT to R-8 (PD) and C-G zones for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC -south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: Item 18. Public Hearing: PP 03-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 302 building lots and 28 other lots on 90.29 acres in a proposed R-8(PD) zone for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC -south of East Ustick Road arid east of North Eagle Road: Item 19. Public Hearing: CUP 03-041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential use with reduced setbacks, lot sizes, lot frontages, house sizes and increased block lengths for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Meddian City Counal Meeting January 13, 2004 Page 42 of 70 Development, LLC -south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Since we have saved the best until last, I will go ahead and open Items 17, 18, and 19, the Public Hearings for AZ 03-021, request for annexation and zoning of 114.52 acres from RUT to R-8 PD and C-G zones for the proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2. Public Hearing PP 03-024, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 302 building lots and 28 other lots on 90.29 acres in a proposed R-8 PD zone for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2. Public Hearing CUP 03-041, request for a Conditional Use Permit fora planned development for single-family residential use with reduced setbacks, lot sizes, lot frontages, house size, and increased block lengths for the proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2. I will open with staff comments. Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, here we go. I'll try and keep it brief, but give you enough information that you can understand tonight's testimony: This is the area of the applications. The -- in particular the annexation and zoning application. The Preliminary Plat covers this area and this area. It does not include this property out to the west. This is -- the annexation path is from Stokesberry Subdivision, across Eagle Road and, then, to the a rea contained within the Redfeather Preliminary Plat. This is Ustick Road up here. Some of the key features here is that there is a large one- acre subdivision within Ada County. There was -- Duane Drive does stub to this property to the south. The City of Boise wraps around the property like this. There is a school right here. Ustick Elementary is right at the edge of the city limits and does have a short common boundary with the proposed application. You can see the elementary school there. These are additional ones of Duane Drive if you want to go back to those. This is the -phase one of the Preliminary Plat. For reference, again, here is Ustick. Here is the elementary school. Come down into the property. There is a stub street to here. The Planning and Zoning Commission, I believe, did discuss a stub street in this area for the Clover Meadows Subdivision. Then, as you saw on the application, there is. a connection point here to this other property that's located here, so you see a close up of that. They are taking some property from this lot, so that -- to continue that roadway through that area there. There are stubs here. They did provide a stub to Duane Drive. ACHD -- at the ACRD hearing the motion was -- or the wording was that the gate would be removed -- they did install an emergency access only gate. That the gate will be removed when a formal request by anyone, i.e., the City of Meridian, a citizen, the developer, a resident of the Perkins-Brown Subdivision, et cetera, is received by the district to open Duane Drive to make it public right of way. There was discussion of that at the Planning and Zoning Commission that the -- asking the applicant to work with ACHD and the' -- and the residents of -- along Duane Drive of that subdivision to come up with some more clear wording as to exactly who could request that and clarify that before coming to you. I would imagine that Mrs. McKay will have that information for you later today. Let's see. The other issues related to the plat were, as I mentioned, the connection somewhere to the south. The Clover Meadows Subdivision, which I believe is down here, does not have a way to get through the property to the school. They were looking, hopefully, to have some pedestrian access through the site, so that Meridian City Council Meeting January 13, 2004 Page 43 of 70 their kids have a better path up to the school. Regarding the planned development that accompanies this application, the applicant is asking for reduced lot frontages, reduced lot sizes, block lengths that exceed the city's maximum block lengths and minimum block lengths, so they are below the minimum and above the maximum. They were to clarify the Ustick Road right of way and street buffers along Ustick Road of 25 feet ahd street offsets and, then, stub streets. There were quite a few issues raised in the planned development. In exchange for the reduced allowances, the applicant has provided spark -- a 2.37-acre pocket park with swimming pool and cabana and, then, on the -- and, then, a 10-foot pedestrian pathway along the South Slough or the Finch Lateral as it's also known. There were a couple of other issues I wanted to raise. Go back to -- oops. We have -- staff has consistently on these requests for annexation and zoning without adevelopment -- or without specific development plans, we are consistently asking for a Development Agreement that clearly identifies ,what fhe Comprehensive Plan policies are for the mixed used regional Comprehensive Plan designation, which is also applicable in this case. Just as a reference, perhaps you will remember the Kissler annexations come around here and, then, also around here. They will kind of connect up with this and we also have been getting interest on these two corners for the C-G zoning without any specific development approvals. We have gone through and added those Comprehensive Plan polices, which do include a mix of uses, including residential. The other issue I wanted to talk about was to, hopefully, get some guidance from the Council regarding illegal lot splits in Ada County. This property, in particular, was attached to this piece of property prior to 1985. It was recently split off. However, it has changed hands about three times. The Planning and Zoning Commission did not require. the applicant to obtain the owner's permission to annex that property and include it in the subdivision. They did take that away. Staff is kind at a loss as to what to do. Our subdivision ordinance says that the lot has to be a lot of record as of April 1984. However, Ada County says that you -- for any property that was of record as of January 1, 1985, you are entitled one legal lot split. We cannot rely on ours, because their could be to -- for us to say for you to come in with a subdivision it has to be what the property looked like in 1984. We can't rely on that, because someone could do legal sub -- one-time splits within Ada Couhty. It gets difficult when you get multiple owners -- changes in ownerships over time such that'-- that Ithink this has changed hands twice -- or this twice and this once since the illegal split was done. On the other hand, staff really doesn't want to encourage illegal splits in the county before they come into the city and staffs reluctahce regarding that is because you really lose the urban fabric. In this case, you're going to have sidewalk and street up to here and, then, it's just going to stop and, then, it will pick one once it hits the city limits again. These properties, until they are redeveloped or brought into the city, will always just kind of have, ablank -- no street improvements and in this case it was -- I had particular concerns, because there was a school there. The applicant -- I did ask her aside from the Public Hearing for the Planning and Zoning Commission to work on some connections to the school. They have brought that back with this application tonight. They did readjust the lots to provide a pedestrian path that accesses that very corner of the school, so that they can get those kids to the school without having to go to Ustick and I did appreciate that effort on the applicant's part or the applicant's representative. In general, this question of illegal lot splits is also going Meddian Clty Council Meeting January 13, 2004 Page 44 of 70 to come up on another application that's headed your way and I haven't talked to you about it, so I just wanted to know some of your thoughts on it and where you wanted the staff to go regarding those illegal splits. The one remaining issue, I believe, is the issue of the water -- looping the water service and the applicant's representative did meet with Public Works and they did say that they will -- to adequately serve that property they will need to loop that water system with the first phase of the plat. With that, I'll answer any questions. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions for staff at this point? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I know we are going to get a lot more, but, Anna, did I hear right on that stub street to that Perkins-Brown Subdivision there is gate there, is that a private road and they want to put a gate for basically just emergency access only? Powell: Correct. This is a public street. It's not a private road. It is a public street, but it is -- it's developed to county standards at the time it was constructed, so it's not a curb, gutter, sidewalk street, as is typically known. This is a view of Duane Drive up there. Nary: It's a public street on both sides of that gate? Powell: Yes. There is a stub street -- Nary: And Mr. Grove wants to put a gate across the public street there? Powell: N o. N of t he -- t he P erkins-Brown S ubdivision requested t he g ate, because they did not want the traffic from this subdivision going up Duane Drive, which .was not approved to full ACHD standards. It was in response to their request that this gate was installed as an emergency access only and, then, ACHD put in the provisions that whenever anybody asks it will be open. Nary: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Council, before we proceed with the applicant and testimony on this application, would you desire a 10-minute break? Bird: I would. Rountree: Some parts of me would. Bird: I move that we have a 10-minute break. Meridian City CounGl Meeting January 13, 2004 Page 45 of 70 Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. We will reconvene in 10 minutes. (Recess. ) De Weerd: I will go ahead and reconvene the meeting. This is a Public Hearing.' The general process that we follow is we open with staff comments, allow the applicant up to 10 minutes to explain the project and anything that might have been brought up during staff comments. Then, invite public testimony for three minutes, with the applicant to have an opportunity to answer any questions that might have arose during the public testimony. With that said, I will ask the applicant to, please, come forward. Or representative. McKay: Becky McKay Engineering Solutions 150 East Aikens, Eagle. De Weerd: Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? McKay: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Becky McKay: Thank you. As Anna indicated, this is an annexation and rezone application, along with an accompanying Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development application. This is kind of an unusual application, because we had to find a pathway of annexation. If you recall six, eight month ago, we petitioned the city to remove this area out of the Meridian area of impact, asked that it be released, and go to Boise City. After long discussion with the Council, it was determined that since the South Slough Trunk was basically on its way eastward, that it was in the best interest of the city that this property remain within Meridian's area of impact and that they would have the ability to service this property in the near future. The one struggle we had was, obviously, finding a pathway of annexation. We did that by incorporating two parcels that are on Eagle Road. As you can see; the Schrammeck and the Bryson property. Our application, even though it has 114.5 acres in the annexation application, only 90 of those acres -- 90.29 to be exact, are part of our Preliminary Plat and our planned development. The other 24.23 acres is part of the Commercial area that we are requesting a C-G zoning designation. On your Comprehensive Plan, the residential portion that's in our Preliminary PIa4 is designated medium density residential. That's three to eight dwelling units per acre. The portion along Eagle Road corridor where we abut the city limits is designated m fixed use regional. We d id not s ubmit a plan on t he m fixed-use regional area. We talked with staff about that and they believe that with a development agreement requiring any uses to come under conditional use and, obviously, setting forth some types of standards in your Comp Plan for that Eagle Road corridor and the mixed use regional area, they felt comfortable with approving that as a C-G zone and, then, we requested an R-8 zone on our residential portion with a planned development Meddlan Clty Council Meeting January 13, 2004 Page 46 of 70 overlay. We are proposing 302 buildable lots. These are all single-family lots. Detached dwellings. No attached. We have approximately 28 common lots and our open space we have 10.3 acres total open space and nine percent of the project is in what we call eligible open space for the -- qualifying under your definition under your landscape ordinance. Our design of this project -- this is the Boise portion that my applicants owned. That's 20 acres. We submitted applications to Boise city, we were annexed and approved and we are currently under construction with what we call Redfeather No. 1 and that's why this is Redfeather No. 2. We are improving the south half of Granger Street and, then, with this application we will take Granger Street and build this collector roadway all the way up to Ustick, aligning with the existing subdivision to the north that's in Boise City limits. We have different products of homes. The area up here adjoining Ustick or the arterial, these are 50 foot lots. They are about 5,500 square feet. Then, as we go south the lots continue to get larger and larger. They are ranging from 5,500 square foot, we have got some 65's, 7,000, 8,000 and, then, 9,000 as we get down in this area along the southern portion. This is approximately 2.37 acres and it's a -- like a private pocket park. We have got pedestrian pathways coming into the park. There will be a clubhouse, a pool, a parking lot, and some play facilities there for the children. We connect to Biiarwood Subdivision with a pedestrian pathway, because there is not enough right of way at the end of their cul-de-sac to extend that roadway into our project. Therefore, it's a pedestrian only connection. There is also a very large old tree that prohibits us from having a secondary access on Briarwood, like ari emergency vehicle access, so that was the best that we could do. As Anna indicated, one thing that was bought up at the Planning and Zoning Commission was to make a connection to the elementary school site. This right here is Ustick Elementary. The staff asked us to get with Wendell Bigham of the school district, see if we could come up an alignment for a pedestrian path to keep from sending these kids out to Ustick or the arterial to get to school. We have agreed upon that pathway location. We have revised our drawings to incorporate that, so we have solved that issue. The Milks Lateral comes across this properjust like this. It's an open ditch. We will be piping that pretty close to its historical location. We will be working with the Perkins-Brown Subdivision, because they have got a large box and headgate, which diverts water in I, think two different directions. We will have a pump station off of that Milks Lateral. It's aNampa-Meridian station that's on it right now serving Dawson Meadows. We will go in and upgrade that pump station to make it a regional station and Nampa-Meridian will own and maintain that. This lot you see here in white is part of our subdivision. This person owned a larger portion of ground and they wanted to keep like roughly three acres. We did provide your staff with a lot layout showing how that lot could redevelop in the future and they have got that in our file. As we come westward we have this pod down here and this was the area of contention. We had two public hearings at the Ada County Highway District commissioners and a problem arose with -- Duane Drive is a straight, substandard, rural section. It's about 21 -- between 21 and 24 feet wide, no curb, gutter, or sidewalk. It goes in a straight line for almost one half-mile Very low density, two and a half acre lots all along that. Their concern was with this property developing we could generate up to eight or nine hundred trips per day exiting Duane Drive. Now, that was within the threshold of a local street, so we did not exceed that threshold, but their concern was, obviously, the changing of the character of their neighborhood and the inability of that Maddlan City Council Meeting January 13, 2004 Page 47 of 70 rural substandard street to handle that kind of volume of traffic. The Highway District Commissioners struggled with this idea and we came up with what they thought was a good compromise and I had to agree with them. We will go ahead, dedicate this right of way, and build this right of way. We will put chokers at this intersection here and improve it up to the boundary ofPerkins-Brown. We will work with the Meridian Fire Department to make sure that they are acceptable with this type of a gate design here, but, yet, the gate will have to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to ingress and egress out of the subdivision and, then, obviously, any emergency vehicles that would come into this pod down here. In the motion, there was some confusion about what their intent was. Mr. Mills and I discussed it just a minute ago and I discussed it with their staff. I have read their minutes, what they stated was in the event that an interested party were to submit application to the commission to open this street. They would have a new Public Hearing and readdress or revisit that idea, so that they weren't just -- they didn't want to cut it off for any opportunity in the future to open it if need be. Their reasoning was at some point in time there is only one way in and out of Perkins-Brown Subdivision. It may be the desire of that development -- of that subdivision that they have a secondary access, because it may be too difficult to ingress and egress to Ustick. That was their reasoning and they did not -- and I stressed to them if you forego this opportunity to make some type of a connection, but, yet, block it off, it's lost forever, and so they recognized that. The other thing they had us do is they had us move our stub street here to the west down to this location, so that when the properties to the west develop, that it would discourage any traffic if this were to be open from coming up in this direction. As far as servicing this property, if we go westward, the South Slough has been bored to the east side of Eagle Road. We will be extending that. I believe a 12-inch main. We have also met with your staff concerning water. Water is on the west side of Eagle Road, so it does need to be designed and bored to the east side in order to loop the system. You have water -- a 12-inch water main in Ustick that we will have to bring in, extend down Ustick, and bring down into this development, therefore, looping your whole water system out in this area. I believe that the staff and ourselves have come to an understanding that we think will work for everyone. In this area here your staff asked that we put a basketball court. De Weerd: I'm sorry, Becky, can you -- McKay: I'll wrap it up. Asked that we put some type of an amenity on here. We had a basketball court. Also, there is a multi-use pathway that's in your parks plan that we are showing here. Do you have any questions? De Weerd: Council, any questions? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mrs. McKay, I mean in looking at the commission action for ACHD on that gate, I mean all they say is when a formal request is received by the district to open it, the gate Meridian City Council Meeting January 73, 2004 Page 48 of 70 will be removed. Was there more -- is there some other document that reflects that they would have another Public Hearing and they'd have more process than what this says? McKay: My recollection of Commissioner Wynkoop indicated that they would hold another hearing and have opportunity to discuss it again and revisit it. You may -- I guess you may want to question Mr. Mills. He was at the same meeting, so were all the residents of Duane Drive. That was the impression that I got in what Commission Wynkoop said. In their minutes it's an abbreviated minutes and so it didn't get everything that he stated in his motion. Nary: I'm looking at their site-specific conditions of approval in their report and Number 7 says install swinging gate at the connection of Duane Drive and Palm Street for the present time. Construct a pedestrian bicycle pathway that connects the improvements on Duane Drive and it has an asterisk part that says the gate will be removed when a formal request by anyone in the City of Meridian, a citizen, the developer, or a resident of the Perkins-Brown Subdivision, et cetera, is received by the district to open Duane Drive. McKay: Okay. Councilman Nary --and Mr. Mills indicated it should have said received and approved by the commission. I believe that is correct. Nary: Well, I know we have had lots of issues over those types of things. McKay: Okay. He said it should -- Nary: What it says is what is says, so -- McKay: Okay. He said it should have said received and approved by the commission. That was their intent because they would have to have some type of formal action to open it. They couldn't just with somebody sending a letter and say, okay, we are going to open the gate tomorrow. Nary: That's what it says. McKay: But that's not what -- you know, that was not, I don't believe, their intent. I guess one could misconstrue it. Yes. You're correct. DeWeerd: Definitely could. Any other questionsfortheapplicant'srepresentative? Thank you. Nary: I'm sorry, Madam Mayor, one more thing. On that pool -- I mean how big a pool and clubhouse are you talking about? 2.3 acres for that whole site seems fairly small to me. That's barely larger than our Adventure Island playgrouhd. How big is -- how big is this pool and clubaduse facility? Meridian City Counal Meeting January 13, 2004 Page 49 of 70 McKay: Well, usually, the -- the last one we did the clubhouse was only like 800 to 1,000 square feet. They are usually kind of like a meeting room for birthday parties, anniversary parties, and things like that. They are not a big, big clubhouse. Then, the pools are typically larger than a residential pool, but not as big, obviously, as something like the Y. If you look at this drawing here, the landscape architect has depicted it to scale and you can see here there is the parking facility, there is the clubhouse, there is the pool. Then, all their pathways, their playground equipment, and you can see that there still is a substantial amount of the area is still in usable grass area. Nary: And if I heard you right, Mrs. McKay, I thought you said it was nine percent of the - McKay: Nine percent of the entire 90-acre site is eligible open space. Nary: And I guess I was thinking isn't a PUD requirement 10 percent? McKay: No, sir. You have the option. Nary: Oh. Okay. McKay: Two amenities or 10 percent. Nary: And how long is that pathway? McKay: This pathway here? It's running probably about 400 feet, 500 feet. Just what adjoins us and the South Slough. Nary: Madam Mayor, if I could just ask one more question, too. On that out parcel of the property owner that piece there at about the center on the east border you know, the other -- this piece. This piece here. McKay: Oh, up here? Nary: No this piece here. McKay: Oh, yes. That's a park Nary: Okay. McKay: It's being annexed and part of our plat. Nary: Oh. Okay. McKay: This portion is not a part, sir. Nary: I got it. Meridian City Council Meeting January 13, 2004 Page 50 of 70 McKay: This is owned by another property owner and we have stubbed to him. The issue of the annexation one was that parcel. Nary: Okay. McKay: And I can explain that if the Council would like understanding of how that transpired. De Weerd: Would you like that explanation, Council? Rountree: Sure. McKay: At one time Mr. Smitchger owned part of this property, including this home and one acre that the house sits on. Powell: Becky, could you use the overhead, so that the audience can see what you're doing? McKay: Sure. De Weerd: There is a pointer. McKay: There is Mr. Smitchger's home right there. Back in approximately 1997, Mr. Smitchger sold off the bulk of the property to the Caven's, but he retained the house and the one-acre and, then, the Caven's sold it to my client. My client was not aware of the fact that this illegal division took place and, obviously, had no part of it. My argument at the Planning and Zoning Commission was Mr. Smitchger atterided our Public Hearing on the issue of the area of impact change and he was quite vocal that he preferred not to be in anyone's impact area, because he didn't want to be in Boise City limits o r M eridian C ity I imits. I told t he s tall t hat i f t hey r equired o r m andated t hat I include that, he's not going to consent to that annexation. There is no way. I mean he was just -you know, he's an elderly gentleman, wants to be left alone and wants no part of this. It puts us over a barrel. We don't intentionally go out there and illegally split these parcels, we are -- usually it's some act by some other entity, but we have to deal with them and if I can clean them up, I do. In this case, Ican't -- I can't fix the wrong. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: That pathway, Mrs. McKay, it's approximately in this location here below these two out parcels? Is that right? McKay: Right. It runs right down that lot line and matches up with the elementary site. That's their playground right there. Meritlian City Council MeeBng January 13, 2004 Page 51 of 70 Nary: So, how would people here really use that? Through this? McKay: Yes. Nary: That's the only access point? McKay: Yes. They'd come down the sidewalks. Nary: So, the people that live here, their only access to the school on the sidewalk is to walk all the way around here to get to that path. McKay: Right. They come down the detached -- we'd have detached sidewalk along the collector, so they wouldn't be right up against the roadway and the kids would come down there and, then, come in just like that. It would still be quicker than probably going out, around, and into the site like that. Plus it keeps them off the arterials. De Weerd: Becky, I just would like clarity on that nine percent open space. Are you including the drainage lots? McKay: The drainage lots -- we exclude in our eligible open space -- we base that on your definition of your landscape ordinance. We exclude any required arterial buffers it says, which would be any landscaping along Ustick, any landscaping on both sides of Granger collector drive. Anything that can be considered usable open space. 'The staff has deemed if it's drainage it has to be -- if you're using that as your -- we are only required to have five percent. We are at nine. Even if some open space was ineligible, like some of these drainage strips that we sometimes do, say like this, it -- we'd still exceed the required landscaping. De Weerd: Yes but you're counting it. McKay: We count it if it meets the criteria under your landscape ordinance, yes. Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we do allow drainage areas to qualify as open space, as long as they are not wet ponds and that was the issue I brought up earlier this evening is that once it becomes a wet area it no longer qualifies. Unless it's a water amenity, but -- McKay: And, Madam Mayor, we have no groundwater at this site. Yes. De Weerd: Any further questions, Council? Thank you. McKay: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Did we have sign up sheet, Mr. Clerk? I will go ahead and accept testimony in favor. Is there anyone else who would like to testify in favor of this Meridian City Council Meeting January 13, 2004 Page 52 of 70 application? Okay. I will first need to swear you in. Thank you. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the math, so help you God? Belcher: I do. De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address. Belcher: My name is Fitzroy Belcher. I live at 2920 Duane Drive. This subdivision as proposed will back up to our property. As planned, I will have three lots backing onto my property. Duane Drive, as has been stated, is approximately 25 feet wide. It's landscaped to the pavement all the way through. There are no curbs, sidewalks, or gutters. Most of the people on the street have livestock, cattle, and horses. There are some sheep and there are some goats. W e a re concerned about t he density that's going to back up against our properties. The second item of concern is keeping the traffic off of Duane Drive. Being only 25 feet wide, we can't stand a whole lot of traffic and when you talk about 900 vehicle trips per day, as ACHD has projected, that's too much. Ada County Highway District voted to close it, except for emergency access only, and I was at the meeting and I did not hear this, that any person or whoever could go and ask it to be open. The motion doesn't read that way in the ones that they sent out to us, to the public that testified. It would help the traffic situation if we had access to Eagle Road for that 20 acre piece, the south piece that's not up there now. In my letter to the Council I asked that development, that is the construction of housing on that 20 acres, be withheld until such time as access is out to Eagle Road and that would help us a lot. If the Council or whoever decides that Duane Drive has to be open with unlimited access, we ask that, it be developed to a full 50-foot platted width with sidewalk, curb, and gutters. We also ask that we not be required to pay for that improvement, that if it's to be done in the future, the developer pay for that. That's our concerns on it. De Weerd: Thank you. Belcher: We are also concerned about water, since we are all on wells, and the source of our -- where none of us are on deep wells, we are all on shallow wells and the irrigated ground to the east of us is what kept us with water. In the early'90s we -- there were three or four places on the street that had to lower their pumps, because of the low water table. When I first moved there the water table was about three feet, iYs down now to about 25 feet or 30 feet. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Do you have questions for Mr. Belcher, Council? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Belcher, where is your property located in the relation to the -- Meridian City CounGl Meeting January 13, 2004 Page 53 of 70 Belcher. Okay. If I can get this thing to work. I am -- see the other -- go back. Okay. My property is right here. Nary: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Williams: Yes, it is. De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address. Williams: Carla Williams, 2830 Duane Drive. De Weerd: Thank you. Williams: I support everything that Mr. Belcher just said. We have had many discussions about this, but there are a couple more items that I would like to bring up. One is in regard to the wells, it's really unclear to us what this development is going to do to affect both our irrigation and our drinking water wells, and there hasn't been a lot of information giveh to us on what those effects are. The second thing is on the development of Duane Drive. If you look at the picture that shows the actual street and you see all of the trees, one of the things that's really unique about this street and creates the quaintness of the street is all of the mature trees. These .trees are anywhere from ten to 25 years old. If the street gets widened, many of these trees are going to have to be removed. In addition to requesting for the curbs and gutters, I would also bring up the fact of what's going to happen to this landscaping and how will that be restored. My third point is on the traffic. The development that was done by Heather Meadows that butts into Duane Drive off of Ustick Road, there was a pretty big development done there. The funeral pa~or was put in several years ago and we are continually getting more and more traffic onto Ustick Road. It's harder to get from Ustick Road onto -- or, excuse me, from Duane Drive onto Ustick Road, because of the activity that's happening. Ustick Road is a two-lane road and there are -- there is a turn lane into Heather Meadows. Adding this kind of traffic down Duane Drive without it having a turn lane is going to be a big traffic issue and probably safety issue, too. Those are the points I'd like to make. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else who would I ike to testify o n this? I s the testimony you p rovide tonight t he t ruth; t he whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Stokes: It is. De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address. Meridian Clry Council Meeting January 13, 2004 Page 54 of 70 Stokes: Mark Stokes, 2870 Duane Drive. To start out with, the issue of the density, the majority of the lots there are Duane Drive are two and a half acre lots. I think most of the residents are kind of consigned to the fact that there is not a lot we can do to change that disparity between the size of the lots. The big issue has been the extension of Duane Drive into that 20 acres that sits to the south. This matter was before the ACRD twice. The first time I urged them to go out and actually look at the site. At that time, I think two of the commissioners had actually gone out and looked at the street and convinced the others to take the opportunity to go out and look at it. When we all got together the second time is when they did vote on the issue of the gate and I think it was a reasonable solution that the residents -- residents can live with. Ms. Bowcutt, I think on the developer's behalf, is happy with it. The ACHD commissioners were -- found it acceptable. While it's kind of a nonstandard or nontypical practice, it kind of serves everybody's needs. I guess before you dismiss that idea, I would ask you also to take a look at it if you have any question and just don't dismiss it as a matter of policy, you know, where the other groups involved have found it to be a reasonable alternative. And it was definitely the intent of the ACHD commissioners that that gate would remain closed. The way it was stated in the meeting was that they made it clear to the residents that at some future point in time the potential would always exist that somebody may want to look into the possibility of opening that gate up. They also felt that by the time that that south 20 acres was developed there would be other multiple access points into that 20 acres, so that Duane Drive, as an access point, probably wouldn't be necessary anyway. De Weerd: So, Mr. Stokes, was it your impression that at that point where they would revisit the gate, that it would go to public hearing so you all would ,have an opportunity? Stokes: Yes. That's the way the commissioners presented it to the residence of Duane Drive and everybody at the meeting. De Weerd: So, that would need further clarity. Stokes: What was read is a misstatement on what actually happened at the meeting. De Weerd: Unfortunately, those are the findings and, you know, those would have to be changed if that is -- by their -- by ACRD but thank you for that clarity. Stokes: Thank you. De Weerd: Further testimony? Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Wallace: Yes, it is. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Coundl Meeting January 13, 2004 Page 55 of 70 Wallace: My name is Patrick Wallace and I'm a resident at 3070 North Duane Drive. I just want to show my support for the folks that have been here from Duane Drive'and have spoken so far this evening. I'm a new resident. I'm the new kid on the block on that street. I moved in there last March with the idea of getting away from some of the more urban settings that we had been in and we are finding oursel4es becoming more thrust into that spot than we had ever intended or wished. I think that our -- the other folks on the street have mentioned -- talked to you folks a lot about the street and the concern with the number of cars on Duane. My concern is the number of cars that we are a dding to U stick. Ustick -- r ush h our a t U stick i s -- i is I ike d owntown H onolulu, which is where I was born and raised, and it's just not right. It's -- we are getting the cart before the horse. We don't have a way to move the people out of the area in a timely, safe, and efficient manner at this point and that's all I got to say. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Is there any further testimony? Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole math, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Broadhead: It is. De Weerd: Thank you. Broadhead: I'm Michelle Broadhead and I reside at 2875 Duane Drive. I just wanted to also agree with what they said so far and just so, the clarity is made there on the through traffic. I have four little ones that we walk back and forth to the bus stop every morning and afternoon and not all of them are in school yet. I have several more years of this process to continue and that road is not a safe place for cars going quickly down. That's my big concern is the safety of my family and there are no sidewalks for them to ride bicycles on or any of that stuff as well. I wanted to clarrfy that at that ACHD meeting the president of the ACHD was all for shutting that road, putting a gate up there and never letting anything through and because that is not the policy. We opted for the -- well, we will put the gate up, but probably no one will bug us about it and it clearly was stated that it would go to Public Hearing and from there have to be done through the process there, so that's -- De Weerd: Thank you. Thanks for that clarification. Any questions? Nary: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: How do your kids get to school now? Are they bused or -- Broadhead: They are bused. Yes. They are because there are no sidewalks down our road or down Ustick, which is how we would have to go is down Ustick Road and there are not sidewalks there. Meridian Clfy Council Meeting January 13, 2004 Page 56 of 70 Nary: Do you know that will change, then? Broadhead: It will not -- I'm sure it will not, because part of our subdivision is out onto Ustick and so that won't be developed, but as the new subdivision goes in I'm sure they will put sidewalks. It will be the silly curvy sidewalk that leads nowhere on either end and just to make it look pretty and doesn't do anything, so - Nary: Thank you. De Weerd: Is there any further testimony? Okay. Would the applicant like to come up and respond to testimony? Just restate your name and address. McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. Concerning the issue of density that Mr. Belcher brought up, our gross density for this project is 3.3 dwelling units per acre, with the medium density designation on your Comp Plan being three to eight, I mean we are, obviously, at that lowest spectrum of that allowable density. As you well know in many other meetings, there has been discussion of making sure that these projects have what we call an adequate amount of density and three was always the number that was kicked around as the minimum that we should be targeting for. I don't believe that this is considered ahigh-density development. I mean this is pretty standard. Mr. Belcher talks about restricting any development on the 20 acres until access to Eagle is developed. That's not necessary when we have access internally within our own development. That would ludicrous. The issue of Duane Drive was settled at the highway district commission. Obviously, the Council has to give their nod to it, but it's been discussed and rehashed and I feel that we have taken care of their concerns. In my meetings with them in the past they said, you know, if you will help us and support us with the Duane Drive issue, because that is our sensitive spot, then, you know, we will basically go away, I believe one individual told me, but that's not the case. Anytime we have urban and rural residential development colliding in along a perimeter of an impact area; we have this discussion of compatibility of traffic and so forth and it is something that we always struggle with. We do the best that we can and in this design we have a collector roadway that we are talking from Ustick all the way out that will connect to Cloverdale and as you well know, those collectors add capacity. They add alternatives to turning movements and try to minimize the impact on these arterials to give people alternative routes, so we are not just dumping all our traffic on Ustick. The issue of wells. We have no impact on their wells. I don't know how we can affect their wells when we are connecting to the city domestic water system. Irrigation. We will be improving the irrigation out there by piping the Milks Lateral, which, therefore, will add capacity to that, because we won't have the evaporation, the percolation that we see, the problem with cleaning of the ditches, typically find it improves an irrigation situation. We have committed to working with the neighbors. We committed to certain types of fencing. I think we have done what we can. The sidewalks along Ustick, they are built in segments. I guess if the Perkins- Brown subdivision would like to get with ACHD, they do have funding, certain accounts where they can petition to have the district utilize sidewalk money to improve the sidewalks going to elementary schools or other public entities like that and so they Meridian City Council Mee0ng January 13, 2004 Page 57 of 70 might want to talk with Mr. Mills. We have got a really good project here that we feel is a benefit and we think this is the type of project that the city envisioned when they were spending all that money to run the South Slough Trunk out there. This is right on that periphery of Boise. Our density is lower than the projects that are to the side of Ustick and to the east side of our project. This is a good project.' One issue I did forget that I do need to go on the record. There is a ditch along our south boundary and it just a user's ditch. The residents of Cloverdale Meadows, which Cloverdale Meadows, if you look at this drawing, they are acre lots right here. Our property boundary falls at the cehter of that ditch and I have talked with their -- their kind of irrigation guru Gary Peva and I believe he sent a letter to Public Works, and they asked us if we would set our fence on the north side of the ditch, because they want access to the ditch. The don't want us to pipe it, because they gravity irrigate out of it and so I wahted to go on the record that that was the only request that I received from Cloverdale Meadows was that we leave that ditch open and put our fence on the north side. The fence would be inset I t hink two - - I ike two feet from w here t he t rue b oundary i s. I t made s ense t o m e, because they don't pump out of a ditch, they gravity. Also, this slough here, it's -- we wanted to utilize that as a water amenity. It's a nice amenity. It's been beat down by cows it has a real gradual four-to-one, maybe even five-to-one slope. It has a few scraggly trees along it, but I think it can be a real pretty feature and I have allocated open space for visibility there to the pathway and the slough. I wanted that to go on the record also. Thank you. Do you have any questions? De Weerd: Questions? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mrs. McKay, why an R-8 and not an R-4, since the density is only 3.3? McKay: Because -- I have had this discussion before. The net density, if you look at the net, I think the net is 4.35. We have had discussions in the past with your previous staff on could you -- do they look at both the gross and the net density, can you exceed the base density zone, so with an R-4 my gross -- or my net density would be 4.35, so we just -- De Weerd: It's also lot minimums, too. McKay: Right but under a Planned Development, we are allowed for deviation in minimums. It just made the most sense. I debated on which way to go and I think I even changed the application back and forth a couple of times until I made up my mind. With the planned development overlay, the Development Agreement, I mean everything is set as far as density and lot sizes. The zone is almost immaterial, is that not.-- I mean with the Development Agreement if this project were to go away, the zone would be mute. Meridian City Council Meeting January 13, 2004 Page 58 of 70 Nary: The other question I guess I have is, as Mr. Belcher stated, you know, he has three, -- he has three lots right behind his house. One of the discussions that we have had on a number of these is that compatibility, that transition between these, and there doesn't appear to be really any transition at all between the existing rural sub and this subdivision, because you would have such fairly heavy density right along your western border there. I mean was there any thought to try to make this a little bit more of a transition between these two? It just seems fairly intense. McKay: Okay. Madam Mayor, Councilman Nary, that's a good question and in circumstances where I have a very extremely low rural residential density on one side of me and I have got a property that has enough width that I can utilize cul-de-sacs to minimize the number of lots I back up to, to also give it less density adjoining them. My problem with this site is, one, this site is not very wide. I have got rural residential lots here rural residential lots here, rural residential lots along my east boundary and rural residential lots along my south boundary. Which ones do I choose to try to transition from? Do you see what I -- my problem is? If -- it's almost impossible to make it work. I can't -- you can't do cul-de-sacs next to everybody. I mean it would be a horrible site plan and you would not get the densities necessary to cover the cost of extending services for a half a mile. What we try to do is I worked with them on the fencing. They wanted a particular type of fencing. I have been -- you know, I have met with these people in neighborhood meetings, I have met with the Altman's multiple times; because this street comes right through here, nipping right through that property there where there is some existing right of way. See, the other problem I have is there is old existing right of way out here. Granger has old existing right of way that.goes through the middle of this project. There is existing right of way here. There is right of way on Perkins- Brownsideoldrightofwayhere. Wearetryingtocleansomeofthatup byeither vacating or getting the district to relinquish their right to that and, then, building the collector, so -- Nary: And I understand what you're saying, Mrs. McKay. I guess it appears, though, in looking at your site plan is that although it is difficulty and I understand that, but you didn't really -- you didn't really try to create a buffer for any of those particular ones, but the one that's here where this Georgiana first sub or something is what it says on my site plan. Okay? You have, basically, that single family home still there, so all of those homes on this side --and this is a finished subdivision, I believe. McKay: Yes, sir. Nary: Okay. This one here, there is only two lots of Briarwood Subdivision that butt up against all of these and you have all of these folks here in Perkins-Brown with the bulk of your lots right up against their backyards. The same thing here, you only have two lots, but you have got all of these people here. I mean I guess it seems to me like you solved the problem somewhat on this side, but where all these people are living you didn't really even try to resolve that on their side. I guess I understand why they are concerned, because all you have done is really create a fairly heavy, intense level of Meridian City Council Meeting January 13, 2004 Page 59 of 70 development right over their fence, with just providing them a better fence. That doesn't seem like it's really trying too hard. McKay: Well, Madam Mayor, Councilman Nary, in the planning -- this discussion comes up every time we -when the county approved all these acre lots, five acre lots, two and a half acre lot subdivisions, they have been nothing but a thorn as far as the planners in this valley for many years. The Boise City Council, the other planning directors, have always stated one thing we have to keep in mind, residential is compatible with residential, and to mandate that we have alike lots, it would defeat the whole purpose of good urban planning. When we have a site like this one, I looked at all options, I mean, you know, we don't just slap the street in there. I try to do as much as I can to minimize the opposition as possible by transitioning, if the property is allowable, by providing collectors, open space, working with them on fencing, pedestrian pathways, different things. This is compatible. It is. We find all over this valley where you have small lots backing up to acre lots, five acre lots, two and a half acre lots, but that -- that is acceptable in the planning world. We don't just throw the projects out the door because I don't back two and a half acre lots or acre lots nexf to them. I guess -does that answer your question? We struggle with it all the time and I can only do so much. This isn't a big site. It's only 90 acres and it's kind of cut up. Nary: Well -- and I understand your thinking. McKay: Okay. Nary: It doesn't answer my question. McKay: Okay. Nary: Because lunderstand -- McKay: I looked at that. I was very cognizant of that. Nary: We have rejected other projects, because they were not compatible. We have looked at how they transition from one to another. I guess in this one, to me, with a PUD, where you have total freedom in designing your project in a PUD, that you can create transitions along that border, because you have the ability to create heavier intense on this side, which is abutting other city types of densities. To me, I think you -- I mean I'm not a planner and I'm not a designer, but I think you have that ability in a PUD and in this particular situation I don't think you did that. McKay: And I respect your opinion on that and I guess what I'd like to explain to you is I have to align with this street, that's why this block, as you can see, is only six lots deep. I could only come in with a little short block in order to keep that collector in this alignment the way the highway district prefers it. Then, when I come over here I looked at trying to do some cul-de-sacs. I couldn't even make them work. They were too short to even -- if you can't make them a certain length, it's just a waste of land. I looked at Meridian Gty Council Meeting January 13, 2004 Page 60 of 70 various options. The other issue we look at is we keep our density up on the arterials. I have got little bitty lots right across the street from me, so if I put nice, big, half acre lots here, I got little bitty Boise city lots that are about 6,000 to 5,500 square foot right here: Am I compatible with them? Absolutely but I feel I'm compatible with these lots and I have done the best I can with what we had to work with. We don't have to do these big collectors, but it's, obviously, preferable from a transportation perspective, but I mean I can't -- I only have so much I can give. I mean I guess if we mixed the collectors altogether and cut it all up into cul-de-sacs, you know, some developer may be interested, but I can't get three dwelling units per acre doing that. I can't. I can probably get 2.3 or four. You know we try. That's all I can tell you, that, you know, that's all we can do. Thank you. De Weerd: Council, any further questions for staff or applicant? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: And I'm not sure who can answer this question for me, but what I'm hearing tonight is that the neighbors are n of n ecessarily as concerned with the development itself as they are with the traffic and the gate. In my mind the information we have -- or that I have, I'm not sure -- I have some issues with the gate and so I guess the couple questions I'd have, what would be the hearing process to reopen that gate, because I'm sure all the' residents a re concemed with that. Then, secondly, who would own the gate? How is it -- how is that all taken care of? If I could get some direction on where to get those answers. De Weerd: Well, what Becky can't answer, we will ask Mr. Mills to come up. McKay; As far as the gate, Madam Mayor, Councilman Wardle, as far as the gate is concerned, what we do is we work with your Planning, Public Works staff and your Fire Department to come up with an acceptable design that would meet their standards, so it wouldn't be a hindrance in the event that they had to take emergency vehicles through there for whatever reason they would be. Also, that it would facilitate pedestrian and bicycle traffic to go through there. As far as the process for the commission, I will let Mr. Mills answer that. De Weerd: Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth., so help you God? Mills: It is. De Weerd: Thank you. Mills: Bruce Mills, Ada County Highway District, Garden City, Idaho. First of all, I want to say I agree with Mrs. McKay about her analysis or her recollection of what took place Meridian City Counal Meeting January 13, 2004 Page 61 of 70 in our commission meeting and it's unfortunate that -- I looked through these -our staff report and our findings of fact and they don't reflect accurately what I remember from the meeting. What I remember from the meeting was that -- that the gate -- yes, it could be any organization, it could be the City of Meridian, it could be the developer, and it could be anyone who could request that the gate be removed. However, just receiving the request was not to approve the gate, but it would have to go through a process of approval through ACRD that is my recollection. If our Findings of Facts need to be changed to reflect that, we certainly can do that and I apologize for the fact that they aren't accurate, at least to my recollection. Madam Mayor and Councilman Wardle, your question about the gate ownership, I'm not --that's something that we don't have a lot of gates around here, so I'm not sure myself where the ownership and maintenance of that would lie. I don't know the answer to that one question. The -- the other question was -- I'm sorry, I forgot it. De Weerd: It was about the -- how that gate would open up and, certaihly, with the experience the city has had with gates and when they go away and that sort of thing, we would want that kind of clarity in your findings by your entity and certainly not by our action. Mr. Nichols, do you have something to add? Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it looks to me like before you can take any action on this application, you may want to see whether ACHD is willing to revise it's findings -that the board is willing to revise the findings to better reflect what the decision was at the hearing. But -- and if that's the case, then, it would also be appropriate for this Council to tell Mr. Mills what to take back to ACHD in terms of the kinds of things that you would like to see in those findings -- and not to presuppose approval. With regard to the gate issue things such as a requirement that. all of the' property owners on Duane Drive receive notice of the hearing. If you take a 300 foot requirement, all of them might not receive notice, and so that all of them on Duane Drive would receive notice of any hearing on an application to remove the gate, that the City of Meridian also receive notice of the hearing and an opportunity to provide comment, maybe even suggesting that there be some showing that it's necessary for public safety and welfare that the gate be removed. Some conditions, if that's what you want to see, that they could, then, put in their findings, so that everybody that looks at the findings would have the understanding that if this development were approved and a gate were erected, under what circumstances it could betaken down. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Council, do you need any further clarity from Mr. Mills while he's up here? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I would like to suggest that the ideas from Mr. Nichols are things that I would personally like to see. I would like the ACHD board to clarify not only that, but also the process of removing that gate and so if we could take that back and give something that Meridian City CounGl Meeting January 13, 2004 Page 62 of 70 would be clear enough to us as a body, that it would also be clear to the residents, that would be appreciated. Mills: Madam Mayor, could I ask a clarification on that, please? When you say the process of removing, you're talking about the physical removal or you're talking about the process -the public process? Wardle: I'm talking about -- if I'm a citizen, I want to know how -- what actions would need to be taken to remove that gate and allow traffic to flow through my street. That's what I want to know. I want to know how I'm going to be notified if I have an opportunity to speak or, if not, Iwould --those are the kind of clarifications that I would like to see. Mills: Thank you. I understand. D,e Weerd: Thank you. Council, any further discussion? It appears that there are some things unresolved, if you want to continue this, you can certainly do so or take action if some of it isn't pertinent to the direction you're going. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I'll just make a comment before someone makes a motion. If it is the desire of Council to continue this matter for that purpose to get some clarity from the Ada County Highway District, I certainly am not going to oppose that, but I guess I also want to make clear, at least even at this juncture, sometimes we do that and it tends to give the false impression that if we can clarify this one piece, then, that's good enough. I'm not -- I'm not right now sold on this project, I'm not really comfortable with the density, the open space, the design and the scape, so if we clarify this one piece, I'm certainly not going t o c ommit t hat I'm i n f avor o f i t a nyway. M y p ersonal feeling i s l d on't h ave a reason in my mind to continue it to answer a piece when I have a whole lot of other concerns about it anyway. If the Council wants to do that, (certainly-- I don't care if we gather more information, but I don't want to leave anybody with the impression that that alone is enough. At least right now it's not. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Any other comments or a motion? Rountree: We need to close the hearing. De Weerd: If you would like to take action on this application, we could close the Public Hearing. If you wish to continue it for more information, we would not want to close the Public Hearing. Wardle: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Meridian City Coundl Meetlng January 13, 2004 Page 63 of JO VNardle: I would move that we continue this Public Hearing for specific comments from ACHD to a date certain and would ask that -- I'm not sure what that date would be. Do l need to ask Mr. Mills? De Weerd: You can suggest a date and he can nod his agreement or you ask him to come and suggest a date. Wardle: Mr. Mills, could you, please, come up and suggest a date forme? Mills: Bruce Mills, Ada County Highway District. I, actually, have a question maybe for Mr. Nichols, because I'm not -- I haven't gone through this process myself. The things they are asking, would it be -- would it have to go back through a Public Hearing process before the commission, in your opinion? Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm grateful I'm not the ACHD lawyer on many occasions. I don't know that a Public Hearing is necessary to clarify parts of the findings that should have been so specified, which is what everybody's testimony was, including the applicant. Whether there are, you know, some of the additional things that I suggested, maybe that's already included in your procedures for hearings, you know, removal of gate requires notice to all the property owners along that street kind of thing, maybe that's already there. If it's not, then, I don't know if that requires a public hearing and it certainly would be the kind of conditions that would-- basically are more stressful, if you will, to the applicant than they are to the neighbors, because they are designed for the protection of the neighbors and I'm not sure if a public hearing is necessary. That was a long way of saying I don't know. Mills: And, Madam Mayor, I wish I knew myself exactly and I probably should and I apologize for that. I would say, to be on the safe side, probably four weeks, just to make sure we are through this process. If it could be done earlier, we could still get that information to your staff. I don't know if you can change your agenda at that point, but that would probably be the date that I would be looking at. That would just assume that we would still have to get it on our council agenda with proper notice, get an answer and be able to get it back so you can put it on your agenda. De Weerd: So, you could always do it for two weeks and if the Commission has not been able to act on it, if that is the necessary step, we can, then, continue it out at a better time certain or a date certain. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: And I'm not seconding the motion, because I didn't want to continue it, brat I would only suggest that rather than having these people come back in two weeks, if it's going to be continued, and come back in two weeks. Maybe we will set it over again, Meridian Glty Council Meeting January 13, 2004 Page 64 of 70 we're probably better off setting it off three or four weeks and, then, we probably would have an answer, more likely, rather than having all these people come back twice. De Weerd: That is an excellent point. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Taking that into consideration, I move that we continue this hearing, Public Hearing, to February 10th, four weeks from today. Bird: Is that for all three Public Hearings? Wardle: All three Public Hearings, yes. De Weerd: For specific issues? Wardle: With the intent of clarification of ACHD's findings concerning the gate on Duane Drive. De Weerd: Do I have second? Rountree: What the heck. I will second that. We will get it going. De W eerd: Okay. It's been first -- or it's been moved to continue -- Yes, first and seconded. I is been moved to continue this Public Hearing to February 10th to hear back from ACHD on the requirement of the gate -- of the public process for the gate removal, a s w ell a s p ublic n otification. I s t here any further d iscussion? A II t hose i n favor say aye. Those opposed say nay. MOTION TIED: TWO AYES, TWO NAYES De Weerd: Thank you. I get to vote tonight. I, too, will vote naye. The motion fails. I would consider a second motion. MOTION CARRIED: THREE NAYES, TWO AYES Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we close the Public Hearings on AZ 03-021, PP 03-024, and CUP 03-041, regarding Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates. Nary: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting January 13, 2004 Page 65 of 70 De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Items 17, 18, and 19. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed naye? Okay. Three ayes. The ayes have it. The Public Hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE De Weerd: Discussion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I, too, am like Councilman Nary. The gate in the findings of ACHD is a small part of this, in my mind. I think -- and I realize that most of those properties on the drive there, what back up to it is probably pasture. Your houses are probably towards the street, but I think this is just a real density. I see nothing of what's going to happen off of Eagle. We h eve got some surprises before by doing this, by not knowing what the complete development was going to be. I just think there needs to be a lot of work done on this particular deal before I could support it and it's just not the gate. De Weerd: Is there any further comments or discussion? Mr. Wardle? Wardle: And I would just like to say that while Imay or -- well, 1 can't support the project itself with the f findings that we have without the clarification on the gate. While that doesn't mean that I -- that I disagree with the density I certainly disagree with the findings as is without the clarification that we have, so I'd just like to say that that's the case. De Weerd: Thank you. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess before we make any motions, I would just make one more comment. I think I probably said my piece as to what I think of this project. I do respect Mr. Groves and Mrs. McKay and I do think they have put together a lot of projects that have been very beneficial to the city. I think this one just needs a little more time. I think there is -- Ithink there are ways to make this project more attractive for all involved, including the city. I think Mr. Bird's right, there is some -there are some question marks out there that just concern me today in wanting to approve this as it's presented. You know, you get -- you get used to sometimes, sitting up here, that people aren't always happy with the results of decisions that are either brought before us that we agree with or disagree with, but that road and that gate is not a seller to me. We have had issues that lasted for years -- and Mr. Groves knows it --and it is not something that we would tread into Meridian City Council Meeting January 13, 2004 Page 68 of 70 lightly and I think it is a problem. It isn't the only problem, as I already stated, but it is a problem, but, again, the density and the design of this project, the type of open space, the fact that it is a PUD, I think it could be done in a much more transitional way than what is presented. I think it could be done better and I hope to see it again in a little bit different configuration. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'd like to state that I'm not -- I didn't -- the gate is a problem, but it wasn't the only problem I see. The road there. I see another -- to be flat out truthful, I see another Wingate Lane. I seriously do. Of all the people, I probably get the most phone calls over that and I don't want to go through it again. I don't think the people that live on that Duane Drive want to go through it. I don't think the developer wants to go through it. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Thank you, Keith, for reminding me of that. Bird: It started with you. Rountree: I know. It's one of those things you don't want to remember. I guess -there is some really good aspects of this and I appreciate the toughness of the site, because not only is it rural residential, it's urban residential. How do you accomplish a balance between those? There is something about it I don't like, but that doesn't offer the applicant anything and I hate to have them sit there based on a subjective statement like that. I'd like to offer you a solution or a potential solution. I don't have one. The real kicker for me is that I'm concerned what's going to happen on Eagle Road, what kind of access, what kind of development. We have folks here tonight that have testified that, well, I guess as long as you don't run traffic through our neighborhood that at some point in time this development might bring us another access to Eagle Road. Well, that might be somewhat of a hollow promise that's been planted in their minds. I'm not sure that there will be another access on Eagle Road. that benefit them or this subdivision. Having said that, I'll wait for more learned motions from the resident Councilmen and see where I'll go in terms of supporting them. De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Before, apparently, Councilman Nary makes a motion? Nary: Madam Mayor, I'm going to move on Item 17 to deny AZ 03-021, the request for annexation and zoning of 114.52 acres from RUT to an R-8 PD and C-G zones for the propose Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC. South of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road, for counsel to prepare Meridian City CauncB Meeting January 13, 2004 Page 67 of 70 Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order based upon the testimonies, presented tonight. t believe, Mr. Nichols, if I'm correct, you usually suggest that we give the applicant some indication as to why and what they could do differently, or am 1 mixing this up with something else? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there is a state statute that requires when you deny a permit that you inform the applicant what they could do to obtain approval. Technically, annexation and zoning is not a permit, therefore, technically, it does not apply. However, I think it's probably good practice, given the fact this property will develop, if you inform the applicant what it is you would like in an application. It doesn't presuppose that you'll approve it, but it just simply -- it does help an applicant know what they would have to do to obtain approval on -- instead of trying to read your minds with the next one. Nary: Thank you, Mr. Nichols. I guess I would -- part of the motion that the Findings, of Facts indicate that the concerns that were -- have been expressed by the. Council tonight in regards to the density. The buffering with the existing residential homes along the b oundary o f t his property, t he open space --the usable o pen s pace, t he k ind of usable open space that is presented. The amenities that are included as part of the PUD, as well as the access point through different portions of the subdivision, as well as the lack of -- the lack of clarity or conceptual plans regarding the western most portion of the property that abuts Eagle Road. I think all of those concerns have been expressed by the Council tonight on this property, should be reflected in the findings. Bird: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to deny approval of AZ 03-021 for the stated reasons. Mr. Clerk, will you, please call roll. Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES De Weerd: Thank you. Items 18 and 19 are a mute point, but I do believe we do need motions. Nary: ,Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I'd move the denial of PP 03-024, the request for Preliminary Plat approval of 302 building lots and 28 other lots on 90.29 acres in a proposed R-8 PD zone for the proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development. South of east Ustick Road, east of North Eagle Road, for counsel to prepare Findings of MeridianCity Ccuncil Meeting January 13, 2004 Page 68 of 70 Facts, Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order, based upon the comments by the Council and the fact that the property has not been annexed into the city. Bird: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to deny PP 03-024. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES De Weerd: Thank you. Item 19. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I'd move the denial of CUP 03-041, the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for a single family residential use, with reduced setbacks, lot sizes, lot frontages, house sizes, and increased block length for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development. South of East Ustick Road, east of North Eagle Road, and for counsel to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order, pursuant to Council's discussion this evening and that the property has not been annexed into the city. Bird: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to deny the approval of CUP 03-041. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Nary, aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Okay. We do have an Item 20, Executive Session Bird: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'd move that we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67- 2345(1)(b). Nary: Second.