Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 03-08 Meridian Citv Council Meetina March 8. 2005. The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:03 P.M., Tuesday, March 1, 2005, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Shaun Wardle, Charlie Rountree, and Christine Donnell. Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Brad Watson, Brad Hawkins-Clark, John Overton, Kenny Bowers, Doug Strong and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. -L Shaun Wardle ---X-Christine Donnell - Charlie Rountree ~Keith Bird ~ Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: I will go ahead and call the regular meeting for the City Council to order. It is Tuesday, March 8th. It is three minutes after 7:00. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, start us with roll call attendance. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: Girl Scout Service Unit 55 De Weerd: Thank you. I would like to welcome our Girl Scout Troop. They are from Service Unit 55. We welcome you here this evening and they will be posting the flag, so if you will, please, all rise. (Pledge of allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Kevin Moyer, Meridian First Baptist Church: De Weerd: Thank you. We would like to welcome the girls from Service Unit 55. This is Girl Scout Week and I will be reading a proclamation in a few minutes to honor this week for our Girl Scouts. So, Item No.3 is our community invocation. We will be lead by Pastor Moyer. He is with Meridian First Baptist Church. Thank you for joining us and I would ask you all to join us or take this moment -- or take this as an opportunity for a moment of silence. Moyer: Let's pray. Father in Heaven, we offer up our thanks to you tonight. Just being here again reminds us of how blessed we are as a nation to have such freedoms to see our boys and girls growing up in programs to teach them these wonderful principals and that we have the joy, without any fears to raise them and to see these kinds of opportunities. Thank you for our great land and I thank you for our government. We are thankful for just being able to live right here in Meridian and I thank you for our Meridian City Council March 8. 2005 Page 2 of 34 leadership from our Mayor, our Council Members, our fire department, our policemen, we are just grateful and we ask tonight, as many citizens will gather to share concerns and to try to deliberate issues, that you would grant wisdom and direction tonight and that there would be discernment here and grace and kindness. Again, Father, we give you thanks and praise for this opportunity we have in this wonderful land that you have given to us, in Christ's name we pray, amen. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: Thank you so much. Okay. Item No.4 is the adoption of the agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: On the Consent Agenda our resolution numbers are 05-464 and 05-465 and on our Executive Session the city attorney has added -- would like to add item C also to F. And with that I move that we approve the revised agenda. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve the adoption of the agenda with the addition to Item 18 of C. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: D. E. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of February 8, 2005 City Council Regular Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of February 15, 2005 City Council Regular Meeting: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 04- 044 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 office lots on 4.65 acres in an R-8 zone for Verona Subdivision No.3 by Primeland Development, LLP - NEC of North Ten Mile Road and West Milano Drive: Storev Park Phase II Construction Chanae Order No.4 for Removal and ReDlacement of Soft Areas: Aareement for Ustick Widenina Project - Desian of Water and Sewer bv Quadrant: Meridian City Councii March 8, 2005 Page 3 of 34 F. Streetliaht Aareement for Sutherland Farm No.3 bv Great Skv Inc.: G. Resolution No. 05-464 Establishing Adventure Island Playground Rules Under the Park Regulations Code for the Parks and Recreation Department for the City of Meridian: H. Resolution No. 05.465 Adopting the Meridian Parks and Recreation Properties Naming Policy for the Parks and Recreation Department of the City of Meridian: De Weerd: Item No.5 is our Consent Agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda, including resolutions 05-464 and 05-465 and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve the Consent Agent. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Department Reports A. Mayors Office 1. Proclamation for Girl Scouts: De Weerd: Thank you. If I could ask the Girl Scouts to, please, come forward as I read this proclamation. We are very honored to have you joining us tonight and I would like to read this proclamation. Whereas Saturday, March 12th, 2005, marks the 93rd anniversary of the Girl Scouts of America founded by Juliette Gordon Low in 1912 in Savanah, Georgia, and whereas they have a long a distinguished history, Girl Scouting has inspired millions of girls and women with the highest ideas of character, conduct, and patriotism and whereas through Girl Scouting girls grow strong, gain self confidence and leadership skills and learn the life long lesson of contributing to their communities and whereas Girl Scouting takes an active role in increasing girls' awareness of opportunities available to them today in math, science, sports, technology, and other fields, can expand their horizons and, whereas, more than 3.8 million current Girl Scout Melidian City Counc;; March 8, 2005 Page 4 of 34 members nationwide will be celebrating 93 years of this American tradition with nearly 50 million women who are former Girl Sounds and living proof of the impact of this amazing movement. Therefore, I, Tammy de Weerd, Mayor of the City of Meridian, do hereby applaud the commitment Girl Scouting has made to America's girls and proudly proclaim the week of March 6 through 12th, 2005, as Girl Scout Week, in recognition of its value to the community of Meridian and I would like to present this to Martha Schneider and congratulate you girls for your accomplishments through scouting and continue to stay with it, you make a difference in our communities. 2. Letter to Support GARVEE Bond Legislation: De Weerd: It isn't often that we have an opportunity to recognize young -- our youth of our community that makes valuable contributions to our city and to many different events throughout the region. So, I appreciate your tolerance during this opportunity to recognize these young Girl Scouts. Council, I had given you a copy of a letter of support from the Mayor and Council to our elected officials on GARVEE bonds and I would to have your support and your signatures. So, if I can get a motion, I would certainly appreciate it. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we send out the letter to our representatives and to the governor and to ITD and that supporting the GARVEE bonds as legislation is written. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to accept -- or support the GARVEE bond legislation. The letter we have written to our eight elected officials in Districts 14, 20, and 21. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes -- well, three ayes and one abstention. Rountree: Abstention. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. B. Planning and Zoning 1. Response to Ada County Board of Commissioners regarding Area of City Impact: County De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Also under Department Reports we have our Planning and Zoning Department. Oh, it's not Anna Canning, it's Brad Hawkins-Clark. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. Meridian City Council March 8, 2005 Page 5 of 34 De Weerd: Thank you, Brad. Hawkins-Clark: Hopefully, the Council has had a chance to review just that page and a half letter that was placed in your packets that our department drafted. Essentially, it's just stating that you, as the City Council, are wanting the Ada County Board of Commissioners and their staff to deal with Eagle City in terms of that north area. .1 think some of the other items in that letter are just kind of updates for that area of city impact change. So, if you have got any questions, I would be happy to answer them, but, otherwise, I think the goal of this was just to get your support and we can send it out tomorrow. De Weerd: Council, any questions regarding that letter? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. I believe the signatures were myself, and Councilman Wardle as President. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Brad. Do I need a motion to sign? Nary: Madam Mayor, probably voice vote would be -- rather than roll call. De Weerd: Do I have a motion? Rountree: So moved. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion, I'm assuming, is to approve the letter for signature. All those in favor say aye, All ayes, Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) De Weerd: There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda. De Weerd: So, we will move to Item 8, which is FP 05-014 and we will start with staff comments. 2. Comment Letter to Boise City Meridian City Council March 8, 2005 Page 6 of 34 Hawkins-Clark: Madam Mayor, I'm sorry, I didn't -- I see that I didn't get it onto the agenda, but could I take one other -- about three minutes to update on another department report or do you want to do that at the end? De Weerd: What is that regarding? Hawkins-Clark: It's regarding a request that the city received from Boise city on a comment for an application that they are processing on Eagle Road, De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have any objections to hearing that right now? Rountree: No. De Weerd: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. On the screen is the application that the City of Meridian received from Boise city. This is North Eagle Road. The Winston Moore Blue Marlin Project is here immediately to the south. The Lowe's project is here. So, we are just north of Ustick Road. So, this small two acre site is proposed for a rezone and, then, the site plan that they gave to Boise city is here and, you know, often we get letters from Ada County, we don't get letters from Boise city very often asking for comment, but we are a commenting agency, since it is adjacent to our city limits, and, essentially, what the planning and zoning staff was planning to do was just submit a letter to the planning and zoning commission of Boise city saying we do not support a full access at this location to Eagle Road. The question is does the City Council agree with that and, if so, fine, we will send a letter. The main point that we are looking for is in the -- the development agreement, when the City of Meridian -- this is, actually, pending, here in the next couple of weeks you should see this, but with the W.H. Moore Company there was a condition that they provide either a public or a private street adjacent to Eagle Road, so that some cross-access could happen there. And, then, you may recall there is a street that comes across the south end of the Nazarene church site north of the Brighton property, Bald Cyprus is the name of that street, and what we will be asking for is that the cross-access be provided, so that this parcel can come down and align generally with Bald Cyprus. And, again, this is just a comment, of course. Boise city has the final say, but I think since we had received the letter, we wanted to run that by you. De Weerd: Brad, have we heard from ITD? Is that the goal for ITD as well? Hawkins-Clark: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we have been using the Eagle Road corridor study that was completed about a year ago that ITD had and they -- that study shows center medians in Eagle Road with median breaks that would allow for movements right there, turning movements near Bald Cyprus, but it would be -- there would be no breaks all the way up until I think it's Wainwright, where there would be a proposed signal. So, it's generally in conformance with that study. I don't think we have received anything specific to this application. Meridian City Council March 8, 2005 Page 7 of 34 De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, do you have any questions or comments? Rountree: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. I guess, Brad, if you will draft a letter -- Council, do you want that letter to be written by staff or would you also like to see it under your Council president's signature and my own? Donnell: Madam President, I think that can be handled by staff. De Weerd: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Thank you. We will get that out. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. And if you will also cc ITD on that as well. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Item 8: FP 05-014 Request for Final Plat approval of 18 commercial building lots on 33.1 acres for Destination Place Subdivision (fka Boise Valley Commons) by Boise Valley Commons, LLC - east of South Locust Grove Road and north of East Overland Road: De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Item No.8. Hawkins-Clark: Mayor, Members of the Council, this final plat is for Destination Place Subdivision and what you see on the screen is the approved preliminary plat. They are coming in with a final plat on the full property as the boundaries of the preliminary plat. As you can see, it's virtually identical. They have the two public streets that align with Resolution to the south that come in and make a loop and, then, they have cross- access, shared driveways, throughout the project here to serve these other lots. Staff finds that it substantially complies with the preliminary plat and there is just one minor change that the applicant had pointed out to me tonight and that's on page three of the staff report regarding the pressurized irrigation system for this subdivision that -- the report says it will be owned and maintained by Boise Valley Commons, but that's an error, it's going to actually be Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. So, I -- my understanding is with that one change they are in agreement with all of the staff conditions that are recommended to you tonight. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Brad. Any questions for staff? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Rountree: I have none. Meridian City Councii March 8, 2005 Page 8 of 34 De Weerd: If there is -- we received a comment from the applicant. If there is nothing further, I would entertain a motion. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the final plat for Item No.8, FP 05-014, subject to staff comments and the correction as it relates to the reference to Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District -- Donnell: Second. Rountree: -- as opposed to -- Donnell: Oh, I'm sorry. Rountree: -- the Commons. Donnell: I thought you were through talking. Rountree: I'm done. I'm done. I'm done. Donnell: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No.8. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: FP 05-011 Request for Final Plat approval of 57 single-family residential building lots and 9 common lots on 27.73 acres in a R-4 zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No.5 by Great Sky, Inc. - east of South Eagle Road and north of East Victory Road De Weerd: Okay. Item No.9 is FP 05-011. We will start with staff comments, Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mayor and Members of the Council. Sutherland Farms Subdivision is coming in for their fifth phase and this is on the western -- or, I'm sorry, eastern end of their development. South Eagle Road is out here. Victory Road on the south end. And it's this area that they are coming in for final plat on. Here is a detail of that final plat. This phase does include an approximately five-acre park site, which came through in the preliminary plat a few years ago intended to be a private park for the neighborhood. However, I was informed recently last week that Doug Strong, parks Meridian City Council March 8, 2005 Page 9 of 34 director, has been in conversations with Trevor Roberts, the owner of the land, about a possibility of this common area becoming public. I think those discussions are ongoing. That's mainly just a point of interest that I wanted to mention, I think that the applicant is -- and staff have agreed to the conditions as they are worded. Really, the only difference would be related to how the note on the final plat references this lot. Today, it says it is owned and maintained by the homeowners association. If a -- if the property was conveyed at some point in the future, obviously, that title transfer and whatnot would happen and that would be reflected through other records, but I think as it's written before you tonight -- the other thing to point out is the Ridenbaugh Canal does run along the north boundary of this phase. This stub street goes into the city card site, the Silverstone development. The pathway, as the condition is currently worded, would have a public easement on it, since it is designated as a public pathway in our Comprehensive Plan. That is addressed in condition number four, which is on page two of the staff report, and the proposal that came from Daren Fluke, who is representing the applicant tonight, for that is to modify it just slightly, if the Council so agrees. That would be on the second line of that item number four, which says the pedestrian easements would be created for the pathway, et cetera, and, then, recorded prior to signature of the city engineer on the final plat, then, would be added. Or the lots shall be dedicated to the city for ownership and maintenance by the parks department. And, then, if an easement is created, the easement shall be sufficient width to cover the ten foot. So, I think that the modification would actually take place either way. So, whether or not that public pathway is in a common lot that's owned by the city or within an easement, it basically leaves the door open for that to occur later on. That's the one proposed change that we received from the applicants. Other than that, my understanding is they are in agreement. De Weerd: Thank you, Brad. Any questions for staff? Okay. I guess I have a question for Brad Watson and this is out of the blue, I just want to challenge you tonight. There have been some drainage issues on other parts of this subdivision and -- are you familiar with those? Watson: Madam Mayor, Council Members, I may have been aware at one time, but, forgive me, I don't recall those right now. De Weerd: Okay. I will see if the applicant might know, too. Would the applicant like to have comment? If you will, please, state your name and address. Fluke: Madam Mayor, thank you. Daren Fluke, JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise. De Weerd: Thank you. Do you have comments on the staff report on this particular-- Fluke: With regard to the pathway, if you will remember a couple of years go when we went through the preliminary process, our understanding at that time was that we would be dedicating the pathway, because it's shown on the regional pathway plan and the Comprehensive Plan, and so that's how we have been proceeding, This phase three Meridian City Council March 8. 2005 Page 10 of 34 here is the first phase to hit the Ridenbaugh, so this is our first go around with dedicating the path. We are speaking with Doug Strong about how to make that happen and so we just asked for the -- that modification to allow us the flexibility to give it to the public or to maintain it if need be as -- by the HOA. With regard to the drainage issue, I would say that's been blown utterly out of proportion. That happens to be an issue with some lot grading. The applicants -- or the owner of the property, at his sole expense and initiative, went in and did some finish grading on some lots and because of a difference in grade we had installed a retaining wall in between a couple of lots and we installed a French drain to deal with that and there is some disagreement with the contractor for the owner -- the new owner or buyer of one of the lots that abuts that wall and he's unhappy with how the French drain was constructed or installed and whether or not there is a gravel sump at the end of that. It's a minor fix.' It's -- you know, and it's perplexing that it's made its way to you, but it's really not an issue with drainage in the subdivision at all. De Weerd: That's only because I'm my own secretary lately and I get every call now. Don't let that be an incentive to call the Mayor's office, okay? Fluke: I'll send an e-mail. De Weerd: That's the only reason I know about it. But I thought this was a great opportunity and what a coincidence. Fluke: It is a minor issue and we are resolving it with the owner of the lot, so -- De Weerd: Thank you. I appreciate that update. Do you have any questions, Council, for the applicant? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Hearing the applicant's agreement and no other comments, J would move that we approve Item No.9, FP 05-011, final plat for Sutherland Farms Subdivision No.5, including staff and applicant comments with regard to item number four and the ability for the lots to potentially be dedicated to the City of Meridian. Donnell: Second. Meridian City Council March 8, 2005 Page 11 of 34 De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item No.9 as amended. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: FP 05-012 Request for Final Plat approval for 52 single-family residential building lots and 6 common lots on 13.55 acres in a R-8 zone for Fulfer Subdivision No.4 by Kevin Howell - north of McMillan Road and west of Linder Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 10 is FP 05-012. I will start with staff comments on this item. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. This is a preliminary plat for what originally came through as Kelly Creek and is now being called Fulfer Subdivision. This is phase four. The preliminary plat generally is there. I think there is a few changes. This might have been just a slightly older version, but we are talking about this phase in the southwest corner. Again, this is McMillan Road along the south. This is in between Meridian and Linder roads on the north side of McMillan. This area that you see here that fronts on McMillan Road was approved as part of Kelly Creek's planned development for office use and is, actually, zoned L-O today. There is an existing residence on this lot, which the -- the plat that you received did actually include that lot. As you can see on this preliminary plat, they -- it was a large lot that was intended to either at the time remain as a residence or could, potentially, be integrated with -- folded into this -- to this office use. The applicant has chosen to go towards the direction of having this lot be preserved for integrating with the office and so there would be a cross-connection there to the west. So, this final plat actually removes that lot, which, again, is different than what you have got in your packets. Other than that, it's exactly the same plat. Now, is there -- there is a common lot right here in this area that separates that out parcel from this public street and we have asked for there to be an access easement across that just to, basically, plan for the potential for this lot to still need to access internal to the subdivision. We think that's a good idea to keep that option open for everyone. So, the staff report does recommend that. Otherwise, the lot patterns and configurations, everything else is in conformance with the preliminary plat. Since that lot has been removed, it does affect two conditions and if the Council is supportive of that, they are conditions number 13, which could be stricken entirely, that currently states a 97-foot wide easement shown on Lot 29, Block 12, shall be reduced to a maximum width of 20 feet and that's talking about a driveway easement that was shown for the existing house onto McMillan Road. If you agree this lot won't be in this phase now and so that easement is not a part. The other condition that would change is number 16 that says the applicant shall create a minimum 20-foot ingress-egress easement across Lot 28 and instead of saying for Lot 29, it should say the residential lot to the south. And with those two changes staff does recommend approval. And the revised plat date is March 8th and that's the one that excluded Lot 29, Block 12. Meridian City Council March 8, 2005 Page 120f34 De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Brad. Any questions for staff? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Is there any comment from the applicant? Okay, The applicant is in agreement with all the staff comments, then. Except for what was discussed. Okay. Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, I would move that we approve Item No, 10, FP 05-012, final plat for Fulfer Subdivision No.4, including all staff comments, striking condition number 13, amending condition 16 to read the residential lot to the south,. instead of Lot 29, and noting the final plat date of March 8th, 2005. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 10 with the noted changes. Are there any questions to those changes or comments? Okay. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: FP 05-013 Request for Final Plat approval of 77 single-family residential building lots on 19.4 acres in a R-8 zone for Chatsworth Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - South Locust Grove Road and south of Victory Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 11 is FP 05-013. We will start with Brad. Hawkins-Clark: Thanks. Chatsworth Subdivision is a subdivision that's on South Locust Grove Road on the west side just south of Roseleaf Subdivision to the north and, then, Tuscany Lakes north of that. They are proposing to come in with the entire subdivision as a single final plat, 77 single-family lots and four common lots, 19.4 acres. They have shown their common areas in the same locations. All the street stubs, everything is complying with the preliminary plat. I do understand that the applicant has a couple of changes that they would like to discuss with the Council that Brad Watson may also have some comments on. But other than that, we are recommending approval of this application. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Brad, do you have any additional comments? Brad Watson. Watson: Madam Mayor, Council Members, no, the applicant has made me aware of two items he would like to address tonight and I have discussed them with him, so I will let him do that. Meridian City Council March 8, 2005 Page 130f34 De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address. Kinkela: Chad Kinkela, Bailey Engineering, 1500 East Iron Eagle Drive. De Weerd: Thank you. Kinkela: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. We are just simply requesting a modification to condition number nine on the site-specific comments for final plat. To my understanding during the preliminary platting process the applicant agreed to provide a gated access to the parcel -- to the out parcel to the east. The condition here is asking for a gate to be installed the full width of the street and I believe that would be a fairly wide gate. The road is 36 feet wide. So, we are requesting that that condition be modified to a more standard size gate of say 12 to 14 feet wide. And, then, the second condition that we had a little bit of concern about was condition number 12, which talks about prior to issuance of the 51st building permit we would need to have an approved secondary access and I just was curious about the -- the subdivision to the north is Roseleaf Subdivision, phase one, which is already paved and platted. If -- I have put together a bigger exhibit here that would show that that would have secondary access going through phase one of Roseleaf number -- Roseleaf Subdivision. So, I didn't know if that would satisfy that condition and if that was the case if that could be removed, De Weerd: Okay. Staff, have you looked at the plat he's referring to and would that second access qualify? Chief, have you had an opportunity to look at that? Bowers: Madam Mayor, City Council, no, I have not, so -- I don't know if Brad has in their meetings or not. Watson: Madam Mayor, Council Members, I'm trying to remember if Roseleaf has actually been platted yet. I have signed it and it's recorded. Okay. There is a lot of them. But if it is platted, then, they do have access out to Locust Grove Road, I don't know that this has to be definitively addressed tonight, because if he does have that secondary access and it's platted, then, the building permits down the road will be released. So, really, this condition I don't think affects you tonight or -- if it stays in. Kinkela: Thanks for you time and -- De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have any questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you so much. Okay, Council? Councilman Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor-- Melidian City Councii March 8, 2005 Page 140f34 Rountree: You're going to jump all over these tonight, aren't you? Wardle: I got it. No problem. I would move that we approve Item No. 12, FP 05-013, final plat for Chatsworth Subdivision, specifically noting the applicant's comments on item number nine, specifying gate width across the road to the private piece of property to be not the entire width of the roadway, but a more modest 12 to 14 feet -- 14 foot gate. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 11 with changes to number nine in site specific. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: VAC 05-003 Request for a Vacation of the golf course easement located on Lots 44, 45, 46, & 47, Block 1 of Spurwing Subdivision by Spurwing Limited Partnership - North of Chinden Boulevard and west of North Linder Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 12 is VAC 05-003. We will start with staff comments, Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. This is a -- probably the most unique vacation I think that I have seen come through. This is a request from the Spurwing Subdivision to the north of Meridian on the north side of Chinden, one of those oddities in the state statute that says if easements are within a mile of the city limit, then, the city has to take a look at it. So, that's why you're seeing. It is within a mile of Lochsa Falls Subdivision. The land is not today in the city limits, but because at some point in time the state legislature said you should talk about this, that's why you're talking about this, so -- the request is for a golf course easement that's located on four lots generally in the center of the golf course and they are proposing to vacate that -- that easement and the applicants -- Mr. Pat Tealey from Tealey's Land Surveying is here to answer any questions you may have about it. De Weerd: Thank you, Brad. Council, since the legislature told you you need to talk about this, I will open this up for discussion. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I would like to hear from Pat about the lots and what we are vacating and why. Tealey: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Pat Tealey, office address 2501 Bogus Basin. When we first started this process we didn't think we would end up Meridian City Council March 8, 2005 Page 150f34 here either, but we couldn't find anybody that would take the paperwork, so you guys are stuck with it. It's all yours, De Weerd: Friendly staff. Tealey: Thanks, Brad. It did get ping-ponged between the county and the city and back to the county and, then, back to the city again and, finally, the jurisdiction was found. All we are trying to do here is -- Spurwing Development, LLC, and the owner of the lots and the two recorded owners, Mr. Compton and Mr. Langer, wish to vacate an easement that allows the golf course to dictate what kind of landscaping goes adjacent to the course. The reason that we are asking for the vacation is because topographically the golf course could never actually use that easement. So, in order to take the -- basically a hindrance on their lot away from them and allow them to landscape it how they see, rather than being under the jurisdiction of the golf course, we decided to vacate it. So, now we are here before you to -- I know you're not really concerned about it, but -- and there are no public utilities and really nothing to address other than that. De Weerd: We are concerned, because we think regionally. Tealey: So maybe we will end up in your jurisdiction here shortly. De Weerd: Council, any questions. Bird: I have none. Tealey: Thanks. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: My only recommendation on this item is that if the Council is going to approve that request, that you simply direct staff, we will send a letter similar to the process we initially did with the highway district in simply sending a comment letter that it was acted upon in this state, you know, that the City Council has directed that they had no objection to this particular request and I think that would make the process a little bit simpler. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I so move, Bird: I second. Meridian City Council March 8, 2005 Page 160f34 De Weerd: I thought I'd get that kind of motion. Okay. The motion is to approve VAC 05-003, with direction to staff to send a letter reiterating what Mr. Nary said, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: RZ 05-001 Request for a Rezone of .249 acres from R-8 to O-T zone for Robert Monson by Robert Monson - 829 North Meridian Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 05-001 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an office / retail use in an O-T zone for Robert Monson by Robert Monson - 829 North Meridian Road: De Weerd: Okay. Items 13 and 14 are public hearings on RZ 05-001 and Public Hearing CUP 05-001. I will open these two public hearings, Items 13 and 14, with staff comments. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This item -- both of these items deal with an existing residence that has been vacant for some time here on the southwest corner of Meridian and Pine. So, we are currently sitting in this location -- well, I guess we are down here. Where are we? Just across the street. The request for the rezone is to be changed from its existing R-8 to Old Town. This whole area over to approximately West 4th is designated in the Comprehensive Plan to be in Old Town. You have seen a few of these come in sort of one at a time, since we have not done a city-initiated rezone application for this whole area, So, basically, as these properties are redeveloping you're seeing these rezone applications come in and that's exactly what you have here tonight. So, as far as the Comprehensive Plan is concerned, the Old Town designation does work. This is the Conditional Use Permit site plan that they submitted. Again, this is Pine on the north and Meridian Road out here on the right side of the screen. What they are proposing to do is to have a curb cut off of Pine. The historic school, of course, is just right across the street. This would run a driveway around the backside of the house. They have angled parking, two spaces here on the backside of the structure. A new solid waste enclosure would be constructed here in the corner. And, then, they have parallel parking along the south boundary. And then -- and access onto Meridian Road. This is the existing residence, built in 1911, and a very nice structure, still in very good condition, They are not proposing any modifications to the facade. Here is the side that faces Pine. Just have the two photos for you this evening. But the Planning and Zoning Commission did review this, they have recommended approval to you on both applications. There was no opposition at the Public Hearing at the Planning and Zoning Commission. The main comments that they addressed and are asking you to talk about have to do with the placement of a sign. As you know, there is -- there is some -- still a little bit of uncertainly as to the exact width of Meridian Road under the downtown transportation Meridian City Council March 8, 2005 Page 17 of 34 plan as far as ACHD's ultimate right of way. It could be that they would need an additional six feet beyond what they already are asking for, but they cannot require that six feet, because it's not in a five year work program. So, some of the discussion had to do with, well, does the City of Meridian want to insure that the full width is available for the ultimate widening of Meridian Road and, really, the only effect that it frankly -- since they are not proposing to expand the structure, is the location of a future sign and whether or not that sign is located in the ultimate right of way or if it's placed outside of that. There are some very nice trees, which in either case in the future would probably have to go, because they are just too close to Meridian Road, if that Meridian Road project occurs as currently -- or tentatively planned for. So, that easement issue was one of the items that they discussed. The other thing that got a little bit of conversation was -- there is a basement in the building and how that mayor may not be used for storage for their office-retail use and how that relates to parking, at this point they would not have that for use, is my understanding. There was some question about the exact size of the -- at the P&Z meeting, maybe we can ask them to address that tonight for you. The one small change I think is that the recommendation references the site plan, dated November 15th, and it's, actually, February 3rd, '05. That's the revised one that they made just before the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that added the trash enclosure and added a parking space on the west side of the building, so -- and I think you have only had a couple of these where you would -- what you have tonight is, actually, the findings as well. The next item on your agenda tonight also has that. But if you're in agreement with the conditions as proposed for both this item and Alexandria Subdivision that's following this, since you have the findings, that could be adopted tonight, is my understanding, unless you have substantial changes that you want done by the applicants and if you just want to direct staff to proceed with those, then, you wouldn't have to request the findings come back to you. De Weerd: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: That kind of gives you a summary of where the Planning and Zoning Commission is coming from. All of the recommended conditions are there in the recommendation before you tonight and I can try to answer any questions you have. De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have any questions for Brad? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here this evening? Would you like to come forward and comment. If you will, please, state your name and address. Monson: Good evening. My name is Robert Monson. I live in Meridian, 2547 North Tuscan Street in Meridian and I'm the person who has submitted this application for your review and after we ended our discussion with the Planning and Zoning Commission there are a few issues and I just -- I just had a chance to look through these documents earlier this afternoon, so there is a few questions I have got concerning them. The first thing would be the easement. The Planning and Zoning Meridian City Council March 8, 2005 Page 180f34 Commission recommended a six foot easement, which I asked them to forego on, but they did pass it, that they did want it, and one of my concerns was it just encumbers the property more and I don't believe that there is really no intent for the city to use that easement. That was never discussed. You know, I don't think they have no intent to use that easement for anything other than looking ahead at the road in the future and my position was that if the highway department needs additional property, you know, there is -- certainly, you know, you have administrative law, you have eminent domain or whatever to come take this property, but, then, it got into the placement of the sign, which is up there, but the Planning and Zoning folks felt they didn't want a sign put on there and, then, in the future if they did take the additional six feet, you know, someone has to pay to remove it. So, I said that I would remove the sign or relocate it at my expense. So, that's kind of a mute point. But I just ask that the easement be, you know, not taken. So, that was one position or -- you know, for comment. The next thing was also kind of the conclusion I came to at the end of that meeting was that it was okay to put the sign, but looking through here I -- they put in one comment in one of these documents that, you know, the sign wasn't approved, but I really think it was. But I'm not sure where that's at. But I definitely would like a little -- you know, provisions for a sign, free-standing sign. And also I see in here now they talk about a fire hydrant, but at that -- at the other meeting I was under the understanding that the fire hydrant was over by the school, so it was a mute point. But now I see it's showing up in this document again, So, I'm not sure what that is. But there is one in front of the school administrative building. So, at that time, you know, I thought that had been resolved, Then, there is one other issue, so -- we are concerned -- the Ada highway -- I guess the highway department, ACHD, they had a list of concerns that they wanted, but one of my kind of questions was you're the City of Meridian, who do J interact with for those folks. Well, whatever you make -- is binding, does it just go to their stuff, because there is some things on there and, see, they are requesting an 18 foot right of way for the road at this time. I know, I would much rather see it come at the time whenever they need the property and at that meeting they said it could be up to nine years. But, anyway, I did talk to those folks a little bit and I didn't really know how to interact with them and they have a pretty good list of stuff here, but one thing was -- that I'd like you folks to consider is that if they take the right of way they are going to reimburse me with the property, you know, but there was some foggy area in how they were going to do this. So, I would like to recommend at the time of the taking that they pay full market value at that time. And they were -- they had a difficult way to calculate that, which wasn't what I would like. Also, then, another one was, you know, funds are available. But, you know, if you deed over property, you know, you certainly like to get paid. So, you know, that is my question. But since they are a different entity, but they do have requirements here in the package. You know, then, another question was how do I deal with those folks or -- since they don't have a hearing or nothing. In other words, you make it binding. I don't want to be, sort of speak, thrown to the wolves with those folks. So, those are the issues that -- the easement, the right of way, the placing of the sign, and the fire hydrant scenario. De Weerd: Okay. Well, we will try and help you get some answers and you do have the last word, so we will see if we can get some responses for you. Meridian City Council March 8, 2005 Page1g of 34 Monson: Okay, De Weerd: I guess while the applicant is at the podium, staff, can you comment on the fire hydrants? Watson: Madam Mayor, Council Members, all I see in the staff report is just the boilerplate comment that comes from the fire department talking about adequate fire protection. I don't see any -- unless I'm just missing it, I don't see something that says there will be another fire hydrant installed. Sorry. That's the best I can do. Is there a specific area? Monson: Yeah. Well, there is probably -- you know, what you were saying, there is just a comment in there from the fire chief or the fire department speaking of fire hydrants and where they are going to be placed and so on and so forth, so -- but, you know, I'm not sure if they -- if that's a binding thing, when they walk out here they might -- but according to the architect that helped me put this together, he said, no, he said you're within the school department there. But, then, I saw it show up again, so I'm not sure now. Watson: Madam Mayor, Council Members, really, the only time where an additional fire hydrant would be needed is if they don't make the spacing requirements and there is a modification to the structure or a new building coming in. I can't speak for the fire marshal, but I can't envision there being an additional fire hydrant required of this application, if there is, in fact, one across the street. De Weerd: Okay. And there is nothing in specific comments by the fire department? Watson: Madam Mayor, no. Not that I see. De Weerd: Okay. So, I think you have just a standard comment there. Monson: Thank you very much. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. Thank you. Well, we will see if we can have our ACHD representative give us some information on the right of way issue and -- Monson: Thank you very much. De Weerd: Thank you. Monson: Appreciate it. Mills: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council. Bruce Mills, Ada County Highway District. One of the wolves. Anyway, the issue on the right of way, I'm not entirely sure Meridian City Council March 8, 2005 Page 20 of 34 -- didn't bring the report, Brad, do you know how much right of way we have out there right now in front of this property? Hawkins-Clark: The way that it's worded in here is it will either be a five lane, 96 feet of total right of way, 48 from center line, or a three lane facility, 70 feet of total. And the condition is to dedicate 42 feet of right of way from the center-line -- Mills: That's fine. The final answer is it's really a little bit variable and the reason I say that is because right now, looking at the plans for the downtown study, it would show that this area is probably going to wind up being a five lane facility under I think any of the options we were looking at, with the exception of a one way couplet and I won't go there tonight. But either five-Ianing Meridian or the split corridor we talked about, becomes a five lane facility in this area north of the railroad tracks. However, it's probably going to be a five lane constrained section and it's very possible that we won't be acquiring right of way symmetrical on the center line, we may be taking it from one side or the other. So, the short answer is that the right of way that we taking, if there is a question about -- that Mr. Monson has about value, I can certainly talk to him outside about that, but at this point that has been a recommendations is to take that much right of way and we may need a little more in the future or, depending on what type of a constrained section we have -- in other words, do we have bike lanes or not, do we put the sidewalk against the curb or not -- there is lots of different variables that we will have to look at that will determine whether that right of way we are buying to 42 feet is enough or not. So, I don't have a definite answer for you tonight on that. The easement -- I assume the easement they are talking about was just to try to have an area that the sign would not go in, but if I heard right and the applicant's willing to move that sign at his expense in the future, that issue goes away certainly for us. Was there any other items? De Weerd: No. But I believe Councilman Rountree has a question, Rountree: Madam Mayor -- and it's that issue, Bruce, the terms of an easement. It seems to me that what you're trying to do and what we need to assist in is to keep a new building or additional building out of what you might need in the future in terms of right of way expansion. So, as opposed to an easement with development setback be sufficient -- you don't need to buy the right of way right now, because -- Mills: We don't. We typically try to buy it at the time of development, but, you're right, we would need it, obviously, when we are doing construction later on. But we don't need an easement. I think the thought was that we were hoping that we wouldn't have to pay to move a sign in the future, if we could get the sign moved out of that area now. We don't mind if the sign goes there now, if the applicant is willing to move it in the future. Put that in writing. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council March 8, 2005 Page 21 of 34 De Weerd: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward for any final comments? Hawkins-Clark: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: While he's coming up, could I just add one comment? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Hawkins-Clark: I -- just for clarification, Mr. Monson's correct, that the P&Z Commission did approve the sign. There wasn't an issue with the sign. I think it just didn't make it into the condition, but I was just reading the minutes from that meeting and it could -- their main concern was -- was the six feet and they have -- they are asking for 42. There is 30 feet of right of way today from cente-line, 42 is what ACHD is asking for, and if it's a five lane, they potentially would have 48. So, I think, again, the purpose of the additional six foot easement that ACHD can't ask for, but that the Commission discussed was -- should the city help ACHD by adding another six feet beyond the 42 foot of right of way, to provide an assurance that that's going to be there, but it sounds like the discussion tonight is leaning towards maybe not requiring an easement, rather a setback or something like that, but, just for clarification, that the sign -- they did want it to be removed at the developer's expense, if that needed to happen in the future. That was the main thing they added. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Brad. If you will restate your name, Monson: Robert Monson. De Weerd: Thank you. Monson: The only further comment I'd have is that -- you know, I do confirm that if the sign were to be, you know, required to be moved within that -- actually, it's 12 feet, six feet, they were talking within that 18 feet, which, obviously, it would be placed, it wouldn't be in the right of way, it would be within that six feet, you know, that I would certainly relocate it at my expense and that can be entered into, you know, your official records. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Monson. Okay. If there is no further information needed or testimony, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearings on Items 13 and 14. Bird: So moved. Rountree: Second. Melidian City Council March 8, 2005 Page 22 of 34 De Weerd. Okay. The motion is to close the public hearings on Items 13 and 14. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Donnell: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell. Donnell: I'd like to move that we approve Item No. 13, RZ 05-001, a request for a rezone from R-8 to OT, at 829 North Meridian Road -- and can I do the next one, too? Can we do them both at the same time? Just that one? De Weerd: Just do them one at a time. Donnell: And so that's -- so that's my motion. Bird: I will second it, but I want to clarify one thing. Now, they have got the findings already and do you want to stay to the findings that is in -- there is no -- you don't want to incorporate some changes that they have made within the staff and the applicant? Donnell: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell. Donnell: I was assuming that those changes needed to be voiced in a motion on -- for Item No. 14. Bird: I agree with you. I second it. De Weerd: Okay, The motion is to approve Item 13. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Item 14. Mrs. Donnell. Donnell: Madam Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to approve Item No. 14, CUP 05-001, conditional use permit for office retail use on 829 North Meridian, incorporating those staff comments and directing -- okay. And requesting that ACHD spend some time with the applicant to answer those questions that he may have and with those revisions that were outlined by the staff, adding the trash and the parking, and whatever else that I didn't write down here, Meridian City Council March 8, 2005 Page 23 of 34 Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. What did you second? Bird: I seconded her motion that she wanted to approve CUP 05-001 with some changes in the findings as before us, because of the comments of staff and applicant and ACHD. Donnell: Very nice, Councilman Bird. De Weerd: And those included the sign relocated as -- Bird: That was the applicant's comments. That's right. De Weerd: Is there any clarification on the easement versus a development setback? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I would -- if we are -- I would like, I guess, an opinion from the city attorney. Certainly in the future and in the past I would prefer to approve the findings, but in this case would it makes more sense for us to clean these findings up, since we are removing an easement and, then, bring back just the findings as we have in the past. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council-member Wardle, since you are wanting an amendment of more than a clerical sort of amendment, it probably would be cleaner to request that the findings be brought back in two weeks with the changes specifically, especially since we are talking about the specific issue regarding the sign and the easement or a setback. I think you're right, that would probably be better, De Weerd: Mr. Nary, can you bring it back in a week, beings how we are not having meeting in two weeks. Nary: Well, I think Mr. Hawkins-Clark is the one bringing back the findings. We will bring back the rezone ordinance, though, as it would be the other piece that you have approved, so we could bring that back as soon as Mr. Hawkins-Clark thinks he can have the -- Bird: He can bring it back the 29th, can't he? The 29th? De Weerd: As far as the findings -- Hawkins-Clark: With just that small change I really don't think there is a problem. I think the ordinance, frankly, will take more time to prepare than just us tweaking the Meridian City Council March 8, 2005 Page 24 of 34 condition on the easement. So, if you want it in one week, the deadline would be this Thursday, so the day after tomorrow, so -- from our standpoint on the CUP findings, they are so minor I don't think we would have any problems doing it. I think the question in my mind is the ordinance itself. De Weerd: Okay. And is Council clear on -- that we are changing it from an easement to a development setback and there is -- Rountree: That would be my preference. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: That's what she had in her motion, I believe, Donnell: I did. De Weerd: Just wanted to make sure. Bird: The second understood. De Weerd: If there is no further discussion on this -- and I challenge staff to repeat the motion -- Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 15: Item 16: Item 17: Public Hearing: AZ. 04-011 REVISED Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.8 acres to R-8 zone for Alexandria Subdivision by Lonnie Johnson - 4205 North Locust Grove Road: Public Hearing: PP 04-017 REVISED Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 33 single-family residential and 4 common lots on 9,8 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Alexandria Subdivision by Lonnie Johnson - 4205 North Locust Grove Road: Public Hearing: CUP 04-015 REVISED Request fora Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of 33 residential building lots for reductions to the minimum requirements for lot area, rear building setbacks, street side setbacks and minimum street frontage for Alexandria Subdivision by Lonnie Johnson - 4205 North Locust Grove Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Items 15, 16 and 17 are all related, so I will open those all at one time. Public Hearing for AZ 04-011, PP 04-017, and CUP 04-015. I'll open with staff comments. I guess as staff is preparing, I am amazed at the Meridian High School Meridian City Council March 8, 2005 Page 25 of 34 students are back again and they are actually sitting this long through our process. I hope you get extra credit for this. I guess maybe that's your hope, too. Nary: One just left. I think he's -- De Weerd: I think he still earned that extra credit. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. These next three items you should be familiar with. Council remanded the applications on this same property back to the Planning and Zoning Commission several months ago, The property has the same name as it did, then, and is substantially the same project, actually, it was just about a two acre change. And just to refresh your memories for anyone that might not have been here, the property is immediately south of Razzberry Crossing Subdivision, which is currently being routed for signature of the final plat, that's why you don't see that shown there, but that has been approved by Council. Havasu Creek Subdivision wraps around the back side on the west and, then, there are a couple of Ada County parcels that have not been annexed to the south and, then, of course, Heritage Commons Subdivision south of that. The annexation request this time is for an R-8 zone on the entire property. The last time Council saw it it did include an L-O on the front. So, that's the only change to the annexation and rezone application from what you saw before. The aerial shows an existing house, excuse me, on the very backside of the property, along with the one acre county development on the east side of Locust Grove there. This is the plat that was previously submitted. That had these four office lots with the off-street parking associated with them on the front and, again, the main discussion that occurred there was that the Council felt that office uses were not appropriate, given some of the other prior approvals of non-residential uses along North Locust Grove, you remanded it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission to have the applicant review that and to look at keeping it all residential. This is the new plat that was submitted. As you can see, the street configuration is all identical, with the exception of this corner here. There is an existing shared driveway that accesses Locust Grove and what they are proposing to do at this point is to carry a new public street along the south end and, then, that, actually, wraps into an alleyway. There is a 25 -- the existing or what would be a 25-foot wide landscape buffer on Locust Grove Road, but, then, an alley immediately behind that, that would service these lots. They are all detached in terms of the housing product that they are proposing, 33 single- family residential lots. The open space that they are proposing is located here at the end of this hammerhead. Most of the lots that are in the subdivision, the larger lots, anyway, to back up and have some kind of view into those two common areas. There is two street connections that would be extended through and shared with Razzberry Crossing. The existing house, pool, and some outbuildings, again, would remain back here. They are proposing to add three other lots on the west side of this new north- south street. This flag lot would have a common driveway on it. That common driveway would serve both this lot on the north and, then, the flag and, then, there is another new building lot here that would actually front on a street that would not use the common driveway. That allows them to have a little bit narrower common drive. The planned development application does include a couple of amenities, Go back. The Meridian City Council March 8, 2005 Page 26 of 34 proposal is for two gazebos, as well as the project having -- yeah. I think that was one - - actually, one of the items that J had included in my recommendation cover sheet for the Council to discuss tonight, with the requested clarification from the Commission. Whether or not -- we normally do like to see -- or the Council has preferred to see some commitment on what exactly the amenities for projects like this will be. We had received some information about those gazebos and a tot lot or I think a grand tot lot as it was called, would also be in there. We did not receive much detail on that, so I think we'd like to have that clarified a little bit for the record. The Planning and Zoning Commission modified two of the site-specific conditions, One of them was in the preliminary plat and one was in the Conditional Use Permit. Both of those were at the request of the applicant, who was just looking for some clarification. One of those had to do with the hammerhead here and the fact that the no parking would be signed for just at the -- within the T portion of that. The north-south road street section is, actually, the same width as the rest of the project and would have parking on one side, So, that was one clarification, And, then, the other was -- was, as I just mentioned, that there are two gazebos proposed as the project amenities. And, then, a couple other items for the Council's consideration tonight. On item E, the outstanding issue is mentioned that site specific condition seven requires them to either submit a revised plat or an addendum to their application on the substandard common driveway and I just included that in there. There is some proposed wording for you that -- that if you're in agreement with, I think staff and the applicant are in agreement as far as just making sure that that's clear on which lots have that common driveway. So, if you do make a motion for approval tonight, if you would just include that new wording that would be helpful to us. The second item that I had there on page two has to do with the street sections and the applicant did talk with the fire marshal about 30 and a half foot street sections, compared to a 29, and they -- we do have a stamped drawing -- and that's the last item here, that the fire marshal did stamp here that he's comfortable with and, essentially, does restrict the parking to one side. There is a little bit of difference as to how that street section was measured. They were willing to widen that a little bit, so I think there is common ground now on that. And, then, I already mentioned just to get a little more information on the amenities today, so I think with that -- what you see up there is just a blowup of that new area that -- just for your information they are proposing parallel parking off of Star -- Star Drive that would -- again, these new houses here would front Star Drive with the alley loaded garages and to assist with visitor parking and visitor traffic, they are proposing to have a -- sort of a cutout of the street here where there would be, I think, five -- four or five parking stalls there in front. They have also provided two off-street here in this new common area and, then, these easements that you see dashed out on the screen on the south and north sides of the alleys would also be in -- would be paved for off-street parking. The garages on these would have a minimum setback of 18 feet. So, there would still be room for people to come down the alley, park behind the garage, but, then, again, these -- these additional parking spaces just provide for a little bit more, which staff thought was a good idea. Of course, the finding is the same -- same point on this one as the prior application and, again, unless there is changes, you could potentially adopt those findings tonight. Thank you, De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Brad. Any questions for staff at this point? Meridian City Council March 8, 2005 Page 27 of 34 Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant come forward. M, Wardle: Mike Wardle, 4910 Knollwood Avenue in Boise. Madam Mayor, Council Members, as staff has noted, you have seen this one before. I think the Council's concern for the non-residential uses have been addressed and, of course, you have got on your dais the schematic of the site plan. The second sheet is just the surrounding area, adjacent developments. And the third sheet is an example of not the same, but similar setback opportunities in the alley, another project that I did in another location, also is the same if you go down to the Heritage Commons alley loaded, it would be the same setback provision as that particular project. That was also another one that I designed. So, the Council concern for the non-residential uses has been addressed, The fire department's concern for the street sections has been addressed. Staff's concern for the flag lot, as noted by Mr. Hawkins-Clark in the northwest corner, has also been addressed and the language is one of those items that he noted for you this evening. He also noted all of the new 33 dwelling units on the project are single family detached. There are two styles. The bulk of them are -- about 22 of them, actually, are front loaded. The other 11 are those that we placed in the former office retail space and those are alley loaded. I would note one thing, that -- I'm not sure if this would muddy up the waters, hopefully not, but when the application was heard by the planning commission at that point, there had not been a proposed 18 foot setback from the alley to the face of the garage and that was the reason for having that space outside of the garages that staff noted as an easement for an additional parking space. With the setback now at a minimum of 18 feet from the face of garage to the alley, that means that there would not only be the garage spaces, that means that there would be the two, potentially three if there is a three car garage, three parking spaces outside of the structure itself behind the alley. So, I think we would at least like consideration of a modification to the preliminary plat that now that the 18-foot setback has been discussed and agreed with, the Planning and Zoning Commission said it would be the developer's option to include or not include that additional parking space. The fear that we have currently is that if we now have, it means that we would not only have the full alley width, but very likely much of the lot would now be totally paved and I think we can work that out, but we clearly now have parking spaces outside of the garages as depicted on that third sheet. I would also note that the alley is actually more than an alley, it's a full 20 foot fire lane, a no parking area. That was done so that there was really no question about the ability of the fire department or any other vehicles to traverse from that street around through that area between those homes. With regard to item three -- E-3, excuse me, concerning the provision of the amenities, staff noted in the report that there is a letter from the Johnson's, who own and have developed this property, that there would be two gazebos and a -- what has been termed as a grand tot lot, because we believe that the marketing and those that would typically live here would be empty nesters, singles and others that probably have grandchildren for some recreation, but on the landscape plan that was submitted and is part of the file, it was also noted that there were within those two gathering areas facilities -- not only the Meridian City Council March 8, 2005 Page 28 of 34 landscaping, but a pathway system, the gazebo, and the second one was noted as a covered picnic area, which, essentially, is a gazebo, and so the commitment was made at the Planning and Zoning Commission that there would be the two gazebos, plus a tot lot facility. That commitment has been made both in writing and was made at Planning and Zoning and was made again here. Obviously, because the project has not gone forward to design, the specific details have not been provided, but we will do so to staff and we have confidence that staff will appropriately address that when that level of detail is prepared. I do want to make one clarification. On the second page of staff's summary they say that the gazebos would be 16 to 20 feet in height. That, actually, is in diameter. We don't see the need to have an extremely tall gazebo. But with regard to the findings and conclusions and all of the recommendations, we are in agreement, we see no -- no matters that would need to be changed in any of those, except the clarification that the parking space easement that was provided was -- of the original concept of having a place for somebody to park, in the absence of a setback from the garage to the face of the alley that would have -- would not provide off-street parking and that is now provided. Hence, we would like the discretion to either do or not do that when we get to final design. But answer questions, but we would ask for your approval, subject to the recommendations in the findings and conclusions in all three of the applications. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: J have none. Rountree: None. M. Wardle: Thank you very much. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Seeing none, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, this is a question of either legal counselor Brad. Where in the findings would we make the notation that the developer brought up about the setback? Is that something that we can amend quickly this evening within the findings? De Weerd: Mr, Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, let me -- I think it is, Let me find the findings again. I think it's something you can amend on the record. You can simply direct the staff to provide the supplement to the -- to the city clerk and the final signature will just have that one correction in it, but for signatures to that, that shouldn't be a problem. Wardle: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Brad? Meridian City Council March 8, 2005 Page 29 of 34 Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Just a clarification. Yeah. The Conditional Use Permit, Exhibit E, is the conditions of approval. Item three says the alley loaded rear setback from garages shall be a minimum of 18 feet. I think Mr. Wardle said tonight that they are in agreement with that. We, actually, don't have in writing anywhere that says you shall provide the easements off of the alley for parking, it just -- we have -- we have a plat that shows it on there and so if you want to leave that up to the developer, right now if you approve this plat as shown graphically was what we would enforce. So, I think what Mr. Wardle is asking for is for you to give us the flexibility to -- or give the developer the option to either build those or not build those. So, it, actually, wouldn't change a written condition, it would probably just be added to the preliminary plat. Okay, To the plat? Yeah. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions, Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Or information needed? Any final comments from Mr. Wardle? That's Mike Wardle, not Shaun Wardle. Wardle: No relation. De Weerd: Okay. hearings. Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to close the public Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the public hearings on Items 15,16 and 17. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the public hearings. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Discussion? Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, take these one at a time. I move that we approve Item 15, AZ 04-011, revised annexation and zoning for Alexandria Subdivision and to approve the Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Donnell: Second. Meridian City Council March 8. 2005 Page 30 of 34 De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 15. Is there any discussion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. I'm sorry. Mr. Rountree. Rountree: That's okay. De Weerd: He jumped in and started to talk and -- Rountree: I won't call you Bob. De Weerd: Okay, Mr. Armstrong, what do you want? Rountree: We have -- obviously, we have seen this before. I'm still concerned about this and other developments that we are starting to see that are among -- amidst land yet to be developed and land that's already subdivided. And don't know that I'm crazy about the particular subdivision, but what really bothers me is that they have made the best use out of less than ten acres. Is Meridian really that anxious to annex these kinds of properties or would it be better for Meridian to take a breath on some of these and suggest that the landowners get together and at least put together a project that, I don't know, has some appeal and there are properties adjacent to this that haven't been developed. So, I guess my comment is I'm not in that big of a hurry. It seems to me that if we annex this, then, this is what we are going to have there. If we choose not to annex at this point in time, we have an opportunity to maybe see, instead of nine acres, maybe something closer to 25 or 30 acres, in that general area, to be developed. So, I'm not inclined to vote in favor of the motion, but just having said that, I am probably going to say it a few more times until you see some of these things in the months to come. I think we have some grand developments coming into Meridian, they are large scale, they offer a lot of amenities and they offer a lot of options, Those folks have managed to pull together multiple landowners in some instances to do good things. So, I think that I, for one, am not in a big hurry. De Weerd: I guess staff and I have had that discussion, because that was one of the recommendations that came out of the ULI visit to take a look at these areas that have a number of smaller property -- pieces of property and look at grouping them -- encouraging those property owners to get together, so we started seeing a larger scale picture and I guess in some regards we have been spoiled by some of these larger lots. Or larger property, because we are able to see the big picture. But our staff -- we will start working on it. I think some of these applications will be caught in the midst of it, because he certainly hasn't had that direction to staff in the past and they have come forward, worked with staff, and are trying to work out a plan that the city envisions. Any other comments? Wardle: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council March 8, 2005 Page 31 of 34 De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: And just a comment on this particular applicant and when it came through in the -- in the original scheme of development had office up front and was something that the neighbors spoke very loudly on and even the counsel disagreed on. I, personally, didn't feel that the office detracted from that. However, this development, in my opinion, has brought back and taken into consideration all the things that the Council said and all the things that the neighbor -- the neighbors had asked for and incorporate that into their design. So, that's why I would seek to look at this favorably. De Weerd: Okay. Any further question, comments, or discussion? Okay. We do have a motion on the table to approve Item 15. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, nay; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. Berg: So, the tie vote from the Mayor? De Weerd: Aye. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS. MAYOR AYE. De Weerd: And I guess just to clarify it, I would agree with Councilman Wardle on the comments that were -- and direction that was given from Council, I believe, have been met and so that is the reason for my aye vote. Oh, I'm sorry. Item 16, Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I would move that we approve Item No. 16, PP 04-017, revised preliminary plat for Alexandria Subdivision and to also approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with the addition of the mentioned specified by the applicant of the 18 foot setback requirements of the alley-loaded garages. Donnell: Second. De Weerd: The motion is to approve Item 16 and to incorporate comment and I believe the details on the amenities for the subdivision. Do we need clarification on that? Oh, sorry about that. Okay. Any further discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor. If I could just have a clarification. Are we approving the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law with that minor amendment? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Berg: Okay. Thank you. I just want to make sure we have our records correct. Meridian City Council March 8, 2005 Page 32 of 34 Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, nay; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. De Weerd: Aye. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS, MAYOR AYE. De Weerd: Item 17. Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, I would move that we approve Item No. 17, CUP 04-015, revised Conditional Use Permit for Alexandria Subdivision and to also approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, noting the specific amenities for the subdivision outlined in the landscape plan and, then, confirmed in the Public Hearing. Donnell: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to approve Item 17 with the changes as noted. Ifthere is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just another clarification. Are these findings going to be amended or revised and brought back? Bird: They have to be revised. De Weerd: Mr. Nary? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, isn't it just one we are -- yeah. I mean you could certainly approve that with that -- with that amendment and, then, just the Planning and Zoning staff could submit the revised one for signature, so you don't have to have it come back, unless you want it to. De Weerd: And you can always pull it off the Consent Agenda if there is a concern. Nary: No. If you want it back on the Consent Agenda, yes. If you just want to approve it with the direction that it be revised with one small change, they can make the revision and submit that for your signature. De Weerd: Okay. Nary: So, it's your choice. Wardle: That was my motion. De Weerd: Okay. Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, nay; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. Melidian City Councii March 8, 2005 Page 33 of 34 De Weerd: Aye. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS. MAYOR AYE. Item 18: Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(f)&(c): De Weerd: Okay. Item 18 is an Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67 -2345( 1 )(f) and (c). Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move we go into Executive Session per Idaho Code 67-2345(1 )(f) and (c). De Weerd: Thank you. Donnell: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. EXECUTIVE SESSION: De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session. Rountree: So moved. Bird: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Bird: So moved. Donnell: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor? Melidian City Council March 8, 2005 Page 34 of 34 ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:50 P.M.