The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-09-03 CITY OF MERIDIAN PRE-COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, September 9, 2003 at 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: j) Tammy de Weerd ~ Cherie 'Xcandless , Mayor Robert Corrie K )( Bill Nary Keith Bird 2. Adoption of the Agenda: C/?fYo~ 3. Update on One-Way Street Discussion: (5 minutes*) diScu.rJed-- 4. Discussion with Lee Centers on Silvercreek Subdivision (fka Powder River Subdivision): Wt.f~ ~~ t/k- ~t. Z?r<f.; U?c?"3 P ~ 3o;4f-J (15 minutes*) 5. Discussion of Utility Billing Directive Ordinance: (10 minutes *) pii}" c-u J .f.<.&6 * Approximate allowable time set for agenda item may change depending on discussion. Please use the designated minutes as a guideline only. Melidian City Council Agenda - September 9, 2003 Page I of I All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiling acco[J]ll1odation for disabilities related to documents and/of hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hourn prior to the public meeting. ~luJj, ~cst lb( YubllG tJbfi!', -1htll1ts! CITY OF MERIDIAN PRE-COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, September 9, 2003 at 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: Tammy de Weerd Cherie McCandless Mayor Robert Corrie Bill Nary Keith Bird 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Update on One-Way Street Discussion: (5 minutes*) 4. Discussion with Lee Centers on Silvercreek Subdivision (fka Powder River Subdivision): (15 minutes*) 5. Discussion of Utility Billing Directive Ordinance: (10 minutes*) *Approximate allowable time set for agenda item may change depending on discussion. Please use the designated minutes as a guideline only. Meridian City Council Agenda - September 9, 2003 Page I of 1 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. WtO-S~ ~O>t ~d\l\0\iG Dofi!( -1 hClfl/CS ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, September 9, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: Tammy de Weerd Cherie McCandless Mayor Robert Corrie Bill Nary Keith Bird 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of August 26, 2003 City Council Regular Meeting: B. Approve Purchase of Additional Lot for Well No. 24 - 2870 N. Blue Springs Avenue: C. Change Order No. 2 for Well No. 24 Pumping Facilities - Irminger Construction: 4. Department Reports A. Fire Department - Chief Bowers: 1. Update on Fire Station No.3: 2. Update on Fire Safe House: 3. Discussion of Revenue Percentages per Joint Powers Agreement: 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) 6. Adopt Tentative Amendment to 2003 Fiscal Year Budget: 7. Ordinance No. RZ 03-007 Request for a Rezone of .165 acres from R-4 to 0- T zones for Schroeder Apartments by H. John Cook - 921 West 2nd Street: Meridian City Council Agenda - September 9, 2003 Page I of3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become propelty of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring acconunodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 8. FP 03*047 Request for Final Plat approval of 37 single-family lots, 2 other building lots, and 12 common lots on 26.39 acres in R-8 and L-O zones for Paramount Subdivision No.1 by Paramount, LLC - east of North Linder Road and north of West McMillan Road: 9. FP 03*048 Request for Final Plat approval of 92 residential building lots and 11 other lots on 35.52 acres in an R-8 zone for Birchstone Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - northwest corner of West Ustick Road and North Black Cat Road: 10. FP 03*049 Request for Final Plat approval of 39 building lots and 1 other lot on 8.25 acres in a R-8 zone for Baldwin Park No.6 by Capitol Development - north of West Ustick Road and east of North Under Road: 11 Continued Public Hearing from September 2, 2003: PP 03*021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 6 other lots on 13.85 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek No.8 by Bear Creek, LLC - north of West Victory Road and east of South Stoddard Road: 12. Public Hearing: PP 03*016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 building lots on 10.97 acres in a C-G zone for proposed Southern Springs by The Land Group, Inc. - southeast corner of Meridian Road and Overland Road: 13. Public Hearing: AZ 03-014 Request for annexation and zoning of 33.25 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: 14. Public Hearing: PP 03-015 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 136 building lots and 10 other lots on 33.25 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: 15. Public Hearing: CUP 03-029 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development with reduced lot widths and setbacks for the proposed Tuscanv Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: 16. Public Hearing: RZ 03-008 Request for a rezone of 12.74 acres from I-L to R-15 zones for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC - 1125 East Pine Street: Meridian City Council Agenda - September 9, 2003 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property ofthe City of Meridian. Anyone desiring acconunodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 17. Public Hearing: CUP 03-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for multi-family residential subdivision requesting reduced setbacks, parking standards, and dimensional requirements for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC - 1125 East Pine Street: 18. Public Hearing: PP 03-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building lots and 11 other lots on 11.45 acres in an R-4 zone for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by R.K. Development, LLC - west of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road: 19. Public Hearing: VAR 03-012 Request for a Variance to block length requirements for a block on the south side of Clearbrook Street for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by R.K. Development, LLC - west of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road: Meridian City Council Agenda - September 9, 2Q03 Page 3 oB All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 8884433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ** TX CONFIRMRTION REPORT ** RS OF SEP 05 '03 16:43 PRGE.01 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DRTE TIME TO/FROM 09/05 15:59 3810160 09/05 16:01 PUBLIC WORKS 09/05 16:03 12084664405 09/05 16:04 8841159 09/05 16:06 2088840744 09/05 16:08 2088467366 09/05 16:10 8985501 09/05 16:11 92083776449 09/05 16:13 208 388 6924 09/05 16:15 2088886854 09/05 16:16 12084674538 09/05 16:18 208 895 0390 09/05 16:19 Laurel 09/05 16:21 208 387 6393 09/05 16:23 RDR CTY DEVELMT 09/05 16:25 208-888-5052 09/05 16:27 CHERRY LANE 09/05 16:29 POST OFFICE 09/05 16:31 IDAHO RTHLETIC C 09/05 16:33 887 0816 09/05 16:36 ID PRESS TRIBUNE 09/05 16:37 208 888 6700 09/05 16:42 LIBRARY MODE EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S G3--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S G3--S EC--S EC--S EC--S CITY OF MERIDIAN MIN/SEC PGS 01'47" 004 01' 02" 004 01'04" 004 01'04" 004 131'02" 004 01' iT' 1304 01'02" 004 01'02" 004 01'19" 004 101'02" 004 01' 03" 004 01'03" 004 01'05" 004 01'02" 004 02'07" 0134 01'04" 004 01'20" 004 01'46" 004 01'03" 004 02'17" 004 01' 05" 004 01 '03" 004 01'20" 004 CITY OF MERIDIAN CMDl:t 216 216 216 216 216 216 216 216 216 216 216 216 216 216 216 216 216 216 216 216 216 216 216 Tuesday, September 9, 2003 at 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: STATUS OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK ~ Lto.1t.; ~ cst 1Q( Yubl10l\JbtJlL- ~'711t111 tS! PRE~COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Tammy de Weerd Cherie McCandless Mayor Robert Corrie 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Update on One~Way Street DisctJssion: (5 minutes*) 3. 4. Bill Nary Keith Bird D~scuSSion ~it.h Lee Centers on Silvercreek Subdivision (fka Powclp.r Rlv~r Sllhtii\ll"'..........\. MAYOR Robert D. Con-ie olfe;;dl~;;~ '1f; . [DAHO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Tammy de Weerd William L. M. Nary Cherie McCandless Keith Bird -, ,-, " \I fl /j! QmcE i 1903 LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 466-9272 . FAX 466-4405 PARKS & RECREATION (208) 888-3579 . Fax 898-550[ PUBLIC WORKS (208) 898-5500 . Fax 887- [297 BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-221 [ . Fax 887-[297 PLANNING & ZONING (208) 884-5533 . Fax 888-6854 NOTICE OF PRE~COUNCIL MEETING MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a Pre-Council Meeting at City Hall, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho, on Tuesday, September 9,2003 at 6:30 P.M. The Meridian City Council will be discussing the following agenda items: - Update on One-Way Street Discussion - Discussion with Lee Centers on Silvercreek Subdivision (fka Powder River Subdivision) - Discussion of Utility Billing Directive Ordinance The public is welcome to attend the meeting. DATED this 5th day of September, 2003. 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE' MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 . (208) 888-4433 City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 . Human Resources Fax (208) 884-8723 . Finance & Utility Billing Fax (208) 887-4813 Meridian Fire Department 540 E. Franklin Road Meridian, 1083642 208-888-1234 Fax 208-895-D390 Memo ct - 00 -03 Pfc-- G To: Mayor Robert Corrie, City Clerk, City Council Members, & MRFPO Commissioners From: Ken W. Bowers RECEIVED' SEP 1 U 2003 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office Date: March 11 , 2003 Re: Demographics Report I have received the demographics report and the assessed values for the Meridian Rural Fire Protection District & the City of Meridian for 2002. The population for the Rural is 13,748 and the population for the City is 39,744. The percentages would then be 26% Rural and 74% City. The assessed value for the Rural is $648,169,991.00 and the assessed value for the City is $2,069,040,130.00. The percentages for the assessed values would be 24% Rural and 76% City. Applying the formula as per the Contract for Service/JPA, the percentages for the Rural vs. City would be: 25% Meridian Rural Fire Protection District and 75% City of Meridian. If you have any questions, please contact me. Ken W. Bowers, Chief Meridian Fire Department c:; -/0 -'03 Date Mayor RoBert D. Corrie ~u-I!~~~, ~ Chairman Richard Greene 11 //11 D.3 Date . Page 1 September 5, 2003 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT Pre-Council Meeting September 9, 2003 ITEM NO. 3 REQUEST Update on One-Way street Discussion: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See Attached Chamber of Commerce Survey CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SffiLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: See Attached Memo ~I V/ '-7'~ ();i.J (; Contacted: Emailed: Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the CIty of Meridian. _ '" V !II "" . ,,-" II' NO. 585 P. 1 BOO W, Bannock Boise, 10 $3702 PH: 208-343-3878 FAX: 20B-343-3879 ::~~..J. M~~age~~,~tt:{::'~ ;:""~ ;/" ";-:' ~J, "~":~ ~?';<~~, ,~~~" ,: ~~~~,~~~~ ':~~;~;:~;~ Fax P"l4J{i~;I- VE:D' :\...11.,:_, V.1L:'. _ A_ SEP 0 9 2003 Cil-y Of Meridian City Clerk Office q ~Oq~03 rre -Co~o161 Jk<<~1 1~o. 3 To: Mayor and City Council Froml Milt Erhart Fax: 6B8A218 Pages: 3 Phon~~ Date: Re~ cc: These are some serIous observations regarding the one-way street discussion for downtown Meridian. Hopefully, you will give these suggestions serious consideration in future city planning. Milt SEP 09 '03 14:52 t::'It"a.~r- -.. NU, ?B? p, 2 From Milt Erhart-----September 5, 2003 Meridian Business Conununity: Regarding the one-way street debate for Main Street and Meridian Road: At the August 28, 2003 Economic Developmellt Meeting considerable discussion centering on the broader traffic issues throughout the entire Meridian Community. Increased congestion win continue to be a problem with the new housing developments going in between Cherry Lane and Chinden on Meridian Road. Question: Will one-way couplets through downtown Meridian facilitate traffic flow to get to the north of Cherry Lane? Problem: Currently traffic flowing north off the freeway is routed down main street basically dead ending on Fairview with an intersection designed to send traffic east down Fairview. The reality is that the Eagle Road exit now services most ofFairview between Main Street and Eagle Road. Problem: Meridian Road thru downtown is not designed to move traffic. Some of us believe that an overpass at Locust Grove will not materially improve the situation. Neither will the proposed exit at Tell-Mile. IS THERE A SOLUTION OR AT LEAST A BETTER WAY? My main source of income is still from selIhlg stocks and bonds. At times even with the best of information a stock recommendation turns sour. This same analogy applies the road design. No doubt when the original north exit off the freeway at Meridian Road was designed it was viewed as adequate, Times ha'Ve changed al"1d the original design has now proved to be a bottlelleck, impeding traffic flow. The stop light at McDonald's is partially responsible for backing traffic up on the freeway sometimes for a mile in the evening rush hour. HERE IS A SUGGESTION that was discussed at the August 28 economic development meeting. 1. Changes the focuses of the traffic exiting north off the freeway to go down Meridian Road, not Main Street. This would mean straightening out the north bound lanes to align with Meridian Road. Remove the stoplight at McDonalds allowillg traffic to either turn left to Winn~Co, HOlUe Depot, etc. or go straight ahead without stopping. 2. Put a stop light at Corporate Drive 011 both Main Street and Meridian Road. This would allow traffic from Winn-Co, Home Depot, etc. to enter Meridian Ol"'ar;;c:= ("),-. SEP 09 '03 14:52 NO, J85 p, 3 Road to go south. The portion of Main Street from McDonalds to Corporate Drive would go north only. 3. Right-away through Meridian from Corporate Drivo to Cherry Lane is purchased for a 4-1ane road. 4, Right-away from ehony Lane to Chinden is purchased for a 5-1ane road. SUMMARY: The whole purpose of our road system is to move traffic. The debate over the one-way streets does nothing to address the bigger problem of growing congestion, By looking at the bigger picture and turning Meridian Road into a decent road that moves traffic one- way streets thru downtown Meridian will be urmecessary. It will also allow the City Planners to turn the area between Meridian Road and 3rd and 2 Yz streets into a core retail) office, high end apartments) condo's and city fWlctions into a sharp City Cente!' without traffic trying to squeeze furu with only one purpose turn that is turn right or left at Fairview. This project could be done 111 phases: First Reroute the traffic from 1-84 down Meridian Road, not Main Street. This can be done at a relatively low cost. Second: Buy the: necessary right a way's from Franklin Road north to Chinden, Third: Widen Meridian Road from Franklin to Cheny Lane. Fourth: Widen Meridian Road from Cherry Lane to Chillden. Fifth: Improve 3nl & 2 % streets by having a continuous street putting a curve at Carlton, Milt Erhart---343-3878 SEP 09 '03 14:53 O^~c:::' r-J."'J' MEMORANDUM DATE: RE: !vIA YOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ANNA BORCHERS POWELL, AICP PLANNING DIRECTOR SEPTEMBER 4, 2003 ONE-WAY COUPLETS R.w {""'i ~ r-, lEI D~. D't.JJL:4-E... V ~ J SEP 0 4 2003 TO: FROM: City Of Meridian City Clerk Office I have reviewed approximately ten articles on the pros and cons of one-way couplets versus two-way streets. (Although the analysis is still useful, most of the articles actually deal with the issue of converting existing one-way couplets that were created in the 60s to two- way streets.) I have attached a diagram (Figure 7: Sample evaluation matrix) that best summarizes the analyses contained in those articles. I will briefly describe the issues below. Motorists Mobility. One way travel forces the driver to, at times, go "out of direction:' For example, instead of going directly north on Meridian Road, the driver may need to go north on Main, west on Pine, and then south on Meridian. Two-way streets provide better direct mobility. Vehicle Miles. For the same reason stated in the "Mobility" section, the vehicle miles traveled on a one-way couplet are 30% to 40% more than on a two-way street system. Turns. Again, please refer to the discussion on "Mobility." A driver will potentially need to make 60% more turns to reach a destination on a one-way couplet. Travel Time (Through). A one~way street couplet is more effective at moving traffic through an area. Because of fewer turning conflicts, traffic is able to move at a vet}' steady pace that is generally faster than could be achieved on a two-way street system. In the question of the Main/Meridian couplet, a question remains as to how the one-way couplet would function at intersection of Fairview/Cherry Lane. Traffic may back up at Main Street waiting for the light at Fait:view; likewise, traffic may back up on Fairview waiting for the light at Meridian Road. Travel Time (LocaD. The local travel time is better with the two-way street system because of the direct mobility afforded by such roads. Because motorists will need to go to Fairview / Cherry Lane or Washington to turnaround, the local travel time to properties between Washington and Cherry Lane will increase the most. CITY OF 1vffiRIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT 660 E. WATERTO\'ifER ROAD 1vfERIDlAN, ill 83642 Memo to Mcgor and City Cot/mil Members on One-IVery Couplets Page 2 Capaci!J. Because of the smoother flow of traffic, a one-way couplet can accommodate between 2% to 5% more traffic than a two-way street system. Parking. There are different opinions as to which street configuration increases on-street parking. Because traffic is flowing in one direction on the couplets, the travel lanes can sometimes be narrowed enough to create angled parking along one or both sides of the roadway. This would obiviously increase the amount of on-street parking. However, the extra room is often used to create turn lanes, extra uavellanes, or bike lanes to increase the capacity of the roadway. Pedestrians. TIllS is the one factor where I feel the diagram is inaccurate. The analysis appears unfairly critical of the one-way couplet system regarding pedestrian conflicts. It is hue that the direction of cars is not as consistent on a one-way couplet system as it is on standard two-way streets. This is because of the many possible types of connections on a one-way couplet (e.g., one-way north to one-way west, one-way north to two-way east/west, one-way south to one-way east.) However, most pedestrians are in the habit of looking both ways before crossing the streets. If this habit continues, they will see the approaching cats. There is a second issue associated with pedestrian conflicts, which is the travel speed of the cars. Because cars will likely be traveling at higher speeds, pedestrians need to cross the street more quickly and, if there is an accident, the outcome is potentially more serious. Transit. The transit discussion addresses what happens in providing bus transit service. For example, a bus might go south on Meridian in the morning to take people to a park-and- ride lot, and then north on Main in the evening. Transit users would need to know both bus stop locations on both Meridian and Main. Retail. This factor considers how much of a stote frontage is "eclipsed" on a one-way couplet system. Because traffic is only moving in one direction, drivers see 25% less of the store building than they would if there were two-way traffic. Neighborhoods. Most articles acknowledge that neighborhood access to an area is better with the two-way street system. Most would agree that the identity of an area is also improved with a two-way street system. Of all the factors considered above, this is probably the most difficult to quantify and the most debated. Proponents of the one-way couplets argue that the increased travel speed and capacity of the streets more than compensate for the inconvenience of the one-way grid and boost travel to the downtown areas and lead to greater economic growth, prosperity, and identity. Proponents for the two-way streets argue that the increased travel speed and capacity of the streets drives the pedestrians out of the downtown areas leading to diminished ability to attract new stores and an "empty" downtown. 2 Memo to JVf.t!Yor aNd Ciry CouNdl MemberJ ON One-1Vcry CoupletJ Page 2 Other factors. Some additional factors for your consideration: &tai! Safes. A couple of the articles stated dlat there was no appreciable increase or decrease of retail sales associated with converting an existing one-way couplet to two-way streets. Costs. One of the articles did point out that there are costs associated with changing dle flow direction of streets. Such costs include striping for travel lanes and parking and installing new traffic directional signs. ACHD would be able to provide a better idea of anticipated costs. Type 0/ Development. There is some question as to whether a one-way couplet may attract different types of businesses than would a two-way street system. If slower traffic speeds lead to a more "pedestrian friendly" atmosphere, the downtown may attract more businesses that cater to strolling or "window shopping" customers. Examples of such businesses might be boutiques, sit-down restaurants, ice-cream/ soda shops, music and video stores, residences above offices, etc. These types of uses tend to stay open later in the evening and extend the downtown hours. Conversely, the one-way couplet may attract businesses that depend on door-to-doot access, such as professional offices, medical offices, retail supply stores, copying and printing services, mailing and delivery services etc. 3 Turns '-''-~'''''''''~'''''' 6fc q - OLf"D3 <pre: -CoWf1c; t .J -f-0v~ YlO. 3 1I0lOrlSII o Mobility .............. ........., Vehide Miles........m..... ......... Trav.el Time (T~roughl..........~............. Travel Time (Local) ................-..... -Capacity ..... ......,.... ,....-.. Parking ..................-..,.. Pedestrians CO;l1f1ict Sequences .-.....-.............. Conflict Quantity ....n..............._. Transft ... .... ..> ..-. ..u.. --. , Retail .................m.... Melghborhoods Access .m_n...._"_..........:~;~ r~I'. .r., :!_c.. Id' . . ;,~~~::i:',: entity .......... .._........_...:.\.;:,;:"'~., ';':;Ff.}:':;"~:;i';, '. ...... FIGURE 7 Sample evaluation matrix. RECEIVEI) SEP 0 5 2003 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office Turns ._..-~.........~... ,.. Motorists Mobility .............. ....n.... Vehicle. Miles...~...m.............. Travel Time (T~rough).......................... Travel Time (Local) ................-."... .Capacity ........................ Parking ........................ Pedestrians Conflict Seq.uenGes ........__.....m.... Conflict Quantity ........................ Trlnsn ..........'....hum... Retail ........m............. Neighborhoods Access ...........u._.........,:;.' Identity... ....... ..u ........ ...~~(~L,:,~:} .;" ,'- ,-.-,' j i~ '. ....:. FIGURE 7 Sample evaluation matrix. RECEIVED SEP 0 5 2003 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office RECEIVED AUG 1 5 2003 MERIDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEMBER SURVEY C!ty of Meridian CIty Clerk Office ONE- WAY COUPLET SURVEY RESULTS 405 Surveys Sent 131 Responded 32% 1. On average, how many times per week do you drive on Main andlor Meridian Streets? 1788 Trips 131 Responded 13.65 Average # 2. Does congestion on Main Street cause you to take other streets instead? 80 Yes 50 No 130 1 no answer 3. On average, how many times per week do you visit businesses on Main andlor Meridian Streets? 797 Visits 131 Responded 6.08 Average # 4. Would a change to a one-way couplet affect your willingness to visit those businesses? 47 Yes 73 No Some responses were interpreted as they would probably visit more often if one-way happened. 11 Uncertain This question is therefore invalid, because it wasn't asked correctly. 5 A I am a regular customer/client of 1 to 5 Main & Meridian Street businesses. 5 B. I am a regular customer/Glient of 5 to 10 Main & Meridian Street businesses. 5 C. I am a regular customer/client of n;ore than 10 Main & Meridian Street businesses. 5 D. I am not a regular customer or client of any businesses on Main or Meridian. Question 5 78 A 21 8 10 C 19 0 3 No response 6 A. I own or manage a business on Main or Meridian Streets. 6 B. I am employed at a business on Main or Meridian Streets. 6 C. I use Main or Meridian Streets on my way to or from work. 6 D. I avoid driving on Main or Meridian if at all possible. Question 6 34 A 15 B 64 C 30 0 7. Do you favor the one-way couplet solution to ease downtown traffic congestion? A. Yes B. No C. haven't decided D. Makes no difference to me Question 7 60 A 46% 26 B 20% 27 C 21% 17 0 13% 130 Total 99% 1 no response 5 A. I am a regular customer/client of 1 to 5 Main & Meridian Street businesses. 62% of those in favor. of a one-way couplet are regular customers. 62% of those against a one-way couplet are regular customers. 59% of those who are undecided are regular customers. 47% of those who are regular customers don't care if a one-way couplet happens. Survey 7A-Yes 7B-No I 7C- 7D.don't Proof Undecided care Total 1.110 51 20 23 15 109 111-131 9 6 4 2 21 Total 60 26 27 17 130 1 no answer 1-110 5A 31 11 13 8 111-131 6 5 3 0 Total 37 16 16 8 62% 62% 59% 470/0 5 B. I am a regular customer/client of 5 to 10 Main & Meridian Street businesses. 20% of those in favor of a one-way couplet are regular customers. 27% of those against a one-way couplet are regular cu~tomers. 11 % ofthose who are undecided are regular customers. 0% of those who are regular customers don't care if a one-way couplet happens. Survey 7A-Yes 78-No 7C. 7D-don't Proof Undecided care Total 1-110 51 20 23 15 109 111-131 9 6 4 2 21 Total 60 26 27 17 130 1 no answer 1-110 58 11 6 3 0 111.131 1 1 0 0 Total 12 7 3 0 20% 27% 11% 0% 5 C. I am a regular customer/client of more than 10 Main & Meridian Street businesses. 12% of those in favorofa one-way couplet are regular customers. 8% of those against a one-way couplet are regular customers. 4% of those who are undecided are regular customers. 0% of those who are regular customers don't care if a one-way couplet happens. Survey 7A-Yes 7B-No 7C. 7D-don't Proof Undecided care Total 1.110 51 20 23 15 109 111.131 9 6 4 2 21 Total 60 26 27 17 130 1 no answer 1-110 5C 6 2 1 0 111-131 1 0 0 0 Total 7 2 1 0 12% 8% 4% 0% 5 D. I am not a regular customer or client of any businesses on Main or Meridian. 8% ofthose in favor of a one-way couplet are not regular customers. 8% of those against a one-way couplet are not regular customers. 15% of those who are undecided are not regular customers. 47% of those who are not regular customers don't care if a one-way couplet happens. Survey 7A-Yes 7B-No 7C- 7D-don't Proof Undecided care Total 1-110 51 20 23 15 109 111-131 9 6 4 2 21 Total 60 26 27 17 130 1 no answer 1-110 5D 4 2 4 6 111-131 1 0 0 2 Total 5 2 4 8 8% 8% 15% 47% 6 A. I own or manage a business on Main or Meridian Streets. 23% of those in favor or a one-way couplet own a business. 38% of those against a one-way couplet own a business. 30% of those who are undecided own a business. 12% of those who own a business don't care if a one-way couplet happens. Survey I 7A-Yes 78-No 7C- 7D-don't Proof Undecided care Total 1-110 51 20 23 15 109 111-131 9 6 4 2 21 Total 60 26 27 17 130 1 no answer 1-110 6A 14 8 6 2 111-131 0 2 2 0 Total 14 10 8 2 23% 38% 30% 12% 6 B. I am employed at a business on Main or Meridian Streets. 10% of those in favor ofa one-way couplet are employed by a business. 15% of those against a one-way couplet are employed by a business. 15% of those who are undecided are employed by a business. 6% of those who are employed by a business don't care if a one-way couplet happens. Survey 7 A-Yes 7S-No 7C- 70-don't Proof Undecided care Total 1-110 51 20 23 15 109 111-131 9 6 4 2 21 Total 60 26 27 17 130 1 no answer 1-110 68 5 3 3 1 111-131 1 1 1 0 Total 6 4 4 1 10% 15% 15% 6% 6 C. I use Main or Meridian Streets on my way to or from work. 43% ofthose in favorofa one-way couplet use streets to and from work. 73% of those against a one-way couplet use streets to and from work. 59% of those who are undecided use streets to and from work. 29% of those who use streets to and from work don't care if a one-way couplet happens. Survey 7 A-Yes 7B-No 7e- 7D-don't Proof Undecided care Total 1.110 51 20 23 15 109 111-131 9 6 4 2 21 Total 60 26 27 17 130 1 no answer 1-110 6e 17 14 13 5 111-131 9 5 3 0 Total 26 19 16 5 43% 73% 59% 29% 6 D. I avoid driving on Main or Meridian if at all possible. 30% ofthose in favor ofa one-way couplet avoid driving on the streets. 8% of those against a one-way couplet avoid driving on the streets. 26% of those who are undecided avoid driving on the streets. 0% of those who avoid driving on the streets don't care if a one-way couplet happens. Survey 7A-Yes 7B-No 7e- 7D-don't Proof Undecided care Total 1-110 51 20 23 15 109 111-131 9 6 4 2 21 Total 60 26 27 17 130 1 no answer 1-110 60 16 2 6 0 111-131 2 0 1 0 Total 18 2 7 0 30% 8% 26% 0% . September 5, 2003 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT Pre-Council Meeting September 9, 2003 ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Discussion of utility Billing Directive Ordinance: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLlCE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SEITLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: See Attached Proposed Ordinance ytV (JiJOftj OTH ER: See comments from Joanne M. Stevens Contacted: Emailed: Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at pUblic meetlngs shall become property of the City of Meridian. Joanne M. Stevens 4157 E. Belfast Bay Drive Meridian, Idaho 83642 August 29, 2003 RECEI-VED SEP 0 2 2003 Meridian City Council 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office Councilmen: I read in today's newspaper that there has been an audit of Meridian's utility billing practices. I am hoping that one of your policies, which I believe is unfair, has been included in this review. In April I moved into a new home in Meridian. When I received my first utility billing, I was surprised at the amount charged for water usage. I called for clarification and was told that all new homeowners pay the same fee based on an average water usage by residents of the City, and that in December my actual usage would be computed and future billings would reflect that fee. I asked, <<So at that time, if my water usage is below the average, I will receive a refund for the overpayment, correct?" But the answer was that there would be no refund for any overpayment. I believe this is an unfair practice and question its legality. Although I understand the need to set a baseline for my regular payments on water usage, if I use less than the average, I should not be penalized for the early months of my residence. You are simply requiring that I pay for the over-average water use of other new homeowners. Logic and fairness dearly would be served by a refund of anything I might have due after the initial months of "average use" billing. And those using in excess of the average should be billed for their extra use. Please re-examine this crazy policy you apparently have in effect at present. Sincerely ~ WHITE PETERSON KEVIN E. DINIUS JULIE KLEIN FISCHER WM. F. GIGRAY, In T. GUY HALlAM' JILL HOLINKA D. SAMUEL JOHNSON WILLrAM A. MORROW WILLrAM F. NICHOLS' CHRlSTOPHERS. NYE WHITE, PETERSON, MORROW, GIGRAY, ROSSMAN, NYE & ROSSMAN, P.A. PHILIPA.PETERSON ArrORNEYS AT LAw NAMPAOFFICE ERlCAS. PHILLIPS 5700 E. FRANKLIN RD.. ERIC S. ROSSMAN SUITE 200 TODDA. ROSSMAN NAMPA, IDAHO 83653-8402 TERRENCE R. WHITE" TEL. (208) 466-9272 NICHOLAS 1. WOLLEN FAX (208) 466-4405 . Also admitted in OR .. Also admitted in WA August 27,2003 RE(jEIVE_D AUG 2 9 2003 Q~ty Of Meridian CIty Clerk Office William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk Meridian City Hall 33 East Idaho St. Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Utility Billing Directive Ordinance Amending Sections 9-1-5, 9-1-20, 9-1-21, 9~ 1-24, and 9-4-28 Dear Will: Attached you will find the ordinance pertaining to the Utility Billing Directive Amending the above sections to the Ordinance for the City of Meridian. Please place this ordinance upon one of the upcoming City Council regular agendas for approval and passage. Additionally, I have attached the Summary Ordinance and cover letter on this matter. If you have any questions or need anything further with regard to this ordinance, please advise. Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Ordinances City Hal1\2003 Ord\Berg Utility Billing Directive Amend Sections 5, 20, 21 and 24 Ord Ltr 08 27 03.doc CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 03- BY: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING SECTION 9-1-5 APPLICATION FOR WATER SUPPLY, SECTION 9-1-20 PAYMENT OF USER CHARGES; LATE FEE, SECTION 9-1-21 DELINQUENCIES; CITY PROCEDURE, AND SECTION 9-1-24 WATER FUND AND OF CHAPTER 1 TITLE 9 WATER USE AND SERVICE, AND SECTION 9-4-28 DELINQUENCIES; CITY PROCEDURE OF CHAPTER 4 TITLE 9 SEWER USE AND SERVICE; PROVDING FOR THE ADDITION AND DELETION OF LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO UTILITY BILLINGS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, VALIDITY, SAVINGS CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN~ ADA COUNTY~ IDAHO SECTION 1: That Section 5 Application for Water Supply of Chapter 1 Title 9, be, and the same is hereby amended, and shall now read as follows: 9-1-5: APPLICATION FOR WATER SUPPLY: A. Application Required: Whenever any ewE:ef person desires to obtain a supply of water from the City waterworks, he shall make mmlY application therefor in '.vriting to the Superintendent of tho ''vaterworks Water Department for service and sign an agreement and agree to be governed by such rules and regulations not inconsistent with this Chapter, as may be prescribed by the Mayor and City Council for the control of the water supply. B. Contents Of Application; Grant Of Application: I.New Construction: The applicant must state the location, lfi.nd ~ of building and uses therein, and the entire area of the ground to be supplied, and fully and truly state Utility Billing Directive Ordinance Page 1 of7 the purpose for which the water is to be used, and shall furnish a set offIoor plans showing all water use~ and a site plan if the water is to be used for irrigation. '.\Thereupon, iIfthe application is granted, the Superintendent of the Waterworks Water Department may authorize the extension, at the expense of the applicant, and at no expense to the City, the service pipe and meter tile, meter yoke, meter tile lid, curb stop and any other fittings that are necessary to install service to the inside line of the curb at the point most convenient for supplying the applicant. 2. Existing Water Service: In the case of an existing water service connection, if the real property or improvement is sold or otherwise transferred, the person entitled to possession shall make application to the Municipal Billing Department to transfer the account, and shall supply the department with all information requested by the department. 3. Third Party Billing; After establishing an.account for water service, a property owner may direct that a third party, such as a property management company, or a tenant. receive the billing for water. sewer. and solid waste collection services. The third party to whom the billings are sent shall also execute such documentation as is necessary to confirm the billing information. In the event such an account becomes delinquent. the Municipal Billing Department shall send a delinquency notice to the billing recipient. and the owner. at the addresses contained in the agreements. The City will charge a third party billing account set up fee which must be paid at the time of the application. The fee will be set by resolution of the City Council. The third party billing agreement shall also provide that the property owner remains primarily responsible for charges assessed to the account, and further. that all unpaid charges constitute a lien against the real property. An owner may appoint an agent. to act for the owner. to establish an account. receive billings. or do anything else an owner may do, or be required to do, pursuant to this code. C. Street Paving: In cases where street paving is contemplated, the abutting property owners must either connect their premises with the water mains before the trench is backfilled or pay the cost of service from the main to curb if made thereafter. (Ord. 476,4-21-1987) SECTION 2: That Section 20 Payment of User Charges; Late Fee of Chapter 1 Title 9, be, and the same is hereby amended and shall now read as follows: 9-1-20: PAYMENT OF USER CHARGES; LATE FEE: All water charges shall be due and payable to the Clerk between the first and tenth day of euch calendar month for the billing from the previous month Municipal Billing Department fifteen (15) days after the date of the billing statement. Upon failure to pay the same, as prescribed within the time allowed, the water user, each ovmer shall pay, in addition to the amount due, a fine often dollars ($10.00) late payment penalty as set by Resolution of the City Council. Utility Billing Directive Ordinance Page 2 of7 SECTION 3: That Section 21 Delinquencies; City Procedure of Chapter 1 Title 9, be, and the same is hereby amended and shall now read as follows: 9-1-21: DELINQUENCIES; CITY PROCEDURE: A. Termination Of Service; Notice: The City Clerk Municipal Utility Billing Department shall furnish monthly each property mynar on the first of each month water user a statement of the amount due for water and sewer and other charges for the preceding month or up to the time that the meter has been read.;. and for other charges relating to the '.vater system; and if any ovmer neglects to water user does not pay his \vater bill by the tenth day of the month the billing within fifteen (15) days from the date of the statement, or shall fail or refuse to pay the v.'ater bill in that time period, the water user's account shall be delinquent. Ovmcrs Water users shall be notified by regular mail oftrus delinquency and if the bill is not paid in full within ten (10) days after service of this notification on the 6-Vfl.lef water user, the right to water shall cease and terminate unless the owner requests a pre-termination hearing. Should the 6Wflef water user not request a pre-termination hearing.. or if an adverse decision is rendered against the owner as a result of the after a pre-termination hearing, the City may require the owner to pay the delinquent water bill attributable to the use, plus a teE: dollar ($10.00) turn-on charge as a condition of receiving resumption of water service again, and in the event the water meter must be has been removed, an additional fifty dollar ($50.00) fee must be paid as a condition of receiving resumption of water service agaiR. Any ovmor not using '.vater after the first of the month, or in case a meter is used after the meter has been read, must report the same to the City Clerk and have the water shut off, and ifhe fails to do so, the full amount for said month must be paid. No allowance will be made for nonuse for less than one month. All corrections as to the charge and all abatements shall be made under the direction of the Mayor and Council and shall be certified by the City Clerk Finance Director;-8flfi all water bills must be paid by the o'v'mcr of tho property upon 'lIhich the same is used and not by the tenants thereof. B. Right To Hearing: 1. The City, in its delinquency notice to all water users and owners, shall inform them in writing all owners of their right to a pre-termination hearing, with such hearing to be held with the due process protection described below. If a pre-termination hearing is requested by any water user +!he City will not discontinue water service to any 0'.vner1s property water user prior to a fair and impartial hearing, after timely and adequate notice and an opportunity to confront witnesses, to personally appear with retained counsel to be judged on facts adduced at the hearing and to otherwise be heard and defend the claim made by the City, if a. pre termination hearing is requested by any OVlller. The City Council shall have the responsibility of holding pre- termination hearings. The City Council shall make a record of tmy all pre-termination hearing~. The City Council shall render its decision in writing, giving the reasons for its determination. In decisions adverse to the OViller water user, the City Council Utility Billing Directive Ordinance Page 3 of7 will inform the water consumer user of the right to appeal the decision pursuant to the Idaho State Administtative Procedures Act 29 . 2. Provided, however, the City shall not initially deny or discontinue water service to any 6Wflef water user because of any delinquent water bill on that premises that is attributable to the prior owner. However, any and all unpaid water charges shall be a lien against the property as provided below. The City may initially deny water service to any ew:B:ef water user who requests service at a new location when that 6'Wfief water user has a delinquency at any previous location or premises. Provided, further, that the City shall not initially deny water service to anyewHef water user for whatever reason without informing the ew:B:ef water user of the right to a hearing before the City Council on the issue of whether the City can initially deny water services. In the case of an initial denial of water service, the City is not required to provide water service pending a hearing. However, a hearing upon request of aft ewflef water user initially denied water service shall be held as expeditiously as possible and held in the manner and accordance with the procedures for pre- termination hearings delineated above. C. Lien Imposed: Where allowed by law, AglI delinquent charges or fees, as provided by this Section, not paid after the final determination of the delinquent account, shall be imposed as a lien against and upon the property or premises against which such charge or fee is levied or assessed; and the Clerk shall, at the time of certifying the City taxes, certify such delinquencies together with all penalties to the Tax Collector of Ada County, and when so certified, the same shall be a lien upon the property. All monies collected by the Clerk under the provisions of this Section shall be paid over to the City Treasurer in the same manner as is required for the payment of other City monies. (Ord. 476, 4-21-1987) D. Security Deposit: Upon application for new service, or upon reconnection for existing service which was terminated for nonpayment, the City may require a water user to pay a deposit in an account to be determined in accordance with policies established by resolution of the City CounciL SECTION 4: That Section 24 Water Fund of Chapter 1 Title 9, be, and the same is hereby amended and shall now read as follows: 9-1-24 WATER FUND: All fees and charges received and collected under the authority of this Chapter shall be deposited and credited to a fund to be designated as the Water Fund within the Utility Enterprise Fund. The accounts of said Fund shall show all receipts and expenditures for the maintenance, operation, upkeep and repair of the domestic water system and any payments into a sinking fund established for the purpose of paying principal of and interest on the water indebtedness of the City which shall from time to time be outstanding. As provided by law, when budgeted and appropriated, the funds and credits to the account of the Water Fund shall be available for the payment of the requirements Utility Billing Directive Ordinance Page 4 of7 for the maintenance, operation, repairs and upkeep of the domestic water system of the City, and to the extent leRally available, for payment into a sinking fund established for the payment of the principal and interest on any water bond indebtedness of the City which shall from time to time be outstanding. (Ord. 476, 4-21-87) SECTION 5: That Section 28 Delinquencies; City Procedure of Chapter 4 Title 9, be, and the same is hereby amended, and shall now read as follows: 9-4-28: DELINQUENCIES; CITY PROCEDURE: A. Termination Of Water Service For Nonpayment: If a sewer user has not paid l:Hs monthly charges by the tenth ofth8 month the billing within fifteen (15) days from the date ofthe statement, it shall be deemed delinquent. The City shall follow the procedure set forth in Section 9-1-21 of this Title for termination of water services, and shall cause the water supplied to said sewer user to be turned off from the premises, the City taking notice that, without water, the sewer system of the user cannot be used and shutting off the water is the only way to prevent the use of the sewer for nonpayment; provided, if the charges are not paid within ten (10) days after the delinquency notice, and if no penalty is due for nonpayment of water charges, an additional penalty of one dollar fifty cents ($1.50) or as set by fifteen percent (15%) of charges due, whichever is greater, Resolution of the City Council will be added to the account and must be paid to restore service. B. Lien Against Property: Where allowed bv law, Af!ll delinquent charges or fees, as provided by this Chapter, not paid after the final determination of the sewer user's account shall be imposed as a lien against and upon the property or premises against which such charge or fee is levied or assessed, and the City Clerk shall, at the time of certifying the City taxes, certify such delinquencies together with all penalties to the Tax Collector of Ada County, Idaho, and when so certified, the same shall be a lien upon the property and will be collectible as other taxes. C. Use At New Location: The owner of any property leaving a delinquency in sewer fees at any location shall not be entitled to the use of the sewerage system at any new location until all fee delinquencies are paid. D. Disposition Of Monies Collected Sewer Fund: .:\11 monies collected by the City Clerk under the pro'iision oftrus Section shall be paid o'/er to the City Treasurer in the same manner as is required for the payment of other City monies. (Ord. 376, 7 7 1980) All fees and charges received and collected under the authority of this Chapter shall be deposited and credited to a fund to be designated as the Sewer Fund within the Utility Enterprise Fund. The accounts of said Fund shall show all receipts and expenditures for the maintenance, operation. upkeep and repair of the domestic sewer system and any payments into a sinking fund established for the purpose of paying principal of and interest on the sewer indebtedness of the City which shall from time to time be outstanding. As provided by law. when budgeted and appropriated, the funds and credits to the account of the Sewer Fund shall be available for the payment ofthe Utility Billing Directive Ordinance Page 5 of7 requirements for the maintenance, operation, repairs and upkeep of the domestic sewer system ofllie City. and to the extent legally available. for payment into a sinking fund established for the payment of the principal and interest on any water bond indebtedness of the City which shall from time to time be outstanding. SECTION 6: All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. SECTION 7: VALIDITY: The Meridian City Council hereby declares that any section, paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance as adopted and amended herein be declared for any reason to be invalid it is the intent of the Meridian City Council that it would have passed all other portions of this ordinance independent of the elimination herefrom of any portion as may be declared invalid. SECTION 8: SAVINGS CLAUSE: This ordinance does not affect an action or proceeding commenced or right accrued before this ordinance takes effect. SECTION 9: DATE OF EFFECT: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this day of , 2003. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this day of , 2003. Mayor Robert D. Corrie ATTEST: William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk An Ordinance of the City of Meridian By: William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk First Reading: Adopted after first reading by suspension of the Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code 50-902: YES NO Second Reading: Third Reading: Utility Billing Directive Ordinance Page 60f7 STATE OF IDAHO,) ss. County of Ada, ) On this day of ,2003, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ROBERT D. CORRIE and WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, ofthe City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. (SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO RESIDING AT: MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian ] 5360M\Ordinances City Hall12003 Ord\BillingDirectiveOrd 08 27 03.doc Utility Billing Directive Ordinance Page 7 of7 WHITE PETERSON WHITE, PETERSON, MORROW, GIGRA v, ROSSMAN, NVE & ROSSMAN, P .A. KEvIN E. DINIUS JULlc KLclN FISCHER WM. F. GIGR,W, In T. GUY HALLAM' JILL HOllNKA D. SAMUEL JOHNSON WILLIAM A. MORROW WILLIAM F. NICHOLS' CHRISTOPHER S. NYE I'Hu.tP A. PETERSON ERICA S. PlllLllPS ERIc S. ROSSMAN TODD A. ROSSMAN 1ERRENCc R. WHITc" NICHOLAS L. WOUEN ArrORNEYSATLAw NAMP A OFFICE 5700 E. FRANKLIN RD., SUnE 200 NAMP A, IDAHO 83687-8402 TEL. (208) 466.9272 FAX (208) 466-4405 · Also admilled in OR ., Also admilled in W A August 27,2003 William G. Berg, 1 r. City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Ordinance No. 03- , (Utility Billing Directive Ordinance Amending Sections 5, 20, 21, and 24 to Chapter 1 and amending Section 28 to Chapter 4 Title 9) Summary of Publication Dear Will: Pursuant to the direction of the Meridian City Council, this office has prepared a sllilliTIarization of the ordinance providing for Utility Billing Directives Ordinance Amending Sections 5, 20, 21 and 24 to Ordinance Chapter 1 and amending Section 28 to Ordinance Chapter 4 of Title 9 for Sununary Ordinance for the City of Meridian, pursuantto the City's action. I do hereby advise the City, and make this statement, that said sununary is true and complete and provides adequate notice to the public of the provisions of said ordinance. You are hereby directed to file this statement with the ordinance, pursuant to the provisions ofIdaho Code S 50-901(A). Enclosure Z;\ Work\M\Meridian\Meridian I 53 60M'Ordinances City HaIJ\2003 Ord\Berg Utility Billing Amendmt to sections 5,20, 21 and 24 Chapt [ Title 9 Sum Ord Ltr 08 27 03.doc NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORl?INANCE PURSUANT TO I.e. ~ SO-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 03- PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 9 CHAPTER 1 SECTIONS 5, 20, 21, 24 AND TITLE 9 CHAPTER 4 SECTION 28 TO THE SE\VER AND WATER ORDINANCE An ordinance of the City of Meridian amending Sections 5, 20, 21 and 24 of Chapter 1 and Section 28 of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Meridian City Code by the addition and/or deletion of language to define the process for the application for water service, to direct where water payments shall be made and the time allowed for payment, to provide for termination of water and sewer service if an account is delinquent and to provide a right to hearing, and where allowed by law that liens shall be imposed on delinquent accounts, and to provide for fees and charges received and collected under the designated Water Fund shall be held in a Utility Enterprise Fund. A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho. This ordinance shall become effective on the day of ,2003. City of Meridian Mayor and City Council By: William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk First Reading: Adopted after first reading by suspension of the Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code 50-902: YES NO Second Reading: Third Reading: Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360MlOrdinances City Hall\2003 OrdlSum Ord Utility Billing Directive Amend secs 5, 20, 2[ and 24 Ora 0827 03.doc Summary Utility Billing Amended Ordinance Chapters 1 and 4 Title 9 Page 1 of 1 , ~ <:;.~' ; ~~X::i ~., /' ( ',<, '.,','."., ,",' .'.., )ii CITY OFMERIl)IAN ' . ~JTY CO~~~~J~~~GULAR M~~~;NG , ~_~;~~~~tDA ..,J~e~d.ay. sePte\~:~~~~~~ at 7:00 p.m, i" CitY Council Chamber Roll-call J'.tlendance:;. '::::'_:,. 0\ Tammy de Weei'd Bill Nary 'X Cherie McCandless KeithBir ~~:~l;~(;~ X : Mayor Ro rt Corn, Adoption .~fthe Agenda; Jl.pprove as mende C...._~"r.:r.:.it A ,\ d . A"" ;;;'. . onse7~ ~gen~;...pprove """""'~: Approve minUtes ,0 ",' Au us i. ,', Meeting:~pprove i:\ B. Approve urc~~~~ of Additio lueSpringsAvenue: A ro ,-.,han~~ Order or e rminger ConstruCtion: Approve ...... 1. 03 Gity Co.uncl Regu ot f ell o. 4 o )\ umping aCI " ......'.' 4.\,',>::'" De:partmeht Reports "", A. F. epar ment - Chief ower. i) Update on Fire Stabon NO; 3: Presen Up a e n Sa ouse: Prgsen e , n~'l3.~~ef DriSjc~US;s:'tbn\~1 Revenue ercentages per 'om ;~:> '::: . Agreement: App~ov.e 75/25 % Split · . " ....} ....i,te s oved from co:~~t;~;~~~;i None : 2 6, . / Jl.d~Pt.:r.entati~} JI.~f?~.l11e~Qi:'?~O~.fjSCa e : "",,7. .'\Ordiriai-16~N6.iii.::{)j~1b4~((ii: RZ ,03-00 equ .,"..,."",,~iii ReZbneof.165 acres fromR~4 tdO~T zonesfoi- Schroeder Apartments, ii\ ..':,"'... ',..":":.'",,":,,by H; John Gook~92tWesf2nd Street Approve S"'~}~Meridian City COlmciiAgeilda."c: Septcmber9, 2003> Page I of 3 > .............. .., .... Alrrnat~ri<1ls presellledatpllb[icmcetillgs shall become property of the City of Me i<> '. ..Anyoncdesiring accommodation for disabilities rcbted 10 documents and/orheanng . ..' .... :"~~ '":':" ~" 5'!Y "clcr"rn~,,\ 8~::3J :~ I.~~ " I,,"" :'"': W~:CP"",' moo",," owers rov '>........ CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, September 9, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: o X , Tammy de Weerd + Cherie McCandless K Mayor Robert Corrie Bill Nary Keith Bird 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Vtj'Jlrl'vY as a~d- 3. Consent Agenda: ~?YZi've..- A. Approve minutes of August 26, 2003 City Council Regular Meeting: t2--~v-<.- B. Approve Purchase of Additional Lot for Well No. 24 - 2870 N. Blue Springs Avenue: ~~ C. Change Order No.2 for Well No. 24 Pumping Facilities - Irminger Construction: ~~ 4. Department Reports A. Fire Department - Chief Bowers: 1. Update on Fire Station No. 3: f17.e.{~J'V~vL 2. Update on Fire Safe House: rt~{..eC<-- 3. Discussion of Revenue Percentages per Joint Powers Agreement: t:t-J?;'f1y-p v~ ?G /t;;; ~o ~7 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) AtO-/'X/}1,7-' 6. Adopt Tentative Amendment to 2003 Fiscal Year Budget: c27jPrt9v<- 7. Ordinance No. 0:3 -/ {) 1-2- RZ 03-007 Request for a Rezone of .165 acres from R-4 to 0- T zones for Schroeder Apartments by H. John Cook - 921 West 2nd Street: arf7~v~ Meridian City Council Agenda - September 9, 2003 Page 1 on All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring acconunodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 8. FP 03~047 Request for Final Plat approval of 37 single-family lots, 2 other building lots, and 12 common lots on 26.39 acres in R-8 and L-O zones for Paramount Subdivision No.1 by Paramount, LLC - east of North Linder Road and north of West McMillan Road: tzt' pro v'l.€.- 9. FP 03~048 Request for Final Plat approval of 92 residential building lots and 11 other lots on 35.52 acres in an R-8 zone for Birchstone Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - northwest corner of West Ustick Road and North Black Cat Road: ..ftbUe..1o ~7.16 e../ 'ZOO '3 10. FP 03-049 Request for Final Plat approval of 39 building lots and 1 other lot on 8.25 acres in a R-8 zone for Baldwin Park No.6 by Capitol Development - north of West Ustick Road and east of North Under Road: &/r;:rvoV"<'-" 11 Continued Public Hearing from September 2, 2003: PP 03-021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 6 other lots on 13.85 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek No.8 by Bear Creek, LLC - north of West Victory Road and east of South Stoddard Road: tJi~t1.R-!J -/-O~/'~ -f'f?pe/~ fVrc~~ 12. Public Hearing: PP 03~016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 building lots on 10.97 acres in a C-G zone for proposed Southern Springs by The Land Group, Inc. - southeast corner of Meridian Road and Overland Road~ . /'1' F.i /-.d r _ "~ p af1vrrM~ f,p I"".ejl.:"i--...e -n r T & .{" rur- ~V"~ 13. Public Hearing: AZ 03-014 Request for annexation and zoning of 33.25 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: a f"ft;yn-l-:; 1-0 /ff~?tV\.i. .{'I.( 1- c/l ~ af'rr::'I./'M, 14. Public Hearing: PP 03-015 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 136 building lots and 10 other lots on 33.25 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: CL~ 10 ;mefJ~ -Elr t C/..e. IVv- qfr'Pv~ 15. Public Hearing: CUP 03-029 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development with reduced lot widths and setbacks for the proposed Tuscanv Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of East Victory Road and west of South Loc!,Jst Grove Road: ~.e!J -fo ;>nep~J/~'; cl-t.. ,/&t-- L&P~~ 16. Public Hearing: RZ 03-008 Request for a rezone of 12.74 acres from l-L to R-15 zones for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC - 1125 East Pine Street: accef>c w/th...??f-.UW {h;ht-~ Meridian City Council Agenda - September 9, 2003 Page 2 oB All materials presented at public meetings shall become propeJty 0 f the City of Meri dian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 18. 19. 17. Public Hearing: CUP 03-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for multi-family residential subdivision requesting reduced setbacks, parking standards, and dimensional requirements for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC - 1125 East Pine Street: , Iff cc l2/ {;- N/ tJ...-dratV ;;;-t1??'i- a/~d:4-,4- Public Hearing: PP 03-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building lots and 11 other lots on 11.45 acres in an R-4 zone for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by R.K. Development, LLC - west of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road: eK;t%n-n..eij ~J?Ye?tvLf. +IEI c/-<:- fPr- ar~~ Public Hearing: VAR 03-012 Request for a Variance to block length requirements for a block on the south side of Clearbrook Street for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by R.K. Development, LLC - west of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road: a;fIrr~'J ~ ref'a.'W'.. -fir: -I e/~ An- ~~ Meridian City Council Agenda - September 9, 2003 Page 300 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian, Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. i ** IFIRMATfON REPORT ** AS OF SEP 10 'e.. .:36 PAGE. 131 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM MJDE M1WSEC PGS CMDIl STATUS 0G 09/113 01:04 3810160 EC-S 131' 33" 0133 246 OK m 09/113-01<06 PUBLIC WORKS EC--S 013'57" 003 246 OK 08 09/10 131'07 120846644135 EC--S ee'58" 1303 246 OK 09 09/10 01:09 8841159 EC-S 00' 5'7~ 1303 246 OK 10 09/1001:102088840744 EC-S 00' 58" 0133 246 OK 11 09/113 131:12 2088467366 EC--S 130'58" 003 246 OK 12 09/10131:138985501 EC--S 00'57" 003 245 OK 13 09/10131:15 LIERARY EC-S 131' 13" 003 246 OK 14 09/1001:1692083776449 EC--S 00'57" 1303 246 OK 15 09/10 01' 18 208 368 6924 EC-S 01' 13" 003 246 OK 16 09/10 01' 213 2088886854 EC-S faa'56" ae3 246 OK 17 139/10 01:21 208 895 e390 EC-S 00'57" e03 246 OK 18 09/113 01: 22 208 387 6393 EC-S 013'56" 003 246 OK 19 09/10 01' 24 ADA CTY DEVELMT G3--S 01'44" 003 245 OK 20 09/10 01' 26 208-88a-5052 EC-S 0e'57" 003 246 OK 21 09/10 01:28 CHERRY LANE EC-S a1'13" e03 246 OK 22 09/10 01'29 POST OFFICE EC-S 01'33" 0133 246 OK 23 09/10 01' 32 IDRHO ATHLETIC C EC--S 00'57" 003 246 OK 24 09/10 131'33 B87 0816 G3--S 01'55" B03 246 OK 25 09/10 01:36 ID PRESS TRllllJ-lE EC--S 00'57" 1303 246 OK 26 139/10 01'37 208 888 6700 EC-S 00'57" 003 245 OK ----------~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, September 9, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. City Councl/ Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: o Tammy de Weere! ~ 8il1 Nary ~ Cherie McCandless ~ Keith Bird -...L Mayor Robert Corrie 2. Adoption of the Agenda: ~;Prl'1'V A.' a~(7!.. 3. Consent Agenda; ~'/"G.< A. Approve minutes of August 26, 2003 City Council Regular Meeting: ~V'(, B. Approve Purchase of Additional Lot for Well No. 24 - 2870 N. Blue Springs Avenue: ~qv.J C. Change Order No. 2 for Well No. 24 Pumping Facilities _ Irminger Construction: ~~ 4. DepanrnentReports A. Fire Department - Chief Bowers: 1. Update on Fire Station No.3; /if..r.{ ~.(J{. 2. Update on Fire Safe House: f'?,.,u-h/k(JG. 3. Discussion of Revel1ue Percentages pel" Joint Powers Agreement: ~ v~ 1G I t. ~ ,:,.,. Fj:Jbif 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) fr<oI'/.-/h.~ 6. Adopt Tentative Amendment to 2003 Fiscal Year Budget: (l/~v<- 7. Ordinance No. 0:3 -/01"2- : RZ 03.007 Request for a Rezone of .165 acres from R-4 to 0- T zones for Schroeder Apartments by H. John Cook - 921 West 2nd Street: ~V........ M,ridi.. City CoUIlOU ^e""a. S",!<m""r~, 21\03 Po.t;t 1 un All ....l.ti.l< P<<SOlIlod .11'\lbJi. "'eclinss .~U bee.",. Pl'lpotly of.t<: City ofMeridioo. An~n[! desiring ~r;OtMlod;lltiDn ro...d~:hIbilitfJ:!l; rcbtcd M dn.;:umtn~ and/or hauin.k:: plwe c;:oN:&clthe CjtY Cled~'~ OffiCC"ll SgS04433.,t ltaS( 4i 1101It1 priorUllhc puNic :1n:telLnB. ( ** COMMUNICATIONS REPORT ** AS OF SEP 10 '03 05:00 PAGE. 01 CITY OF MERIDIAN TOTAL PAGES . TOTAL TI ME SEND 0068 SEND 00025'45" RECEIVE 0000 RECEIVE 00000'00" DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMDJ:t STATUS 01 09/10 00:58 2088840744 EC--S 00'25" 001 243 OK 02 09/10 01:00 2088467366 EC--S 00'25" 001 243 OK 03 09/10 01:01 8985501 EC--S 00'24" 001 243 OK 04 09/10 01:02 2088886854 EC--S 00'24" 001 243 OK 05 09/10 01:03 208 895 0390 EC--S 00'24" 001 243 OK 06 09/10 01:04 3810160 EC--S 01'33" 003 246 OK 07 09/10 01:06 PUBLIC WORKS EC--S 00' 57" 003 246 OK 08 09/10 01:07 12084664405 EC--S 00'58" 003 246 OK 09 09/10 01:09 8841159 EC--S 00'57" 003 246 OK 10 09/10 01:10 2088840744 EC--S 00'58" 003 246 OK 11 09/10 01:12 2088467366 EC--S 00'58" 003 246 OK 12 09/10 01:13 8985501 EC--S 00' 57" 003 246 OK 13 09/10 01:15 LIBRRRY EC--S 01'13" 003 246 OK 14 09/10 01:16 92083776449 EC--S 00' 57" 003 246 OK 15 09/10 01:18 208 388 6924 EC--S 01'13" 003 246 O~< 16 09/10 01:20 2088886854 EC--S 00'56" 003 246 OK 17 09/10 01:21 208 895 0390 EC--S 00'57" 003 246 OK 18 09/10 01:22 208 387 6393 EC--S 00'56" 003 246 OK 19 09/10 01:24 ADA CTY DEVELMT G3--S 01'44" 003 246 OK 20 09/10 01:26 208-888-5052 EC--S 00' 57" 003 246 OK 21 09/10 01:28 CHERRY LANE EC--S 01'13" 003 246 OK 22 09/10 01:29 POST OFFICE EC--S 01'33" 003 246 OK 23 09/10 01:32 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC--S 00' 57" 003 246 OK 24 09/10 01:33 887 0816 G3--S 01'55" 003 246 OK 25 09/10 01:36 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC--S 00'57" 003 246 OK 26 09/10 01:37 208 888 6700 EC--S 00' 57" 003 246 OK ( ** TX CONF I Rh..., ION REPORT ** AS OF SEP 09 03 16:08 PAGE. 01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD" STATUS 29 09/09 16:07 208 331 6466 EC--S 00'52" 003 239 _~K_________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, September 9,2003 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: _ Tammy de Weerd Cherie McCandless Mayor Robert Corrie Bill Nary Keith Bird 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of August 26, 2003 City Council Regular Meeting: B. Approve Purchase of Additional Lot foil' Well No. 24 - 2870 N. Blue Springs Avenue: C. Change Order No. 2 for Wett No. 24 Pumping FaciJitles - Irmlnger Construction: 4. Department Reports A. Fire Department - Chief Bowers: 1. Update on Fire Station No.3: 2. Update on Fire Safe House: 3. Discussion of Revenue Percentages per Joint Powers Agreement: 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) 6. Adopt Tentative Amendment to 2003 Fiscal Year Budget: 7. Ordinance No. RZ 03-007 Request for a Rezone of .165 acres from R-4 to O-T zones for Schroeder Apartments by H. John Cook - 921 West 2nd Street: Mel'idian City Courwil A,genda Septell1h~r 9, '2003 PuS" I ofJ AllIll<1tctiulG pn:sMfCd ~I public; mt't"tmlls shall become pli>~ ofllie Cily ofMerid;"'l. AnYOlle de$iring =mmodlllioll fordisabilili~ related 10 dOCUlnC'l1!i 4IId/or heal'iog r1ease cQntlcllh" City Clel'k's Office ill &S&M33 ~11e.1S\ 4& hOUD prior 10 the public m~Cling, . l .,. . t(u ~,P?t. 0f I ;JO()3 Item Packet Pickup MEETING DATE: " .>.. i Rrc)'ec. .illirrl' ;; I ..... i.. ~Q u1~1.N "Y(l.n...lc t t)tw\() 1~t..A .5 J,~ 4 ~"'l S L 1;,1) Cleo..v\o~K.. -r.-.r"'^^-,IA. ~o\W\\f\ &~ iS~ Ae1~1. '/~ II '.4-S I\\~ ""' j'l i ~ J4.i9..fJL . . ~~l \""h ~!^"M( ~.-- L~I\:). A. ..P qjg 1'/J<5 C IfJ --/- ~, If_v 1"-1 1 '-'V . "- I / , G I CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, September 9,2003 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: o Tammy de Weerd X X Cherie McCandless X X Mayor Robert Corrie Bill Nary Keith Bird 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve as Amended 3. Consent Agenda: Approve A. Approve minutes of August 26, 2003 City Council Regular Meeting: Approve B. Approve Purchase of Additional Lot for Well No. 24 - 2870 N. Blue Springs Avenue: Approve C. Change Order No. 2 for Well No. 24 Pumping Facilities - Irminger Construction: Approve 4. Department Reports A. Fire Department - Chief Bowers: 1. Update on Fire Station No.3: Presented 2. Update on Fire Safe House: Presented 3. Discussion of Revenue Percentages per Joint Powers Agreement: Approve 75 I 25 % Split 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) None 6. Adopt Tentative Amendment to 2003 Fiscal Year Budget: Approve 7. Ordinance No. 03-1042 RZ 03-007 Request for a Rezone of .165 acres from R-4 to 0- T zones for Schroeder Apartments by H. John Cook - 921 West 2nd Street: Approve Meridian City Council Agenda - September 9, 2003 Page I of3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City 0 f Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 8. FP 03-047 Request for Final Plat approval of 37 single-family lots, 2 other building lots, and 12 common lots on 26.39 acres in R-8 and L-O zones for Paramount Subdivision No.1 by Paramount, LLC - east of North Linder Road and north of West McMillan Road: Approve 9. FP 03-048 Request for Final Plat approval of 92 residential building lots and 11 other lots on 35.52 acres in an R-8 zone for Birchstone Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - northwest corner of West Ustick Road and North Black Cat Road: Table to September 16,2003 10. FP 03-049 Request for Final Plat approval of 39 building lots and 1 other lot on 8.25 acres in a R-8 zone for Baldwin Park No.6 by Capitol Development - north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road: Approve 11 Continued Public Hearing from September 2, 2003: PP 03-021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 6 other lots on 13.85 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek No.8 by Bear Creek, LLC - north of West Victory Road and east of South Stoddard Road: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 12. Public Hearing: PP 03-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 building lots on 10.97 acres in a C-G zone for proposed Southern Springs by The Land Group, Inc. - southeast corner of Meridian Road and Overland Road: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 13. Public Hearing: AZ 03-014 Request for annexation and zoning of 33.25 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Tuscanv Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 14. Public Hearing: PP 03-015 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 136 building lots and 10 other lots on 33.25 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Tuscanv Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 15. Public Hearing: CUP 03-029 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development with reduced lot widths and setbacks for the proposed Tuscanv Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval Meridian City Council Agenda - September 9,2003 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please eontaet the City Clerk's Offiee at 888-4433 at least 48 hours pllor to the public meeting. 16. Public Hearing; RZ 03-008 Request for a rezone of 12.74 acres from I-L to R-15 zones for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC - 1125 East Pine Street: Accept Withdrawal from Applicant 17. Public Hearing; CUP 03-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for multi-family residential subdivision requesting reduced setbacks, parking standards, and dimensional requirements for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC - 1125 East Pine Street: Accept Withdrawal from Applicant 18. Public Hearing; PP 03~007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building lots and 11 other lots on 11.45 acres in an R-4 zone for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by R.K. Development, LLC - west of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 19. Public Hearing; V AR 03~012 Request for a Variance to block length requirements for a block on the south side of Clearbrook Street for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by R.K. Development, LLC - west of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval Metidian City Council Agenda - September 9. 2003 Page 3 of3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring acconunodation for disabilities related to documents andlor hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours pliOI' to the public meeting. Meridian City Council Meetina September 9, 2003 The Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:15 P.M., on Tuesday, September 9, 2003, by Mayor Robert Corrie. Members Present: Mayor, Robert Corrie, William Nary, Keith Bird, and Cherie McCandless. Members Absent: Tammy de Weerd. Others Present: Bill Nichols, Will Berg, Anna Powell, Gary Smith, Brad Watson, Stacy Kilchenmann, Kenny Bowers, and Dean Willis. Item 1. Rolf Call Attendance: o X Tammy de Weerd X Cherie McCandless X X Robert Corrie Bill Nary Keith Bird Corrie: I will open the City Council Regular Meeting on Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 7:15 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Meridian, Idaho. At this time, I'd like to have roll call, please, by the City Clerk. Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Corrie: Thank you. Item 2 is the adoption of the agenda. We have had a request to __ of the Item Number 9, Final Plat on Birchstone Subdivision, to be put on -- pulled off and put onto the 16th of September for the final request for the plat. We have Mayfair Commons Subdivision, it's been asked that -- is this correct, Anna, that they want to be completely taken off of the Public Hearing at this time or have they -- Powell: Yes, sir. They have withdrawn their application. Corrie: Withdrawn their application. Okay. Nichols: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I had asked Will to leave this on the agenda so that we could have a motion from the Council formally adopting withdrawal of the application so that we don't have any issues about that part of it. Corrie: It's been requested that we move Item 18 and 19 up to Item 11-A, right after 11 , and so that the Public Works had more time to work on the Tuscany Village presentation and that's all I have at this time as any changes. Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 2 of 73 Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I have got a question before I make a motion. Corrie: Okay. Bird: On our computer under Mayfair Commons, which is the one that wants to be withdrawn, we are showing the CUP and the other -- we are showing three there. We have only go two listed on the -- we have got the CUP listed and we have got the preliminary -- or the 03-008, but we don't have the Preliminary Plat listed on here. Berg: Mr. Mayor, the Preliminary Plat was denied at the Planning and Zoning Commission. Bird: Okay. Berg: And it stays there, it doesn't get passed on, but the other two can proceed on and probably at the recommendation of the staff, it was said that you probably would not pass the annexation unless you saw a Preliminary Plat. Corrie: So, we can let the Council -- Berg: That's why you do not see a Preliminary Plat. Bird: Thank you for answering -- with that Mayor, I would make a motion that we adopt the revised agenda. Nary: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of August 26, 2003 City Council Regular Meeting: B. Approve Purchase of Additional Lot for Well No. 24 - 2870 N. Blue Springs Avenue: C. Change Order No. 2 for Well No. 24 Pumping Facilities - Irminger Construction: Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 3 of 73 Corrie: Next is the Consent Agenda. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. Any further discussion? Roll call vote, please, Mr. Berg. Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, absent; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 4. Department Reports: A. Fire Department - Chief Bowers: 1. Update on Fire Station No.3: Corrie: Item Number 4 is Department Reports. Fire Department. Chief Bowers. Bowers: Good evening, Mayor Corrie and City Council Members. I just wanted to give you a little update on the Fire Station No.3. I don't know if you guys have drove by it lately. It is going up fast. The concrete, foundation, floors are up, the walls are up, the brick is up, the roof trusses are up, the plywood is on top of the trusses, so it is coming along very well at this time. It's right on schedule still and they are talking like completion possibly around the end of October. If you guys are driving by, stop by and take a look at it. Corrie: Yes. It looks like there are ants up there running around. They are really working hard, so tell them thank you. Appreciate that. 2. Update on Fire Safe House: Bower: You bet you. Also, on the safe house, we have got the foundation poured and we have the remanufactured home bolted down to the foundation. We have got the earthquake straps on it now, we have got the power, the phone, the natural gas, the sewer and water ran to the house at this time. It's not hooked up at the house, but it is Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 4 of 73 ran to it. Landscaping, the irrigation, we have taken care of that part. A fire system inside the building has been stubbed to the building, so that is coming along very well, and right now we are working on the -- trying to get the parking lot graded and paved before the winter hits. It's coming along real good, too and as we go we are taking everybody's names that have donated and companies and we will have a plaque and a big sign on location when it's done. Thank you. Corrie: Okay. Bowers: Also, Will, could you hand out that paper, please? Corrie: Yes, we have got it. 3. Discussion of Revenue Percentages per Joint Powers Agreement: Bowers: Okay. I have received the demographics report for the population and the assessed tax value in the City of Meridian and the Meridian Rural Fire Protection District. As we go through it, if you go down and add the population of 13,700 and some in the rural, 39,700 in the city, so if you add that up and percent it out, the percent would be a 24 percent rural, 74 percent city. If you take the taxable value of the city, and the rural, and divide that out, it would be a 24 percent rural, 76 city. Averaging that out at this time, per our joint powers agreement, service agreement, with the rural and the city, the bills would be split 25 percent rural, 75 percent city. That is just a one percent difference from last time. I wanted you guys to be aware of that before the Mayor signed it. Are there any questions on that? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Any questions? Bird: Do you need a motion to -- Corrie: Yes. That would be good. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we -- that you sign and the Clerk attest to this Joint Powers Agreement, the new percentages of 25 percent to the Meridian Rural Fire Protection District and 75 percent to the City of Meridian. Nary: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 5 of 73 Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, absent; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. Motion is approved. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) Corrie: The next item is moved from the Consent Agenda, which there are none. Item 6. Adopt Tentative Amendment to 2003 Fiscal Year Budget: Corrie: Item Number 6. Adopt the tentative amendment to the 2003 Fiscal Year Budget. Stacy. Kilchenmann: Before you actually read the amendment as we publish it, I redid the presentation of the amendment because I thought it might clarify it a little bit and I categorized what we are actually doing. Just to briefly go through it -- I won't reread the numbers, but the general fund, the first category are those items that actually came up we paid for that we had not budgeted for and there are three of them, totaling the 45,200 dollars. Then, we have a category of expenditures, which are actually offset by corresponding revenues, such as grants or the ACHD purchase of right of way and then an adjustment in the rural fire share of the expenses. Those items actually net, there is no difference to the bottom line. Then, as we discussed earlier this year, with interest rates falling and some changes, we implemented a hold back, so we continued to hold back those items that we did not actually do or programs we didn't implement, because we felt like we budgeted them, we didn't do these programs, we should not spend the money. That included like the positions that weren't hired and some operating expenses for the fire station that was not opened and so forth. We also held back at the time we had previously budgeted that we would increase just movement to the time fund balance of 99,000 revenues that we would not spend, so we held that money back. Then, we -- the bottom category are those revenue items that actually came up short. The court revenue, gas franchise revenue, investment interest, and park recreation revenue, but the bottom line is that we are actually -- in the amendment, we are actually going to increase the general fund balance by 121,315 dollars. That is a good thing. On the side of the Enterprise Fund, basically what happened is the bottom category is some transfers just from project to project that we have already discussed throughout the year. The top items come from an original increase that was budgeted to the general fund -- or to the Enterprise Fund but just where revenues would exceed expenditures by approximately a million dollars. We had a little movement between projects, but then, actually, those top items, those project costs all exceeded what was originally budgeted. Basically, the bottom line for that is that the new increase or the new increase from the .Enterprise Fund revenues will fall to 378,000 dollars and then, Meridian City Council Meeling September 9. 2003 Page 6 of 73 like I said on the bottom, there are just some net items. Then, finally, special services starts out with some items and expenditures that weren't budgeted, mainly resulting from the move to new office space and then from an increase in the workload for processing building and plumbing inspections. Those are offset by an increase in residential building permit revenue, so the net impact to the special services fund is zero. That's not how you'll read the amendment, but it just kind of -- I think in my mind it makes it more clear what we are doing. Are there any questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Council? Okay. Thank you, Stacy. I guess request to adopt the amendment to the 2003 Fiscal Year Budget. McCandless: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. McCandless. McCandless: I move that we adopt the tentative amendment to the 2003 Fiscal Year Budget. Bird: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to adopt the tentative amendment to the 2003 Fiscal Year Budget. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed no. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 7. Ordinance No. RZ 03~007 Request for a Rezone of .165 acres from R-4 to 0- T zones for Schroeder Apartments by H. John Cook - 921 West 2nd Street: Corrie: Item Number 7 is Ordinance Number 03-1042. This is a request for a rezone of .165 acres from R-4 to OT zone for Schroeder Apartments by H. John Cook, 921 West 2nd Street. At this time I'd like to have, the City Clerk read Ordinance Number 03-1042 by title only. Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 03-1042, an ordinance finding that the owners of certain real property, John T. Schroeder and Margaret M. Lezamiz have made a written re~uest for rezone of the zoning classification for real property located at 921 West 2n Street, Meridian, Idaho. That lies within the boundaries of the City of Meridian from R-4, Low Density Residential District, Zoning District, to OT, Old Town District, as defined under Meridian City Code Section 11-7 -2L. Repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith, and directing the city engineer to add said rezoning designation to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho. Meridian City Council Meeting September 9. 2003 Page 7 of 73 Corrie: Okay. You have-heard the reading of Ordinance Number 03-1042, request for rezone. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have the ordinance read in its entirety? Okay. Hearing none, I will then entertain a motion on 03-1042, rezone request. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve Ordinance 03-1042, the request for rezone of .165 acres from R-4 to OT zone for Schroeder Apartments, with suspension of rules. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Is there ~ny further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, absent; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. Three ayes. Motion for the request is approved. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 8. FP 03-047 Request for Final Plat approval of 37 single-family lots, 2 other building lots, and 12 common lots on 26.39 acres in R-8 and L-Q zones for Paramount Subdivision No.1 by Paramount, LLC - east of North Linder Road and north of West McMillan Road: Corrie: Item Number 8 is a request for Final Plat approval of 37 single family lots, two other building lots, and 12 common lots on 26.39 acres in an R-8 and L-Q zone for Paramount Subdivision NO.1 by Paramount, LLC, east of North Linder Road -- excuse me -- and north of West McMillan Road. At this time I'd like to have staff comments. Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, this is our first Final Plat for Paramount Subdivision and I have shown you the approved Preliminary Plat, the Final Plat is located in this section here, as you can see on the Final Plat. It is in substantial compliance with the approved Preliminary Plat, the applicant has asked me to make one -- excuse me. There was -- just wanted to make sure we were okay in back of us. There was -- the applicant did ask me to make one clarification. Number 9 on the Fire Department letter talks about having an access with a minimum width of 20 feet available at all times. The Preliminary Plat was approved with the narrower street sections and he just asked me to clarify that it was -- be consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat. I did run this by Chief Bowers before he left and that is the understanding that it just needs to be in compliance with the approved Preliminary Plat. Meridian City Council Meeting September 9. 2003 Page 8 of 73 Other than that clarification, staff has no concerns with this Final Plat at this time. Corrie: All right. Thank you, Anna. Any questions of staff? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Is the representative of here? Turnbull: David Turnbull, 12601 West Explorer Drive, Boise. I concur with the staff report. We have no additional comments to offer. Unless you have any questions for me, I'll go sit down. Corrie: Thank you, David. You can sit down. Okay. Hearing no questions, are we ready for the request for Final Plat approval for Paramount Subdivision? Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve the Final Plat, approval of 37 single family lots and two other building lots and 12 common lots on 26.39 acres in R-8 and L-O zones for the Paramount Subdivision NO.1 by Paramount, LLC. East of North Linder Road and north of West McMillan Road, for the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order. Nary: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Final Plat 03-047. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Clerk. Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, absent; Bird, aye. Corrie: Three ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 9. FP 03-048 Request for Final Plat approval of 92 residential building lots and 11 other lots on 35.52 acres in an R-8 zone for Birchstone Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - northwest corner of West Ustick Road and North Black Cat Road: Corrie: Item Number 9 is a request to have it pulled to the 9-16-03, which is a request for a Final Plat approval at Bridgestone Subdivision. I will entertain a motion to put that on the September 16th meeting. Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 9 of 73 McCandless: Birchstone. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we move FP 03-048, the request for Final Plat approval of 92 residential building lots and eleven other lots on 35.52 acres in an R-8 zone for Birchstone Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, to September 16, 2003. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded. I need to wait until we get another Councilman back here. We have got enough to do it, but we may have a tie and I wouldn't want to break a tie when the Councilman's here, so we will wait just a second and we will have him come in. Okay. Roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Berg: Thank you. This is to table Item 9 to September 16th. Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, absent; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 10. FP 03-049 Request for Final Plat approval of 39 building lots and 1 other lot on 8.25 acres in a R-8 zone for Baldwin Park No.6 by Capitol Development - north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road: Corrie: Okay. Item Number 10, excuse me, is a request for Final Plat approval of 39 building lots and one other lot on 8.25 acres in an R-8 zone for Baldwin Park No. 6 by Capital Development, north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road. Staff comments. Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, when Baldwin Park No.5 came to you, we had some special conditions on that and to -- I'm not sure your remember that whole conversation, so I'm going to briefly go through it again. This is the approved Preliminary Plat. As it's developed, the -- this has been built out, the developer has found improvements -- internal improvements and been -- he's been able to add some additional lots, particularly as we got to this eastern edge of the project. Our lot count for the phases as they were developing was getting to be higher than what was approved in those areas under the Preliminary Plat. We were getting up to six, seven, eight lots. When Baldwin Park No.5 went through, we agreed that there would not be-- that the City Engineer wouldn't sign the plat until we received a new Preliminary Plat application that showed how that area was going to be developed. At that time we didn't anticipate two additional phases coming through so quickly, so we are, again, Meridian City Council Meeting September 9. 2003 Page 1 0 of 73 faced with this situation. What I asked the applicant to do is provide a layout showing how that area would be laid out under a new scenario, so they have provided us that. The Final Plat that they have given us is consistent with that revised drawing that we have gotten and on the staff report, I worked with Sonya to clearly specify how we would deal with these in the future. Basically, when a plat looks like they are adding lots, we are going to ask them for a revised drawing immediately, we are going to make -- I will make a determination as to whether that's consistent with the approved preliminary plat. If it's not, we will have them submit to you right away for a new preliminary plat. This one was kind of in the middle of things and so we -- it's continued on. You will see Baldwin Park No. 7 pretty quickly here, but it is consistent with the sketch they have given us for this area. They have, not submitted a new Preliminary Plat, they actually acquired an additional five acres so they are submitting the new Preliminary Plat to include those five acres, but we have not received that at this time. With those comments we -- staff is recommending approval of this Final Plat. Corrie: Thank you, Anna. Any questions for staff? Is the developer here or representative? Arnold: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, for the record, Steve Arnold, I'm with Briggs Engineering, I'm representing Capital Development on this project. Seeming to be the master of modifications for plats, this is one of those that we have added lots and we are -- probably not as fast as my client wishes, we are submitting a revised Preliminary Plat for the latter phases of Baldwin Park. We are picking up to the south of -- on the previous slide, 10 acres. I'm working on a layout and some sewer profiles for that project. You should, hopefully, see that for 15th, if not shortly thereafter. The plat for Baldwin No.5, it's currently at ACHD to be signed tomorrow, and shortly to be submitted to Central District Health and then, I need to submit a Preliminary Plat ASAP, so I can get the engineer's signature. As regards to the staff report tonight, we are in full agreement and I will stand for questions. Corrie: Council? Okay. Thank you. Hearing no questions, I will ask for the motion with request for Final Plat for Baldwin Park NO.6. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I would move the approval of FP 03-049, the request for Final Plat approval of 39 building lots and one other lot on 8.25 acres in an R-8 zone for Baldwin Park NO.6 by Capital Development. North of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road, and for counsel to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Okay. Roll call vote, Mr..Berg. Meridian City Council Meeling September 9, 2003 Page 11 of 73 Roll Call: McCandless,"aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, absent; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Motion approved for Final Plat 03-049, Baldwin Park NO.6. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 11. Continued Public Hearing from September 2, 2003:. PP 03-021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 6 other lots on 13.85 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek No.8 by Bear Creek, LLC - north of West Victory Road and east of South Stoddard Road: Corrie: Eleven is a Continued Public Hearing from September 2, 2003, request Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and six other lots on 13.85 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek NO.8 by Bear Creek, LLC, north of West Victory Road and east of South Stoddard Road. At this time, I will continue the Public Hearing and have staff comments first. Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, just to refresh your memory, this -- we asked you to table this, because we had not received a revised plat until the day of the hearing, so that's why it was tabled. We did not have any discussion on it, so I will give a brief discussion now. This is internal to the Bear Creek Subdivision development. The site was originally platted for 31 lots. Since that time they have kind of changed the target market in this area, so they have included nine additional lots, so there will be 40 additional -- 40 -- a total of 40 lots. Excuse me. These were the additional lots that were referenced earlier in the discussion about the sewer capabilities. That is the reason for the Preliminary Plat. It does not substantially affect the neighboring properties. It just was not in compliance with the approved preliminary so we did require them to go back through the process. I think I'll leave it with that. They do meet their open space requirements and they have made the changes requested from Planning and Zoning Commission, who have recommended approval of this project to you. Corrie: All right. Thank you, Anna. Any questions of staff? Bird: I have none. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Anna, you don't happen to have a larger drawing -- or maybe Mr. Arnold does -- of the Bear Creek -- because I was just curious as to how that open space -- I assume that bottom corner is the open space, that green? I was just wondering does that -- how does that relate to the rest of the thing, because it looks kind of goofy to have it all in one corner, but I'm assuming that it must relate somehow to the remainder of the subdivision, but maybe it. would be better for Mr. Arnold -- Meridian City Council Meeting September 9.2003 Page 12 of 73 Powell: Mr. Arnold seems to be ready to answer that question. I think it was more of a drainage lot, than an open space lot, but he can address that. Nary: Okay. Thank you. Corrie: Thank you. Is the testimony you are about to give the Council the truth, so help you God? Arnold: Yes. Corrie: Okay. Name and address, please. Arnold: For the record, again. Steve Arnold, Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland Road. I'm representing Bear Creek, LLC. I do have some colored rendering drawings of what their marketing scheme is and it may help you with your question about the landscape ordinance. Excuse me. The landscaping area, so -- Powell: Steve, if you will give me one of those, I can project it up. Arnold: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Commission, again, master of modification. This is our last phase of Bear Creek NO.8. We are -- we do have approval of Bear Creek No. 6, which was this phase that you're seeing before you now. It was approved for 31 building lots. We are adding nine additional lots, based on market demand. We are also adding a stub street to the east and the main reason for doing that is because of the anticipation of development to the east. The Nazarene Church parcel, as you know, the back portion of that is in negotiation between this developer and -- purchasing that and subdividing it. We also, as a part of Bear Creek No.5 -- excuse me, Bear Creek No.6, we did add an additional stub street to that parcel for sewer reasons. Lots -- we did add nine lots. Open space we are roughly at the same amount open space as you have seen before. It's mainly shifted to the north. If you're looking at this diagram, this marketing plan for Bear Creek, Lot No. 27, which is included within this phase of Bear Creek No.8, was a drainage lot and it's currently operating as a drainage lot for Bear Creek Phase No.4. Again, we are complying with the staff conditions. We have complied with the P and Z conditions of adding five percent open space. We are here before you tonight asking approval of these 40 building lots with our common lots and I will stand for any questions. Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Questions from Council? Nary: Could you -- I'm sorry. Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 13 of 73 Nary: Mr. Arnold, so can you -- I mean I think that's turned sideways, so can you show me specifically there, then, which one are walking about for eight? Is it right on the -- where that out parcel is, the church lot? Powell: Mr. Arnold, there is a laser pointer on the podium. Arnold: The out parcel for the church is approximately there. Bear Creek No.6, which you recently saw, is right in here. This area up in Bear Creek NO.5 changed. As you know, we added a stub street down there. We added a street in this location for the Kodiak parcel, which was Bear Creek 6, and, then, we stubbed in Bear Creek 6 right here and we are adding a stub street approximately at this location for this phase and, again, the stub street -- it's going to be difficult to sewer this parcel in here. The additional stub streets will make it a little bit more usable for serviceability for sewer. Nary: Thank you. Corrie: Thank you, Steve. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony? Okay. Hearing none, Public Hearing, Council, any questions, then, related with the Public Hearing? Okay. I will entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing at this time. Nary: So moved. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Corrie: Discussion? Okay. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve PP 03-021, the request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and six other lots on 13.85 acres in an R-4 zone for Bear Creek NO.8 by Bear Creek, LLC, north of West Victory Road and east of South Stoddard Road and for the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order and include all staff recommendations and applicant replies. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat of Bear Creek NO.8. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr..Berg. Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 14 of 73 Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, absent; Bird, aye. Corrie: All right. Approved. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 18. Public Hearing: PP 03-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building lots and 11 other lots on 11.45 acres in an R-4 zone for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by R.K. Development, LLC - west of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road: Item 19. Public Hearing: VAR 03-012 Request for a Variance to block length requirements for a block on the south side of Clearbrook Street for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by R.K. Development, LLC - west of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road: Corrie: Item Number 11-A, here, has been -- we are putting in Items 18 and 19, so I will open the Public Hearing on number 18 and 19, with no objection by Council, open both Public Hearings. One is a request for Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building lots and 11 other lots on 11.45 acres in an R-4 zone for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by RK Development, LLC. West of North Meridian Road, south of West Ustick Road, and also open the Public Hearing in request for a Variance to block length considered for a block on the south side of Clearbrook Street for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by RK Development, LLC. West of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road, so with the Public Hearing now open on Item Number 18 and 19, I will ask Council -- staff fi rst. Powell: Excuse me, Mayor. We have a lot of pictures for -- there we go. Thank you. This is a project that originally came forward to you with a recommendation for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. It is tucked in between two existing subdivisions, located off of Meridian Road. It's a long narrow piece, as you see here. It's currently just no development, although it is surrounded by development. This was the original plat submittal to you. Will notice the slight curve to the road, but there is no traffic islands at the intersection of the street. As that went through the process, we discussed quite a bit about the drainage ponds in the areas and I believe that issue was resolved to your satisfaction and, then, there was the issue of a traffic-calming device. The applicant's subsequent revised submittal to you was -- had bulb outs at the intersection of this street located in this area and Council had been -- Council did not think that that was a suitable traffic calming device. The project was denied and, then, the applicant requested reconsideration and you have granted that and that's where we are today. With that, the applicant proposes -- this is the revised plat and, in particular, as you look at this location right here, we have blown that up, there are two landscape islands in that location to slow down traffic and to add green into that street. I think I'll leave it at that. If you would like more background on the previous hearings, I can go Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 15 of 73 back and add that detail. There is also a traffic island at the entrance or a landscape island at the entrance of the project. Corrie: Okay. Any questions of staff? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. Is the applicant here this evening? Is the testimony you are about to give the Council the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Cook: Yes, it is. Corrie: Okay. Name and address, please. Cook: Richard Cook, Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland Road, Boise. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I appreciate the opportunity to come before you again with this project and I apologize for the previous misunderstanding that I had with my attempts to provide some sort of traffic control in this particular subdivision. As you can see, the -- we have changed the plat, as staff pointed out, to include two additional traffic islands. They are 22 feet from center to the tip of the island. The islands themselves are ten feet by 40 feet in width and they will both be landscaped and the street itself in this particular area has been bulbed out to provide the necessary width on either side of the traffic islands to comply with ACHD requirements and we feel that with these traffic islands being here, this will really meet Council's desire for adequate traffic control in this particular subdivision. The other issues that came up as far as drainage, those have been addressed. We have received tentative approval from Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District to go ahead and discharge our storm drainage into the South Slough or Finch Creek. I think that will take care of that nasty wet pond issue that we talked about. Other than that, I think that's about it and I'll keep it short and if you have any questions I will be happy to answer them. Corrie: You want to say anything about your Variance? Cook: Oh, Right. Right. I forgot about that. As you can see, we have a large drainage lot here and a large drainage lot here, about midway, and, then, of course, down at the end. I feel that the drainage lots themselves visually will help break up the appearance of the lengthy street in these two locations. Also, the possibility of putting a stub street to the south to Waterbury Park across the South Slough is completely unfeasible, seeing how Waterbury Park is constructed. It would be a stub street that would never go anywhere and we believe that what we have done in this design with the Northwest 3rd Street being connected and, like I said, the drainage ponds here. Here, we have complied in spirit with the intent of the city ordinance and in this particular case we feel like a variance is justified and we ask for your approval. Corrie: Okay. Any questions? Meridian City Council Meeting September 9. 2003 Page 16 of 73 Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cook. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony on this request for Preliminary Plat or the request for variance? Okay. Hearing none, Council, any discussion on the record? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I'm assuming we sent notice. I mean we seemed to have a number of people previously that had a different issue that they -- that wasn't related to the traffic calming that they had some concerns with, but I guess maybe that's -- just one. Bird: Yes. There was one that -- Powell: Mr. Mayor, Commissioner Nary, I can look quickly. It will take me a little -- I don't recall any discussion from the neighbors, in all honesty, but I can look through the minutes. Nary: I mean all I -- his was more of a concern of just growth and density and the like, so I'm assuming he figured we heard it, so that's fine. Powell: Okay. Corrie: Okay. No other discussion in the Public Hearing, I will entertain a motion for closure of the Public Hearing. Bird: So moved. Nary: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Number 03-007 and a Variance 03-012. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Corrie: Now, let's take the request for Preliminary Plat first. Discussion? Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: First, I want to compliment Mr. Cook for coming back and redoing that. I think he really solved the traffic problem with the deals and I like it. I appreciate you doing that Meridian City Council Meeting September 9. 2003 Page 17 of 73 and with that, I would move that we approve PP 03-007, request Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building lots, and 11 other lots on 11.45 acres in an R-4 zone for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by RK Development, LLC. West of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road and for the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order and incorporate staff's comments and applicant's comments and any public testimony. Nary: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded for the request for Preliminary Plat approval, Clearbrook Estates Subdivision. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, absent; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion is carried MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Corrie: Now, I will -- request for a variance, the block length requirement. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve VAR 03-012, request for a Variance to block length requirements for a block on the south side of Clearbrook Street for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by RK Development, LLC. West of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road, for the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order and to incorporate staff, applicant, and public testimony. Nary: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request Variance 03-012. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, absent; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion is carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Berg: Mr. Mayor, if I could have Mr. Cook bring those boards back and -- Corrie: Okay. Richard. Meridian City Council Meeting September 9.2003 Page 18 of 73 Berg: -- remain part of our public -- Corrie: Richard? Mr. Cook, could we have those boards, because -- the City Clerk. Right now. Cook: Oh, these? Corrie: Yes. Cook: Okay. Bert: You presented them as public record, so I need to have them as part of the record. Sorry. Corrie: While we are thinking about it -- or I am, anyway. I haven't discussed with Council, but if we have a -- PowerPoint all this on a PowerPoint, so the audience could see it. When they bring boards up, you can't see it and it -- being a Public Hearing it's vital that you get all the information, so what I'm going to suggest to Council and to staff is a -- developer's have a PowerPoint they can put up and you can see it as well, but it's just at the preliminary stage at this time, but I'll let you know about that. Corrie: Okay. Now, Item Numbers 13, 14, and 15 is a Public Hearing on Tuscany Village. Powell: Mr. Mayor? Bird: You got 12. Item 12. Public Hearing: PP 03-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 building lots on 10.97 acres in a C-G zone for proposed Southern SprinQs by The Land Group, Inc. - southeast corner of Meridian Road and Overland Road: Corrie: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes 12. Yes ahead of myself. Public Hearing request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 building lots on 10.87 acres in a C-G zone for proposed Southern Springs by the Land Group, Incorporated southeast corner of Meridian Road and Overland Road. I will open the Public Hearing, and I apologize if I made a mistake here, but thank you. Public Hearing is open. Have staff comments first. Powell: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, this project is for an 11 lot commercial subdivision. You are only seeing the Preliminary Plat tonight, because it's already zoned and annexed into the city and although they have submitted a conceptual layout for the property, there is no development plan at this point that's set in stone. They have not done a Planned Development to accompany this application. As you can see, there are residential properties immediately to the east of this that border the Ten Mile -- Ten Mile Creek -- Nine Mile? Ten Mile Creek and, then, across the street at.Meridian __ Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 19 of 73 or across Meridian Road, but the neighbors to the east have been concerned about this development. This was their original submittal to the Planning and Zoning Department and this is the layout that was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. They did recommend approval of this project. We had quite a bit of discussion about the pathway on that eastern border there. North is now going to -- let's see, to the left. There we go and so this is that -- the Ten Mile Creek along here. There are two entrances to the property off of Meridian Road. One is located here the other is located down here and then, as I said before, although they have shown these buildings conceptually how they would layout, this is not a consideration for approval. What we have done is we have had a blanket cross-access agreement, so that they can share those, but no specific comments on the location or placements of those lots at this time. There are some photos from around the area, mostly showing that -- this dense vegetation that exists along the Ten Mile. As you can see throughout property -- and I think there is one more slide at the end that shows that as well. It got separated. There you go. This is the cross-section of that Ten Mile Creek. It is a 100-foot easement, so it's approximately from the centerline, although it does seem to be a little off centerline through this property. There are no fences within this area. This is all easement. Most of the houses come right up to this 50 foot easement area, so they have a substantial backyard, but it is within an easement and there are fences, although, as I said, there is fairly dense vegetation going along there. This property as well has the 50-foot Meridian irrigation easement. There is also -- Public Works has requested a 20 feet sewer easement in that location. Right now you see the access easement and, then, the -- from top of bank and, then, there is -- I think it says eight to seven feet of area that's kind undesignated, but it would be within the 20 foot sewer easement as shown down here. The applicant with the Preliminary Plat had proposed to put a walking path within the Nampa Meridian Irrigation easement and, then, where there was no sewer line and the sewer would come down to, I believe, approximately right here, then, it would cut across, so in that location it would just be shrubs in this planter, a five foot planter. As it continues further down the property they would add trees, so the pathway -- there was no vegetation on this side as you look down in the Ten Mile Creek. There was a lot of discussion at Planning and Zoning Commission about putting a fence either here or here and there were safety concerns from the Police Department they did want to have sight visibility onto that pathway, so that it didn't become a safety concern. Again, this is the Landscape Plan per the Preliminary Plat application. There is a 35- foot landscape easement required along Meridian Road. There was a 25-foot landscape easement -- or landscape buffer, I'm sorry, required along Overland Road. There was discussion about alternative compliance at that point. The applicant has, since the preliminary plat application, officially requested an alternative compliance and my -- the alternative would be -- oops. Wrong way. No. Lost it. I'm sorry. This was the original application, so you can see the wider landscape buffer here and just the 50- foot easement up here. The applicant is, instead, proposing to take 15 feet of the buffer at this location and add it back here and then, what they would do with that 15 feet is they would have, again, that five-foot planter with shrubs, where there was no sewer easement. Then with trees and then they would put an additional five foot planter with trees to further kind of screen that, but still leaving it open for visibility into it, but to kind of lessen the stark appearance from the neighbors over on this side. Okay.. Now -- so, Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 20 of 73 in regard to that request, what I had suggested to the -- or what my letter to the applicant states in regards to the alternative compliance is that I would allow the reduced buffer for parking stalls and for buildings, so in this situation here where you see a building coming down to the 25-foot setback, that would be allowed, as would this. Also these where you see parking stalls coming back down to it, but that it would not be allowed for drive-thru aisles -- again, this development plan, although they are not asking for approval of it at all, did show four drive-thru facilities on the property. The alternative compliance states that you could do that for the buildings and the parking spaces, but not the drive-thru aisle. Since the Preliminary Plat we did get two additional letters, one from Geraldine Snowball, dated August 30th, and one from Dale and Tammy Rogers, dated September 2nd. There was a condition that -- Condition Number 11 on page three of the recommendations. The preliminary landscape plan by Land Group is approved. If the landscape buffer width must be reduced due to roadway expansion, applicant shall resubmit a revised landscape plan to the Planning and Zoning Department for review prior to City Council approval. We did not receive a revised preliminary -- or revised landscape plan. We are assuming that's because they still don't know from ITD exactly how much they need to give or that what they assume __ that it's no more than was originally submitted. We just need to get some clarification on that from the applicant and one last condition that staff needs to add -- and I apologize for that. Brad was away when the -- the staff working on it was away when the recommendations had to be done and we did miss one condition of approval. In this location down here -- and, again, because there is no development plan, we can't condition it exactly, but they have shown a building -- looks to be about ten feet off the property line. There is a residence in this small -- on this small lot. Let me go up top to the aerial and show that to you. You can see this parcel here still is outside the city and, then, it has not been platted with any of these other subdivisions. There is a residence on that property, so the landscape ordinance would require a buffer from this property to that property. What we have indicated that -- that they would -- if, when that lot is developed, the residence is still there, then, they would need to provide a 25 foot buffer to be constructed on -- well, I can read the -- I'm going to read it to you exactly. It says: If the parcel abutting the south property line is a residential use at the time of development of lots eight and nine, which were in this location down here, a 25 foot buffer shall be constructed on said lots on the south boundary and with that, I can conclude staffs comments. Corrie: Thank you, Anna. Any questions of staff at this point? Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is the applicant or his representative here this evening? Is the testimony you're about to give the Council the truth, so help you God? Koga: I do. Corrie: Name and address for the record. Koga: Yes. My name is David Koga with the Land Group at 128 South Eagle Road, representative for Roger Minser and Loren Prose. I appreciate the staffs comment on this project. There are a couple items I would like to follow up for some clarifications Meridian City Council Meeting September 9. 2003 Page 21 of 73 and reconsideration. First of all, let me go kind of backwards in regard to the last comment regard to the laFldscape on the southern property line that our developer -- we comply and agree with that comment there and on the second issue regard to Number 11, regard to a resubmit revised landscape plan. That is true that we are still -- or not negotiating, waiting for ITO and their comment for the redesign of the intersection of Overland and Meridian Road. I don't know if you're aware of that or not, but they are putting together a design for that intersection, so we are waiting for that. What I would like to do, if it, please, is take the time to kind of explain a little bit more about the landscape buffer along the eastern property line with the neighbors. Anna, could you, maybe, show me the -- one of the sections -- yes, that one there. This is -- one of the key things I -- I think Anna did a good job explaining this, but I just want to go a little bit further just to be aware of the safety issue that we are trying to be concerned. The reason why we came up with this type of design, there are two issues that are required with the landscape buffer on that area. One is the width, which we required a 25-foot landscape buffer, which we have complied, because we provide a 50-foot area for the landscape. Regard to the buffer, the material -- the material of the landscape buffer required to provide a 60 percent opaque or landscape buffer within three years, we try to do that, take into account that we could not put a solid fence and or evergreen shrubs or something like that. Because, once again, the safety visual for the Police Department and also not only for visual to the pathway system, but also clear through to the Ten Mile Creek for safety for any type of users along that area. The design we are showing is where we are showing low shrubs that are anywhere from 30 to 36 inches tall and, then, trees above that that are limbed up within seven feet. We are providing a window, a four-foot visual window under the trees, so you still have a safety visual area into the pedestrian pathway system the developers are providing. Also could you show the other site plan, the revised site plan? Yes. As Anna mentioned, we did request a method of compliance for the landscape area. Just clarification, to kind of let you know that we requested that this -- this alternate area, just from the northern entrance to the south, we are not asking to reduce -- reduction of width on the north, we would like to keep that for the 35 feet wide, we are just asking for the -- to reduce the 15 feet from this area here. We have also -- and if you kind of notice, this area does kind of line up together and the reason why is we were also required, through ITO, to provide a deacceleration lane from the southern area up to the northern entrance area, so this area right here is a 15 foot acceleration lane and so during our method of compliance, this is our 20 foot landscape area to where we are going to take this 15 foot width area here and put it along approximately right here, the full length southern area to the south property line, which also aligns roughly with the Running Brook Subdivision area. We are trying to be sensitive with the neighbors and their concern with -- to have some type of buffer area for this development. At the same time, we -- one thing we would like you to reconsider is that we can provide this 20 foot landscape buffer continuous along the area, whether there is just a building, but also if there is any driveway aisles in there. A lot -- even though this is a conceptual, we consider if there is any banks -- the banks would -- the operations would only be typically from 9:00 to 6:00 and so I think the biggest concern with staff is if there is any cars coming back this way, that there might be some headlights that are aiming back going south into the northbound vehicles off Meridian Road. People in. the bank, of course, would not be driving in -- even in the Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 22 of 73 winter into the evenings. If there are any possibilities where these are drive-thru restaurant areas, we'd like to keep it as 20 feet landscape area that were case per case on the lots, taking into account of the headlights. We have checked with other engineers and with our experience with ACHD and ITD have never had a situation with headlights coming off a driveway like that, so we wonder if we would just consider that with each case per case, because it would have to go through a Conditional Use. The last thing, I was wondering if I could bring up -- this is a small item, but on Item Number 5, it's called out that we are providing a six foot wide pedestrian pathway system. We are proposing that is 12 feet wide, a pathway system from Overland Road to approximately right about here and use that for access for not only the pedestrian pathway system, but for the Meridian Public Works for access for -- to the manholes for the sewer. Manhole access. As we go from this point here to the south, we'd like to turn that back from a 12 foot into a 10 foot wide pedestrian pathway system, which is required through the Meridian Parks Department. Closing, do you have any questions in regard to any of those items? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Thank you. This is a Public Hearing. I will give you the rules here. First, we start off with those who are in favor of the project. We will hear them first. Then, we will hear from those who are against the project and are neutral and, then, we will have the applicant come back and ask any questions -- or answer any questions that come up during that debate. Is there anyone here tonight that would like to be for the subdivision? Anyone here tonight that would be neutral like to testify? Yes, sir and I will mention you have three minutes to give your testimony. If you need more, we may give it, but we don't have too much time, so -- is the testimony you are about to give the Council the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Jewell: To the best of my ability. Corrie: Thank you. Jewell: My name is Richard Jewell, I live at 1729 South Marsh Wood in Running Brook Subdivision on the east side of the creek and I say I'm neutral, I am neutral to the development, because I believe everybody that owns property has an individual property rights in which the owner has a right to do whatever he or she desires to do with their property, as long as it's law abiding and does not adversely impact the adjoining community. I have a couple of -- or a sketch here, if the Council permits, I'd like to submit. Corrie: Thank you. Powell: Sir, if you could bring one over here, I can project it up on the -- Jewell: Most residential developments in the City of Meridian enforce limits on obnoxious noises, lights, structure appearance, and non-compatible uses. ~either the Meridian City Council Meeting Septem ber 9. 2003 Page 23 of 73 city, nor the homeowners desire these things. However, Meridian City, in its wisdom, has allowed two noncompatible zones next to each other without any transitional zoning or significant buffer that would reduce these impacts. This development will adversely impact the residential community. I am not here tonight to reject the developer's opportunity to exercise their individual property rights in a way the city has determined to be lawful, even though this is noncompatible and adversely impacts the adjoining residential community. I am here to respectfully request this zoning commission __ excuse me, this Council, City Council, closely examine the situation that they have allowed and to consider the existing residential community. When the property is developed, there will be no way to completely eliminate the adverse impacts. However, the residential community would like a solution that will lessen the adverse impact as much as reasonably possible. As previously submitted in a letter to the zoning commissioners, there are several adverse impacts that are of primary concern. Excessive noises from the development, such as loud speakers, intercom systems, traffic and equipment, obnoxious yard and vehicle lights, both pedestrian and vehicle traffic, noncompatible structures and, yes, the reduction in our property values. We are adamantly opposed to placing a pedestrian pathway along the creek. Since this pathway cannot go anywhere and serves no particular pedestrians, it would only invite security problems for the city and the residential community. The developer has proposed a landscape screen. Although this proposal may help, it is not substantial enough to adequately decrease these adverse impacts. A berm five feet -- four to five feet high is needed with the majority of landscape being evergreen type for year around protection and no visual window openings that would allow headlights to penetrate and going through the Comprehensive Plan, there are many articles within it that are set up to protect the community and the adjoining residence subdivision. Corrie: Thank you, Mr. Jewell. Any questions of Mr. Jewell? Is there any other testimony for neutral? Okay. Again, try to do it in three minutes if you can. Darrell Tomlinson is here tonight. Tomlinson: Darrell Tomlinson, 1817 Marsh Wood. Corrie: Okay. Is the testimony you are about to give the Council the truth, so help you God? Tomlinson: Yes, it is. Corrie: Thank you. Tomlinson: Do you mind could you put up the plat with the walkway? That shows the pedestrian walkway that Mr. Koga was referring to? Yes. Right there. Back up. Yes. That one. All I'm proposing is -- the main thing that I'm proposing -- I'm not adverse to the project itself, I'm just adverse to the fact that we are trying to get some sort of a barrier -- not an extended area. We are trying to get some sort of a barrier, because, as Mr. Koga explained, if we have the low growing shrubs and the high trim trees, all the existing shrubbery that you saw, the high density shrubbery, is deciduous. Seven Meridian City Council Meeting September 9. 2003 Page 24 of 73 months of the year -- and if these are all trimmed up and low growing, we are going to have nothing but pedestrians and headlights in backyards for seven months of the year. We aren't going to be able to enjoy our patios or enjoy our homes without closing the drapes that we get to enjoy now. What we had hoped to get -- we had originally planned six-foot berm with a six-foot vinyl fence. Now, I have driven around the perimeter today of -- out Eagle, down Fairview, and almost all of the new commercial development that backs up against residential property has some sort of a barrier built between the two properties and some of them are decorative, cement wall type things, some of them are bermed, and different things like that. What I'm saying is we are just trying to get something put here -- they can have all the decorations and their nice path, but if we -- if we don't have any separation here, you know, we don't see any benefit, other that what few people may want to be hiding out back here, you know, doing whatever they want to do, trashing Ten Mile Creek, creating trouble for us in our backyards with their animals. The other question I have is, is this path going to be cut the rest of the way through Ten Mile Creek through the Meridian Greens Subdivision that's already developed? Is that the intent? Because I don't know, but I question -- are we just going to get this path for this development only? That's another question I have, and so -- one other issue is -- the main issue is I'm not opposed to the development, 1'm just opposed to them not willing to put up some sort of a permanent, significant barrier between our homes and their development. Could I go to the other plat where it shows the entrance roads? Okay. Thank you, the other question I have is right here is one of the entrances and right over here is Calderwood Street. Calderwood feeds from both directions, the east side and it feeds from the west side. Right now during busy times of the morning and in the evening when people are coming and going from work, it's already a congestion in the fifth middle lane, the pull-out lane, for people, because some of the people that are coming out of the west side are pulling out into the fifth lane. The people that are trying to turn left into the east side are running head on -- head on head. We almost have numerous accidents at the busy times. Now, they want to add another congestion factor right here and I think that entrance is way too close to the Calderwood intersection. That's another issue, one last issue that I want to bring up -- and I got to refer to their recommendation, P and Z's recommendation to you. Number 8. I'm not sure I totally understand it, but if I do understand it, what they want to do is have an easement through this property somewhere back here in order to feed the back of their commercial development. If I understand it right, they want to have three accesses, eventually. They have two initially, and then the third one would be back somewhere -- I don't know where that is located, because I don't have the plat, as you don't have the plat. What I'm saying is that's only going to be an invitation to not only further congest his intersection, but it's going to be an invitation for all the new high school kids to use Meridian Greens and Running Brook Subdivision as a raceway to get to -- I agree right now they are saying they don't know what's going in here. Right now, they have also proposed two fast food restaurants, two regular restaurants, and a bank or two. We know what they are proposing and I see that back entrance as being a raceway entrance for the high school kids, before, during lunch, and after school. Those are my concerns. Corrie: Thank you. We will.find out some answers. Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting September 9. 2003 Page 25 of 73 Powell: Mr. Mayor? Would you like me to -- I neglected to talk about that cross-access. If you would like more information on that, I can do that quickly. The cross-access would be at this location here, the intent being that as this property develops, this is the vacant property, it is designated as commercial on the Comprehensive Plan, as that develops that would give the property access to CaldelWood and that, eventually, there would be a light at CaldelWood, at which time -- we haven't gotten the official response from ITD, but one or more of these would probably become right-in, right-out only, as there was a light access to Meridian Road, so that people could make that left-hand turn, rather than making it from these locations here. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Anna? Okay. Dale Rogers. Is the testimony you are about to give to the Council the truth, so help you God? Rogers: It is. My name is Dale Rogers, I live at 1771 South Marsh Wood Place. Basically, we live right in this area. We back up to -- we back up to this canal and to the proposed building area right in here. First of all, let me tell you I concur 100 percent with what Mr. Tomlinson has said about the berm, the barrier that we need to give us some kind of buffer between this commercial property, the lights, the traffic, the people that come along there. I'm not here to talk about that particularly. One of the main comments that was made and proposed is that there be no high berm here or fence, only some small bushes in a five foot type of cement barrier or something to that effect to give the police a window to look through to see what's going on. Well, let me tell you this. I have been a policeman for 27 years, I have looked for, found, hunted down hundreds and hundreds of people who have tried to hide from police in different areas. I would tell you the statement that they don't want to build a berm here, they want to put bushes is somewhat like unto an illusionist using smoke and mirrors to tell you something's happening that really isn't. Let me give you just my perception of a little closer to reality and not this illusion. First of all, if you put a three foot bush in a cement type of structure, let's see, it would be very similar to what I'm standing behind, and we put how many out here, who knows, several, many of them this whole length of this thing here, I can duck down behind this right now and you won't be able to see me and if you're coming from your side of the street, which is over here and you're shining your flashlights and your patrol car lights through here, all you're going to see is some bushes and cements structure and you're not -- if you're a bad guy, you can hide behind every one of these. I can hide right here and you probably can't see me. I'm saying that's an illusion. Contrast to that, flip the coin over, put a five foot berm there with no bushes on it, some low-lying beautiful flowers, esthetically beautiful, with a vinyl fence across the top of it, I can walk in from this side, shine my light all along that berm and immediately tell you if anybody is hiding there. On the other side I can do the same thing. I don't have to go up to each bush, to each cement barrier and look behind it. I can do it from a distance, from a long way away. Reality to me is that's expensive to these guys to build a berm there, to put a vinyl fence on top of it. They don't want to do that. They would rather give us a token bush every few feet and say the police can look through this window. That's bad news. That's bad news for us, because every bush is a potential hiding spot for a bad guy. We don't want them there. We don't want them Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 26 of 73 jumping through that creek full of water, over into this area here where our houses are into our trees and our yard. My suggestion is if they have a berm with grass, some low- lying flowers and a fence across the top of it right there, nobody is going to try to hide there, because you can pull a police car in there, shine your flashlight or your spotlight and see that whole area in one fell swoop. On the other side, we, as neighborhoods and resident people, we can look at this back of this berm without bushes and tell you if anybody is hiding on this side. I'm opposed to the development, I'm opposed to the fact that they won't put anything there to buffer us from the lights, the people, and the traffic that come in here shining their lights into our bedrooms, into our houses, into our backyards as they come in there at night. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Rogers? Okay. Mr. Rowe. Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, so help you God? Rowe: Yes, it is. Corrie: Name and address, please, for the record. Rowe: Yes. My name is Jeff Rowe and I live at 1707 South Marsh Wood Place. This particular property impacts significantly my house. I'm the first property you come to in the subdivision going from north to south. Okay? Where the laser is here along the creek, I have 222 feet along the creek. In addition, I have 50 feet that runs to the east and I understand that the developer has carry-on plans to have commercial rights on this property and I have been told that they are proposing to be able to access from Overland through here and, then, into this portion of it at some time in the future. For me, 222 feet and, then, an additional 50 feet -- obviously, I have real concerns. This vegetation has been described as dense. These are willow trees and, as you know, those trees that drop their leaves pretty early and they get them late and in the wintertime you really have no screen. The creek -- you know, it's three inches deep, it's two strides across it and I agree 100 percent with what Mr. Rogers was saying here, I spent 21 years in the military and I'm currently a police officer, although, I'm new at law enforcement. I can tell you what you're going to build here is called cover and concealment. Not only are you going to build concealment for someone to hide behind, you're going to give them cover, you know, a solid concrete thing that will project them from any firearms or any weapons and so his point about having a clear view all the way down here with a white vinyl fence that will reflect and illuminate light is valid. My other concern is imagine this intersection after it's done with fast food restaurants one of the busiest ones in the state and I have four young daughters who play in this yard and now thousands and thousands of vehicles are going to have access to this with transient traffic coming from all over, coming through, pulling off the interstate. All they have to do is back up into that cover and concealment and in two strides they are in my yard. If the development goes through as proposed, I have a couple of options I can do. One, I can cut all the willow trees down, build a six foot fence, and put up evergreens and that's expensive and I don't want to do that. Currently, I want to leave those nice trees there, because I have a post and pole fence that meanders through that that allows me to have some security with. my children, but again, it is just not going to be a good Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 27 of 73 situation for me nor my family, and I'm not opposed to the development. When I bought there I knew it was zoned commercial, but, like some of the people stated here, I assumed when -- you know, when you drive around here, whether it's the Wal-Mart or any of these other major commercial developments that have been completed, they -- they are forced to put up some kind of a berm and a fence and let's remember we are talking about security, you know, a screen security, well, let's think about security for our families, okay? That's alii have to say. Corrie: Thank you. Sorry about the pronunciation of your last name. That's all I have signed up here. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? Yes, ma'am. Is the testimony you are about to give the Council the truth, so help you God? G. Jewell: Yes it is. Thank you. Corrie: Name and address. G. Jewell: My name is Ginger Jewell, I live at 1729 South Marsh Wood and directly across from Mill Creek, actually. Mr. Rowe is my neighbor. I appreciate this. Thank you, Mayor and Council, for allowing me to address these concerns pertaining to this plan. I also agree with commercial growth and enjoy having that type of activity throughout the city. I am concerned with the same things that my neighbors are concerned with and I would like to ask -- I'm concerned with the decision to make this a high use commercial zone. The best decision -- because this best decision -- or this decision will affect the 500 homes that are around there. That is with Meridian Greens, Running Brook and Elk Run Subdivision. These subdivisions will be negatively affected by this development. Why? Because of the increased traffic -- you can see the close areas where you can go into any of the subdivisions -- this development is going to increase the traffic, the congestion, getting in and out of our subdivision, the increased noise, light pollution, added trash, and security and privacy concerns. These are items to be noted. They will negatively affect, without a doubt, not only all of the families in this area, but, in addition, lower the investment values of our property. This type of negative influence ultimately affects the entire community. Right now this is a valuable community area. Many families, nice neighborhoods, well kept, low crime. When the city allows growth to negatively affect the care and attention paid to these assets, neighborhoods change, people move, house values go down, and crime goes up. Frankly, I'm very surprised that this has not been a concern to the city. I have lived in this area for eight years and I have watched Meridian grow. For the most part I'm very happy with the growth pattern and the blend of commercial and housing throughout the city. When we moved to Running Brook Subdivision we knew that the property across that creek was going to be commercial use. We presumed that that use using going to be, because of the area and the amount of subdivisions and families that live there, we thought that the type of business would be low impact, doctor's offices, the type of businesses that would operate during the day and mostly during the week time certainly, not high volume businesses serving customers all day and night every day. Remember, this is right across from where I live. Imagine if I put a Circle-K or a Jack in the Box next to you. I feel .Meridian city is aware of the need to protect and. enhance Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 28 of 73 neighborhood values. I am asking for the same consideration in reviewing and controlling the type of commercial use in this area, preferably not high volume. If you decide to go ahead with this, at least to allow us to at least protect our homes and privacy by having the developer add to this development with a berm to protect our privacy. In addition -- and very quickly I will close this up -- my understanding is Meridian does want to have a greenbelt area. I, too, am very confused with the total plan for the greenbelt It appears to me that it's just this little swat of property that's across this development, because it's handy right now to have this developer create this pathway. I have worked for the City of Boise and I am very aware of the amount of time and effort that it is concerned about the responsibility for having a greenbelt I'd like to know -- I have lots more questions than I have answers right now and before this greenbelt is considered, I'd like to know is Meridian planning to secure this area? Will there be a time limit for when people can be on this greenbelt? Will there be a particular area in Meridian or department that will be in charge of cleaning up trash and maintaining this pathway? These are one of many of the questions that I have. There is a lot of responsibility to a greenbelt pathway and I would support that in Meridian, but I just want to know that this is not a small token given greenbelt pathway that's going to affect our living style without having those questions answered. I appreciate your time, thank you, and, again, I appreciate the opportunity to offer these concerns. Corrie: Anyone else? Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, so help you God? Bunch: I do. Corrie: Okay. Bunch: I'm Raleigh Bunch. I live in Meridian, 1797 Marsh Wood Place. I'm-- everybody is -- Mr. Rogers, Tomlinson, Jewell, they have expressed everything that's in my mind now, except one thing, the greenbelt I, myself -- the greenbelt doesn't look to me a -- very good as far as from Overland Road to Calderwood and that's about where it's going to end up at and also I'm concerned about the walkway through there. I'm a very -- as people have told me, grouchy old man and I have had people on the other side of the creek go through, walk down, run in, and they throw rock and whatever they want, either in the creek or in our yard and also I think that a walkway there shouldn't be -- they should concentrate on a walkway in the front of the place, because that's a busy place. You have got plenty of houses on the other side with young kids and it's going to be eating hamburgers like made and right now, again, you can't cross Calderwood, like Mr. Roger says or Darrell. I come across -- I make a left turn in there and the wife, we both looked at two headlights right in front of me that was making their left turn out of going north on -- off of Calderwood onto Meridian Road. I would like to see them think about a sidewalk from say Overland on down, because -- on both sides, because there is a lot of kids that use that street walking. I see it every day and that's alii have to say is I'd like to see them come up with a sidewalk there, because fast food stores, restaurants, you're going to have kids that's going to come across the street want to go get a hamburger and I can't see them just walking across the street and walking the Meridian City Council Meeting September 9. 2003 Page 29 of 73 curb to go into the fast food place there, because that's going to be a busy place. That's all I have. Corrie: Thank you. You don't look too grumpy to me. You're smiling. We have some walk away that didn't smile. Anybody else like to issue testimony? Okay. You have your work cut out for you. Koga: I know I do and I just want to let you know that even though it might not sound like my client is concerned with the neighbors and that's why we are trying to work this out. When we originally started this project we were told that the developers are responsible to provide a pedestrian pathway system and that's kind of what made a lot of the problems on providing the type of buffer on there. If there was not a pathway system there, we would have area to at least put a fence and more landscape material, evergreen material, to just put a -- to put a buffer off with the neighbors on there but through city requirements and the Comprehensive Plan, we are required to put a pedestrian pathway system in there, which comes into a safety factor. Now, the level of the safety factor -- and I appreciate that the police officer was able to talk about this, because we have been directed through our meetings with the staff that we are supposed to keep this as an open pathway system for safety into -- be able to view into -- for the pathway system, so we were trying to come up with some type of a compromise, once again, with some way that you could see in the pathway system. Maybe it's not perfect, but we thought that might be one of the best -- a better way to take care of a safety factor for the pathway system. One option, I guess, we could do also is maybe on the other side of the pathway system we could just put a solid fence in there, keep it outside of Nampa Meridian Irrigation, so they still have access and maintain for -- into the creek, but, you know, you kind of also have to be a little bit -- you have to think a little bit in regard to the developer and the public. If this is truly going to be a pathway system for the public in the future, then, they, at the same time, have their own -- able to view and enjoy the view of the Ten Mile Creek, the wildlife, the ditches __ the wildlife that other neighbors along -- at the subdivision enjoy also. I think this is kind of a unique situation. Our developer would love to just, you know, put a fence down there, but I truly feel that we need to think of the future with the public, if we are truly going to have a public pathway system, then, it's an open system, kind of like in Boise on the greenbelt. I agree, which direction this pathway system goes, I don't know. I know I have seen on the Comprehensive Plan and how there are plans for this pathway system to go north and south along Ten Mile Creek, but how that goes, how quick it does, I can't answer my question. All I can say is we are trying to comply with the city and also at the same time trying to think about -- with the neighbors on that. Regard to a berm, I would like to say one thing about a berm. The developers already are -- will not be able to use a 50-foot area from the Ten Mile Creek to the west. For them to -- also to put a five-foot berm, even at a three-to-one slope, it's going to take a good 20, 25 feet. Now, it is true we have discussed what if there was just a berm on one side with a -- put a retaining wall, excuse me, with that berm so it's a one-sided berm, that still takes up a lot more area to develop some type of a berm and that would even have to be on the other side of the pathway system, so it's going to -- you have to kind of be a little bit sensitive about the developer's hardships on more land that's needed for that Meridian City Council Meeting September 9. 2003 Page 30 of 73 type of development there. I'd also like to just briefly explain the two entrances that are coming into the site. The two entrances are already approved entrances into the site through a warranty deed on the previous owners onto the site, so those two entrance areas are specifically set through dimensions through ITO back in 1987. The reason why it's back with ITO right now is because they are -- right now what they are trying to decide is whether -- if that northern entrance should be moved a little bit more to the south, because of the conflicts they have with the intersection of Meridian and Five Mile and as of right now our request is that we do have a full -- two full access approvals into the site, but at the same time that as the southern access -- or let me back up. After and if there was a light on Calderwood, then, this entrance here would be turned into a right-in, right-out only. That kind of explains a little bit more on those two entrances there. Do you have any questions I could maybe answer in regard to the -- either the landscape buffer area or the entrances? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess ['m not sure, Mr. Koga, if this is a question or maybe just a clarification on my part. If I understand what you're saying is your client would prefer to just build a wall -- or a fence along there. Really, the issue of the pathway -- it's the city's issue from the Comprehensive Plan, but if it were your preference simply building a fence along the Ten Mile Creek there would be your preference. Koga: You know, they are willing to do that, to put a fence on there, if it's-- Nary: But maybe not on a berm. Koga: No, sir. Nary: Because of the amount of space that it would take up? Koga: Yes, sir. Nary: Okay. Koga: Yes, sir and I want to bring that up about the fence, though. By putting a fence on the east side or -- yeah, the east side of the pathway system, in the future I think it is something we have to think about, once again, the future of the public by using that pathway system and if you put a fence it just blocks completely into the creek in there. I mean that's -- to a degree that's why the neighborhoods live where they do, because it's really kind of nice when you walk along that creek and you look down there, it's very pleasant down there. I would live there also, it's a beautiful life in there, but for having a public pathway system, and they should have the right to have a view and enjoyment of the creek also. Meridian City Council Meeting September 9.2003 Page 31 of73 Nary: So, what you mean by that is that you're talking about a pathway here along this - - on the west side of the. creek? Basically on your side of the property, but with the fence -- I guess it would be on the west side of it? Is that -- so I understand what you're saying. Koga: Well, maybe we could put a fence right -- well, we could go as far as right here. We could put a fence right here, we are still providing enough access for the Nampa- Meridian irrigation system for maintenance and we could put a fence right here. Watson: Mr. Mayor, if I may? Corrie: Yes. Watson: Our sewer easement specifically precludes any permanent structure within that easement, fences, large trees, or -- it doesn't specifically exclude berms, berm but we'd really, really rather not have it there. Farther to dig. Koga: Could you back that up, Anna? On the plan and that is true. Brad does that -- isn't that sewer right about here? The manhole? The last one? Watson: It's approximately -- it's a little over halfway down the length of your project. Koga: So, what we would have to do have is we would have to put that fence right on the 50 foot easement, because that aligns also with the 20 foot easement for the sewer there. On our survey that's what -- Watson: That looks to be correct. Yes. Koga: And also the concern with the fence, once again, is through the area where Running Brook is, not north of that, because that's in the county. Once again, it's a different type of zoning. It's not under the city. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Koga -- could we have that other slide back, please? So -- but if we don't have some sort of path here from Overland, there is no pedestrian access into this project from -- the pedestrian, basically, would have to go all the way -- either drive or go all the way down here to the sidewalk that's going to be down here right along Meridian Road? Koga: We will still provide -- along this pathway system we will put some access into the development; is that what you're saying? Nary: Yes. Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 32 of 73 Koga: Yes. Definitely.. We will do that. We are not showing it on this preliminary, but, you know, I could kind of see like right about here, maybe right here, over here where there will be small areas, walkways, maybe a little sitting area, benches, so -- Nary: Don't the houses for Running Brook start about here where this gentleman's house was? Koga: A little bit -- Nary: You would only have access through this -- this is empty ground; correct? Koga: Correct. Well, yes. There is one residential there under the county. Nary: Okay. So, this is where the other -- Running Brook is from here. Okay. Koga: Roughly. Nary: Thank you. Corrie: I'm a little confused. Where is that walking path going to go? To Overland Road? Is that what it is? I mean you have got a five lane highway there, almost, and the same way on Meridian Road. What's that pathway going to go to? I'm not going to cross there. Koga: Yes. I -- sir, I'm just -- we were installing the pathway system because it's on the Comp Plan and -- Bird: And you can't go any farther south than just to Calderwood, because I believe everything else is built up next to -- I don't think we have easements or anything and who would be putting it in? Koga: Well, if you look on the Comp Plan there is kind of a pathway going both north and south, but how that works -- Corrie: Well, that's beyond me. I guess -- Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, this would be probably the -- obviously, the last piece before you get to the freeway, but there have been segments of the Ten Mile Creek that have been opened up. You will see one tonight in Tuscany Village. There is also -- was done in Tuscany Lakes. You will have another project that's coming in shortly before you that's the next -- it's on the east side of Meridian Greens, I believe, and, then, there is an opportunity for redevelopment of the properties in this area. I mean at some point, as in all of our pathway systems, there will -- we do need to make some sort of commitment as to how to get through the existing neighborhoods, whether we acquire easements or whether we go on public streets, but there are segments of Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 33 of 73 this that have been done. This would be the last link. It would provide an important link over to Roaring Springs.. Also there is a park and ride lot immediately north of this. There is Gold's Gym. There is a lot of opportunity in this area to benefit from a pathway system. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, how are you going to get across Overland? Powell: The current construction doesn't have any room for a pedestrian pathway. The functional use of this probably would end at Overland, but that -- this would be the first-- or last step in the link as you would see it until that's widened and a pedestrian path put over that. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: So, I guess, Mr. Koga, just a final clarification. If -- I think I understand everything you said. It sounds to me like you and your client are pretty flexible on a lot of these things. About the only thing that I think I understood you to say was of concern was the berm, which I think Public Works has the same concern, theirs from access to the sewer, yours from both access, as well as using up a lot more of your property on __ using up a lot -- quite a bit more of the property just being able to put a berm in there and the fence wasn't on top of the berm, if the fence was on the side of the berm, that might work. Koga: On the side of the berm you said? Nary: Isn't that what you meant? Koga: Side of the pathway system. Nary: Side of the path. Okay. Okay. Koga: Excuse me. Excuse me. I'm sorry. What you said, first of all, is true. We are open -- we are open for not even putting a pathway system in there and have just a fence and landscape, but we think it is not -- that they are required to put a berm in there, because of the length that's required to cover a berm. If you put a berm at a three-to-one slope, which is typical -- the steepest area when you have a planter bed is five feet tall, halfway, that's 15 feet. That puts us even further outside of the existing 50 foot easement that's already in there and which seems to me is a hardship to the developers for providing -- they already are providing from -- if you count it right here, they have 15 foot here for and deacceleration lane, they have another 35 -- or 20 feet, I Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 34 of 73 should say, from -- from the alternative compliance. There is also another 50 feet here and if you had another -- a minimum of 15 feet for a berm out there with -- for about 110 or 115 feet on there, so -- and, also, you have somewhat of a unique shape of the site, which also what's happened is when you come in this area here it's affecting the Jot within the development or the design of the development on this area by putting a fence, even though we could -- you know, theoretically, we could stop this berm right about here, which that kind of helps, but it's still an odd-shaped site which still affects that also. Yeah, that 115 is what would be the total area that would be basically given up for the development on there. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: On these buildings that are adjacent to the properties, to the residential properties, were these anticipated to be conditional use? I mean all we have got is a plat today, so I mean these buildings are imaginary, but I'm assuming -- because one of the things that's in the minutes here from Planning and Zoning is the concerns by these neighbors of service delivery areas being basically facing their houses, so they have got service trucks driving in and out all night long and now all we have got -- right now all we have is trees to short of shield that noise. Is there any better thought to that right now? Koga: We will take that account, that's for sure, for delivery. These units back here would not have to go through conditional use, because of the zone that we have right here. It would be no difference if the developer decided to just scratch this and just put like a Wal-Mart or something like that. I mean they do have the right to do that and we would have even more problems with delivery or -- Nary: A skinny little Wal-Mart, though. Koga: Or some other large -- yeah. True. True. Very true, but something like that. I think what we are trying to accomplish is it will be a commercial site, we all understand that, but if we do this more in smaller buildings, that might be a little bit nicer to tie with the residents. We think that would be a little more -- comply with the neighbors. Powell: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Nary, I guess I did want to add -- I suppose it's just an opinion, but I did ask the applicant to consider and strongly encourage them to do a planned development, because there are so many site issues associated with this property. It is a constrained property and they do have the zoning, but -- although it's not supported -- findings for denial are not supported by the zoning ordinance, I just think that the level of development they are proposing on this site may be beyond what it's capable of holding and I'm not sure that eleven lots that are proposed are suitable on this site in that there are so many concerns with the neighbors and with the landscape buffers and with the ITO access and with cross-access to the adjoining properties, that a Meridian City Council Meeting September 9. 2003 Page 35 of 73 planned development would have been appropriate. I'm not sure what kind of latitude we have in requiring that. . Corrie: I guess I'm still not clear -- Mr. Rogers was talking about the short shrubbery and the -- he was mentioning the size that you could get behind and hide. Are we still going to put those in, if you put the fence and that? Koga: We -- it would not be needed, but there is a little bit of requirement for a landscape buffer, if I'm -- if I'm understanding on the ordinance, that we would still be required for a little bit of landscape next to the parking lot areas there, but there wouldn't be an issue so much, because you have a fence now and the landscape would not be as intense, per se, because the fence is providing the buffer. Corrie: Yes. Well, his concern is very valid. I know what he's talking about. I can relate to that. I was a police officer for ten years and he's absolutely right, they hide behind that, you will never see them. Koga: I mean maybe we are willing to -- even if we just don't even put the shrubs and just have the trees, leave the trees, it would be deciduous, there are some deciduous trees, such as oaks, that would stay evergreen all year around as possibilities to have a buffer all year round on the lower end -- and, then, the lower area just keep that open in there. I mean that's one possibility. We are open to those kinds of things as possibilities. Corrie: All right. Council, any other questions that -- Bird: I have none, Mayor. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Anna, do you have any other questions? I mean any other comments? Okay. What is the pleasure of the Council as far as testimony or whether you want to go back or if you want to do the -- continue the Public Hearing or close it? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess before we close the Public Hearing, I mean I had a couple of comments and I don't know -- I don't think we need anymore information. I guess I'm listening to all of this and looking at this, I think -- I appreciate all of the neighbors coming, because the Number 1 thing I heard them say is we understand what was going to be here. I mean we are trying to lessen the impact on their lives and I appreciate that. Many times we get folks here that are shocked and amazed that we were going to put something there that we have had on the map for ten years, so I appreciate that they recognize that that is probably the most likely use of that property and I appreciate their comments in wanting a lesser impact. I know Mr. Rogers, I have known him for a long time, I mean, and I think he's absolutely rigbt. I appreciate that the developers are trying to meet the Meridian City Council Meeting September 9,2003 Page 36 of 73 city's needs, but I just can't see how you build this without a fence. I mean, it just doesn't make any rational sense to me to not have a fence. I mean it has to -- the impact of this, whether it's one large commercial development, whether it's 11 smaller commercial developments, the impact on these neighbors can only be lessened by a fence and I think the issue only is how do we get a path of some sort along this way and have a fence, whether the fence is six feet, whether the fence is eight feet, whether it's on a berm -- I like the pathway only for the fact that although it may seem not vital today, this is our only spot -- if we lose it today, we can never have this back and it is the only access from Overland to Calderwood at some point in the future and to whatever else may be down here and if we don't have a pathway, the only way to get here is by car and I just don't think that makes sense. I think there has to be something here for pedestrian paths -- especially, because there is a tremendous amount of residential right here. There will be sidewalks on Overland, there will be access to get here on Overland and that's where all the residences are, so I think it makes sense to have a path through here, but I just can't see how we do this without a fence and maybe Anna can help me with that. I mean I guess -- it doesn't appear -- it doesn't seem to me like those should be incompatible types of things to be able have and I recognize we have got some constrictions here with the easements. We can't interfere with the easements for the irrigation district access, we can't interfere with the sewer easement, but it just must -- there just must be a way to have both of those things to satisfy both the neighbors' needs, as well as the city's needs. Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, in the -- to answer Commissioner Nary's question, there is -- where the sewer easement exists, the fence would have to be here and obviously a fence will block the view of the creek, which was some of the intended purpose, but I would agree with Commissioner Nary that there doesn't seem to be any way to resolve the dilemma of not having a fence, the impact on the neighbors, but where the sewer easement exists, the fence would have to be right on the Nampa Meridian easement line. Where the sewer easement does not exist, the applicant may be able to negotiate having a fence within the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District easement. I believe that this is a seven to eight foot depth, so that could some closer. The pathway would be on the other side of that fence. The other alternative, if we had a planned development, would be to kind of meander it through the planned development where it became an asset to the commercial properties, rather than just behind their back door. Corrie: That's better to me, but if we vote tonight, I won't be able to vote, but I think you're right. A planned development is the way to go. It would solve a lot of problems for a few of us, anyway. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, if we put the fence inside there, does that one row of trees go away? Meridian City Council Meeting September 9,2003 Page 37 of 73 Powell: This row of trees? Bird: Yes. Powell: I would imagine so. The view of it would be blocked by the -- the view from the commercial property would be blocked. Nampa Meridian tends not to really be thrilled about having trees within their easement, so I would imagine that, yes, that would go away. Bird: I, too, concur with Councilman Nary. I think we have got to have a fence along there. The pathway is nice. If we lose it, we -- we won't get it back, so -- but I think it can be worked out where the fence can go up and we can also keep the deal. We might lose a few trees in there, but as all people know, that landscape ordinance of ours I think it a little overdone anyway. I don't think you can have -- by the time they grow out, you won't be able to see half the building, so people in the subdivision won't have to worry about the lights coming through. Nary: You don't appear to be on the fence on that. Bird: No, but anyway, I believe too that we need to get a fence there. I don't -- I don't think we need a berm, because our Public Works don't want a berm and I think that it does take a lot of property away and I think if we can put a fence along there, that is what I was hearing is most of the concerns of the neighbors and I believe the developer, who has developed a lot of property in Meridian, is truly wanting to be a good neighbor, so I think that can be arranged to get a fence in there and I think we would alleviate a whole bunch of the neighbors' concerns. Corrie: Any other comments? Okay. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I'd move that we close the Public Hearing. Bird: I'd second that. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Corrie: Now, discussion? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 38 of 73 Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Anna, I guess, so we do this right, from what I'm hearing -- Powell: The Public Works director has a statement. Maybe 1'!lIet him make it. He says there is a platted easement on the -- for a pathway on the east side on Running Brook. There is a -- on the other side of this canal there is a platted easement in this area. Bird: Oh. That makes a little difference. Nichols: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor? Corrie: I think we are going to have to open up the Public Hearing again, if we do that. Powell: Sorry. Nichols: That was my thought, Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Okay. Nary: I would move we reopen the Public Hearing. Bird: I would second that. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to open the Public Hearing. All in favor say aye. Okay. We are back on. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Powell: Sorry. Nary: So, how big is this easement and -- Gary. Corrie: Step up to the firing line, Gary. Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council, I'm not sure of the dimensions of it, but as my memory serves me, there was a platted easement for a walkway on that Running Brook Subdivision. I think Mr. Jewell is here. It seems like maybe he can remember that. Jewell: I'm leaving. Corrie: Chicken Richard. Mr. Rogers? Yes. All right. I notice you wanted to -- Rogers: We are even getting worse now. Once you cross the creek right here, all of our yards -- and I don't have the other one, but all our yards come down to the creek. All of us from CaldelWood down -- or just about all of us have planted trees -- Qr there MeridJan City Council Meeting September 9. 2003 Page 39 of73 were trees there that are already grown up and are large. If you put a pathway through here on this side of the creek, you will be coming through all of our yards and you will have to take out trees to get there and put it in. My question is, working as a police officer in Boise City, one of the esthetic nice things about a greenbelt is, number one, it runs along a river, runs along a lake, runs along a stream -- I have never heard anybody want to make a greenbelt along a run-off irrigation ditch for a quarter of a mile that goes nowhere. That's like building an amusement park in the back of a car lot for some reason. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't go anywhere. Why not put a fence here, give us what we need to buffer us from that, put the walking area on that side of the fence, so these people can come in off Overland, walk through here, get to Calderwood if they want, access all the businesses -- there is nothing over here they need to access. They want to look at one quarter mile of a run-off ditch that's irrigation ditch water running down there with maybe ten ducks that fly in there in a week? That's the greenbelt they want to look at? That really doesn't make sense to me. That doesn't make any sense to cut through all of our properties and take out those trees to put a walkway in there that goes nowhere. Corrie: So, you're thinking the fence is fine, then? Rogers: I have no problem with a fence and I have no problem with the walkway on the other side of the fence. There is nothing really to look at, except run-off irrigation water from farmers' fields that come down Ten Mile from a quarter of mile from Calderwood to Overland. You can't walk across Overland, there is no way to get across it, it's going to be five lanes and, then, you go right into the interstate out there and if people want to run across that and you send your kids there, you're asking for it. Corrie: You're right. Thank you. Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. Rogers, I got a question. You say you guys are taking the property right down to the waterline? Rogers: Yes, sir. Bird: And is that -- is that what your deed is showing as the property? Rogers: Yes. Bird: It shows no easement across the -- Rogers: I don't know about that for sure, but I was told that there was an easement on our side. Bird: Do you know how many feet? Meridian City Council Meeling September 9, 2003 Page 40 of 73 Rogers: On both sides, actually, but I don't know how it runs or where it runs on our side. I know all of the residents, all the neighbors, have their property down to the creek. Bird: We -- just not adhering to the easements in these subdivisions, we have got a real problem right now out in Crossroads Subdivision because of that. Rogers: Sure. Bird: We are making the developer -- or he's having to go 20 or 30 feet more onto his property to get a road down it. Rogers: Sure. Bird: I'm not for doing that, to be truth. If there is an easement over there for that deal, then, we got to take a look at it and see what it is. Rogers: Well, I can tell you there is approximately maybe ten feet of easement there on the back of each of our yards that come down to that creek or whatever it is, that -- Bird: It's up on the level. Rogers: No. They all slope down. Bird: They all slope down. Rogers: They all slope down. Bird: So, there is no Level and then drop. Rogers: Not really. No. None that I'm seeing. Bird: Okay. Rogers: I mean they are going to have to build it all up, bring it up to level to make it and cut out all the trees along the -- in our backyards, take out our fences, and I guess they will walk through our backyards and you know, if we are all having barbecues, I guess that's good for the people that want that quarter mile stretch there, but trust me, we are not going to invite them there and our animals won't invite them there and I don't want them back there. There is nowhere to walk. I mean, why do you want to walk in all of our backyards? I mean it makes no sense. Put the fence over on the other side on the easement, put the walkway on the other side, and let them access all that business area. That's what they need it for. They don't need it to come into our yards. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 41 of 73 Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: We seem to digress, so, you know, I don't know that we are really concerned today about the easement issue. It certainly isn't anything to do with this particular application anyway. I would at least clarify, because Mr. Rogers probably doesn't know this, but the city of Boise has lots of walking paths along canals, so we, actually, have quite a few of these in Boise that are along canals. Maybe the term greenbelt is probably not the best appropriate term when it runs along a ditch, it probably isn't a greenbelt in that regard, but they have a lot of these in Boise and so 1'm not that concerned about that, but it's not really what we are concerned with today. I mean I would agree with what Mr. Rogers said, is that it still appears to me that a fence along this application, this project, is the best thing for this development and I do believe a walking -- a pedestrian access needs to be had from Overland to CaldelWood through this project. It can be done through a path, it doesn't have to be -- it doesn't have to be a berm, it doesn't have to suffer a tremendous amount of impact, but I do agree with Mrs. Powell that a PUD application where that is used as one of the amenities to have the -- to have that is probably a better fit for our side. Now, again, Mr. Koga would have to -- and his clients would have to decide if that works better for them, but that certainly makes the most sense. If you are going to have to have pedestrian access from one end to the other, that's the easiest way to have it, so -- and that's the easiest way to get credit for it, because I think that -- you know, that's what the developer, t think to their credit, has been trying to do is trying to figure out what will work for them, but what can they do that really benefits both this project, the city's, interest and these neighbors, so -- and I think Mrs. Powell is right, that's probably the best way to do it, so -- Corrie: Did you answer your question, then? Nary: Yes. Corrie: Okay. I don't want to get us into a free for all, so let's -- Nary: Mr. Koga probably -- he should get the last word. Corrie: Yeah. I was going to have Mr. Koga come up and see if that's -- if you concur with that. Koga: What was the question? I'm sorry. Nary: Well, you got to get the last word, I guess. I just want to make sure that's something -- I mean it appears, I think, from what Mrs. Powell's statement was, what makes the most sense to me -- and I don't know what the other two Council Members think, is a fence along the property here, as we have talked about. I do believe pedestrian access is necessary and appropriate from Overland down to -- I guess it's not CaldelWood yet, it's just the next property behind it, but some pedestrian access and at least from what I was hearing Mrs. Powell say was that the best way for your client to MerIdian City Council Meeting September 9.2003 Page 42 of 73 get credit to have that is to do it has a PUD and use that as your amenity -- as one of your amenities for it, unless I -- I mean I'm not trying to put you on the spot. Koga: I understand that. Yes. Nary: Well, I am a little bit, but not totally put you on the spot, but I mean that seems to be the best fit and it seems to this point you have tried to do a lot of things that are kind of a good fit, so I just wondered what your thoughts were. Koga: And we have discussed this, I have discussed it with Anna, I have discussed it with our client, and at this time, we have decided we'd like to stay with a conventional preliminary plat process on this. At the same time, we -- and tell me if it's not true, but do you guys have -- able to make recommendations or -- for going with a fence? Maybe what we can do is tonight we can just come up with an agreement -- and we don't -- my client, to be quite honest, you know, we could talk more about, you know, maybe to put the fence on the neighbor's side or things that like that, but we don't want to do that. We understand that they have nice lawns and we don't want to put them in that type of situation. We are willing to work some type of an agreement and tonight, maybe, if we could just come to an agreement that a fence is adequate for both the developer and the neighbors and maybe that's not typical for going with a preliminary plat process, but, then, we come up with some type of agreement together for this type of development. I don't know if that makes sense or not, but that's -- that's one of our requests, I guess. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Okay. You want to try it again? Nary: I'd move we close the Public Hearing. Bird: I second it. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Okay. Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I will throw this out and see if I get it right. I'd move the approval of PP 03-016, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 building lots on 10.97 acres in a C-G zone for the proposed Southern Springs by the Land Group at the southeast corner of Meridian Road and Overland Road, to incorporate staff comments testimony of this evening's hearing, as well as recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, with the amendments to include that there be a minimum six foot fencing along the eastern property line along the .easement of the Ten Mile Creek in the Nampa Meridian Meridian City Council Meeting September 9,2003 Page 43 of 73 Irrigation District, that the -- and that the applicant provide pedestrian access from Overland Road to the southern boundary of the property and to meet with the Planning and Zoning staff to determine location, adequateness with a pathway along predominately the eastern section of the property to the southern portion of the property adjacent and for counsel to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order. Does that cover what we were talking about? Powell: Mr. Mayor, Council member Nary, does that also include an added condition number 17 about the abutting parcel on the south property line? Nary: Yes. I'm sorry. You had talked about that earlier and -- Bird: That's in there. Nary: Yes. I think that's in your comments, so, yes, we would include that and, again, it doesn't require a PUD, but certainly they have committed to at least working with you to figure out a way to make that a more viable pathway, rather than just some walkway adjacent to the fence. I think that's kind of what we are looking for and I think they seem to be pretty reasonable in that regard, so -- Bird: I would second that motion. Corrie: Okay. You know, as long as got some of that -- Mr. Roger's concerns in that, so -- okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Nary: Mr. Mayor, one more thing. We had discussed about vinyl fencing and I don't know if the fencing requirements require it to be vinyl fencing. It appears that if these people are going to be looking at the back of that fence for the rest of the time they live where they live, I don't know that wood fencing is going to be adequate, but I don't know if we have any requirements in that regard. Powell: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Do you mean in this particular application have we specified a type of fencing, because I don't think there was any proposed until this point. Nary: Right, and if we require fencing -- we didn't, obviously, because there was trees. If we require fencing is the only minimum required fencing to be wood or does it -- or is it to Planning and Zoning's discretion? Powell: I believe you can -- Corrie: You can just specify that. Powell: Yes. Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 44 of 73 Nary: I guess I would amend my motion that it be vinyl fencing along that -- along that ditch there, since it's right-adjacent to those homes. Corrie: You can specify that in your motion. Nary: I would specify that to be vinyl fencing. Bird: Second agrees. Corrie: Okay. Second agrees. Okay. Any further discussion? All right. Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, absent; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All approved. I do agree that I have seen so many wooden fences that collapse in four years. Vinyl fences are a little bit better in that case, so yes. Okay. That ends the Public Hearing for Item number 12. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Corrie: We have 13, 14, and 15 on Tuscany Village. I'd like to take five minutes of time to recess and we will be back on that. (Recess.) Corrie: All right. I'm going to reconvene the City Council meeting, before I open up the hearing Public Hearing on Items 13, 14, and 15 on Tuscany Lakes, is there anybody here that Mayfair Commons Subdivision that was waiting for that one? Because J had Jeffery and Jason -- they are not here, because they have withdrawn their petition, so -- Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Maybe to save time, could we take those very quickly? Item 16. Public Hearing: RZ 03-008 Request for a rezone of 12.74 acres from 1- L to R-15 zones for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC - 1125 East Pine Street: Item 17: Public Hearing: CUP 03-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for multi-family residential subdivision requesting reduced setbacks, parking standards, and dimensional requirements for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC - 1125 East Pine Street: Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 45 of 73 Corrie: Yes. That's my -- so I will open the Public Hearing on Mayfair Commons Subdivision and the request for Conditional Use Permit and the rezone and ask the Council to withdraw the -- they have asked to rewithdraw their application, so-- Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I move that we accept the withdrawal requested by Mayfair Commons Subdivision for RZ 03-008 and CUP 03-032. Bird: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to accept the withdrawal. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no? Withdrawn. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 13. Public Hearing: AZ 03~014 Request for annexation and zoning of 33.25 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Tuscany Villaae by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: Item 14. Public Hearing: PP 03~015 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 136 building lots and 10 other lots on 33.25 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: Item 15. Public Hearing: CUP 03-029 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development with reduced lot widths and setbacks for the proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: Corrie: Then we only have left is the Public Hearing on Tuscany Village, so at this time I will open the Public Hearing on request for Annexation and Zoning of 33.25 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development Corporation, south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove. I will also open the Public Hearing on the request for Preliminary Plat of 136 building lots and ten other lots on 33.25 acres and open the Public Hearing on the request for Conditional Use Permit for a planned unit development with reduced lot widths and setbacks for the proposed Tuscany Village. With that being said, if there is no objection of the Council, we will open all three Public Hearings at one time. You will be asked to testify on all three at one time if you can. We have a group of one, two, three, four, five, six that have signed up this time for testimony and so I will open the Public Hearing and ask staff's comments first on the Tuscany Village. Meridian City Council Meeting September 9. 2003 Page 46 of 73 Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, this is located at the corner of Victory and Locust Grove Roads. As you can see on this diagram, just for reference points, the other Tuscany Developments are in this area here, I believe and you will soon see an application on this property here, just for reference, and there is one in the works for this property here as well. On the -- I'm just going to touch the topic, because it was a major topic of concern at the Planning and Zoning Commission and the only topic of concern for the public was the sewer master plan does currently show the sewer coming up Victory Road and, then, down Locust Grove and, then, into the Tuscany Lakes project. There are homes being constructed in this area now. This is the revised layout for the property. No. This is original submittal. Excuse me. The only site design issues that were addressed -- this is the Ten Mile Creek, so this is another section of that pathway that we were discussing earlier and they have provided an easement along that pathway and a fence. This is the open space lot. This was a drainage lot over here with -- there was not a stub street in this location, ACHD did ask for a stub street here. Regarding the open space lot, we did ask -- excuse me. We did ask them to open up this area here and they have submitted a revised landscape plan, as you can see here. They did stub this lot. Instead of a long, narrow drainage lot, it's become more compact, a little more -- looks a little more like an open space now and here they did lose I think 16 feet and, then, they chamfered this little corner. here to open that access up, so that there was kind of more visibility into this park area. With that, those were a brief summary of the application as it went through. As I said, almost all the public testimony at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing was on the -- the location of the sewer easement and the -- what they are proposing to do is run it down the Ten Mile Creek at this time, rather than coming out and down. The Planning Commission did recommend approval and they did recommend that the sewer remain as planned for in the sewer master plan and I'll turn it over to Brad. Watson: Mr. Mayor, Council members, if you will allow me just a second. We need to switch computers for the display. Sorry about that. My laptop is a little more temperamental than Anna's. You will probably recall that this came before you -- I brought this to you in early July to talk about sewer rerouting as part of this project -- as, actually, part of the Tuscany Lakes project. At that time you heard from me, I reiterated some of the reasons why I didn't at that time think this was a good idea. Dean Briggs from Briggs Engineering spoke for a little bit, I think, but the long and short of it was at that time you suggested that it come back through a Public Hearing, the method that we have chosen -- the developer has chosen to have that Public Hearing as part of this project, which makes perfect sense. As a little bit of background -- I will just reiterate. The Tuscany Lakes Preliminary Plat was approved last year, the plans were approved during the winter, and they began construction roughly in February. This revised alignment was proposed to our department in March after construction had commenced after some internal discussion, I wrote a letter to the developer and Briggs Engineering saying that we weren't going to entertain this revised alignment. There were several reasons stated in that letter. Real briefly, it had to do with neighbors and their reliance on what our approved plans were already. It also had to do with the fact that there was no preliminary plat on this property where the sewer was going to be rerouted. Third, there was the issue of a master plan and that we felt that that -- when we issue a master Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 47 of 73 plan and approve it -- when the Council approves it, we feel that we have made a commitment to -- perhaps not people, but the properties that are affected by that sewer master plan, that that's, roughly, what we are going to follow. We felt like this was a significant change that altered the way properties in the area were going to be serviced. The one thing that I might point out is that the plans that we did approve way back last winter already granted two somewhat significant changes to our master plan and they have constructed those and those are well on their way. Since the July meeting, the developer and Briggs Engineering have provided me with quite a bit of information having to do with both cost and some design issues. I have looked at some of the information that I have in my office. The long and short of it is that the developer asserts that he will save approximately 150,000 dollars by making this change. I took a look at not only their cost but also the cost to service the rest of this area and it does appear that by using this alternative alignment that the overall cost for the service area will be less. The one outstanding issue is that what they are proposing -- I'll back up a little bit. Whenever someone proposes to change the master plan, we can look at that both in terms of the technical merits of it, if works, fine, but we also look to see if what they are doing provides the same serviceability as if they followed the master plan. The alternative alignment doesn't unless a small ten or 12-inch line is run from their eastern boundary to the intersection of Locust Grove. I have determined, with the help of Briggs Engineering, that the trunk line from Victory south is not required. Those properties along the -- I will switch here, so I can show you a little closer. Their proposed rerouting would come into the subdivision here and follow their street easterly and, then, southeasterly along the street, not along the Ten Mile Creek and then, exit their subdivision in Locust Grove fairly close to their southeastern property corner. The original master plan alignment, as I mentioned, came along here to the intersection and then south. If this line from Ten Mile Creek to the intersection is built it would provide the same level of service as if they had built this master plan alignment. Specifically, what I was speaking of is this property, which is owned by the Howard's, can be serviced back into Tuscany Village or Tuscany Lakes into this cul-de-sac, if the developer will provide that eight inch stub to their property. These other properties that would be affected can all be serviced to the line that would be in Victory Road. The line from here to here, as Anna pointed out, will likely be constructed with a project you will be seeing in the next weeks or months. All these properties east of the Tuscany Village, north of the Tuscany Lakes project would still contribute a latecomer's fee for a portion of that cost back to the Tuscany developer. As I mentioned earlier, my preliminary calculations show that that would be less to them than if this was constructed along the master plan alignment. So, I guess, in summary, there are two points to make and I think there are many of the residents or neighbors here tonight to talk about this a little more. I have tried to contact as many of them as I could today. I also spoke with Mr. Schultz and Dean Briggs this afternoon. In summary, this alternative alignment is acceptable, if this ten or 12-inch line comes to the intersection, because that would provide the same level of service as if they had built that alignment. That's what investigated when we looked at these other changes that they proposed and we approved. Timing is also an issue. As long as this reroute is constructed with the first phase of Tuscany Village, then, we can still live with that as a condition. I think Meridian City Council Meeting September 9,2003 Page 48 of 73 that -- those are, really, the only two issues right now. Be happy to answer any questions if you have any: J know Mr. Schultz will be glad to answer his side of things. Corrie: Okay. Any questions? Okay. Developer representative. Is the testimony you are about to give the Council the truth, so help you God? Brown: It is. Corrie: Name and address, Kent, for the record. Brown: Kent Brown, Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland Boise, Idaho. Basically, I don't know if I need a little song and dance at this hour to talk to you about the plat or if you want to just talk about sewer. Mr. Schultz is here to address it, the sewer issues. We feel that we have a very nice project. I think Anna showed the changes that we have made to our plat to comply with the recommendation of the highway district and of your staff. We are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan for the area and we feel that it's a nice fit. Maybe I'd highlight that we are proposing a reduced front yard setback. I guess I'd encourage you to even look at that as maybe a change in your zoning ordinance to create a different look, it gives an incentive for a builder to change what my wife calls a "Boise house", where the garage sticks out front, by being able to use that area where it's livable space and, then, move your garage back. Boise City, Ada County, some other jurisdictions in the valley have gone to a standard 15-foot front yard setback in some developments. I have gotten some approved with a ten-foot front yard setback with the garage being 20 foot from the sidewalk. I'd stand for any questions, if you have any. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Brown, just a little bit on that open space. I guess it always concerns when they have these sort of narrow openings to it that looks like it faces the north. Could you talk a little about that? I guess I'm just concerned about visibility, access, and those 16 feet that Mrs. Powell said that you sort of shaved off. It still seems pretty skinny to see in that. I think the access -- and just, J guess, for the record as well, I think the access points into it are helpful, because I think we have seen many of these where, you know, three-quarters of the subdivision can't see it or find it, but here I think you have done a good job of providing some -- some other access, but it concerns me very much to have such very narrow, choked off part as visibility into that. Brown: One of the restrictions that the Planning and Zoning Commission, Mr. Nary and Council, requested is that we have a five foot solid fence in the rear to open that to the backyards. They stated that that was kind of a -- if you will, an unwritten policy or -- did I quote that right, Anna? It's a policy that they try to encourage when you see these open spaces behind the homes. We feel that that will help open that up to others seeing it. We tried to, you know, move that as much as possible. You know, I guess if Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 49 of 73 we needed to we could maybe -- that first lot cut some more off, but I mean how much is enough? I mean you're not going to be able to see back over in here, but you can see some of that from this point. Nary: How wide is that again, in that open -- at the top, the north part of that? How wide is that opening? Brown: I can look that up. Powell: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Nary, I measured it earlier. I believe it was 28. Brown: From here to there is 28? Powell: Yes. The changes that you made opened it up approximately ten feet. Nary: Could I ask one more thing, too? In the center of the green space is that some sort of common area? Is that what that is? Or is that something else, where there are those four trees and this other -- that part, yes. What is that? Brown: Playground. Nary: Okay. Thanks. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: You said five foot. I think our policy has been four -- like four foot, so we can see over for those fences along there. Nary: It's four. Corrie: On the golf course I know it is. Bird: I think it's been four foot. That's what the police recommend. Brown: I think you're right. I think I was asking for five and they -- it's the four and I can go with a nonsolid fence for the upper part. We are proposing, as you look at this plan, to put wrought iron along the back of all of those lots to that space. That's consistent with what we are doing in Tuscany Lakes portion along the -- those areas. My clients like to use vinyl fence. We will probably have vinyl along the berms in this area and along here and any other fencing, except for areas where, you know, farmers are working on their fields, and then we have another type of material. Corrie: Okay. Any other questions? I would like to hear about this sewer thing. I'm sure that the people are here mostly for that. Meridian City Council Meeting Septem ber 9, 2003 Page 50 of 73 Nary: Since you're here. . Corrie: Since you're here, Matt. Is the testimony you're about to give the Council the truth, so help you God? Schultz: I do. Corrie: Name and address, please, Matt. Schultz: Yes. Thank you, Mayor and Council. Matt Schultz, Tuscany Development, 660 East Franklin in Meridian. It's good to be here tonight and to, hopefully, be able to shed some more light on the sewer issue, which seems like -- I have been in the valley for three years now and from day one it was about sewer on whatever project I was working on. It continues to be that way, which is fine. You know, if I could maybe step back and maybe thank Brad for working with us through this process and handling a very politically difficult situation when you have so many owners who think they are adversely impacted. Back at our Planning Commission meeting for this I wasn't in town, but we committed to meet with the area owners in a neighborhood meeting before we did come before you tonight to try to further educate them and bring them up to speed what we were doing and, hopefully, show them that it's not in their best interest to really push for this 27 inch -- you know, I like to call it a big old freight train coming by their front door, because it's -- it just costs so much money to do these projects and when it's not, really, in the best interest of the whole -- I mean -- let me back up. It's in my best interest not to do it, obviously, but if it costs everybody in the service area, like Brad said, more money, why go, and do that, if we can attain the same serviceability with a different route. If I could, just for the record, show that we did have a neighborhood meeting and the sign-up sheet, if I could give that to Will. These master plan routes are kind of funny. I have been around them it seems like from day one. The intent of them -- and I have a really interesting diagram to show how big the service area for this project is and Brad's got it on his screen, but he can't zoom out far enough, if I could hand this out to everybody, it's to provide service from the northwest to the southeast, to the extreme limits of the area of impact. This 27 inch half full serves a couple thousand acres. We are talking probably -- I think 9,000 homes is what it's designed to serve, if that gives any perspective on what the size we are talking about here. It wasn't specifically designed to pick up little five-acre parcels here and there -- there it is right there and although you can see our little project on the very extreme north -- right there. There is ours, Tuscany, you know, quote, the big project. It looks kind of small up there just to the south of it and the service area we are talking about is just huge. We kind of wanted to -- Brad was helpful in giving me maps so that I can hand out to the homeowners and show them what we are talking about here. What we are asking for is what's done pretty much all the time. When development comes in and a more effective route found that utilizes what -- we are going to be dedicating right of way. It utilizes right of way, so it's going to be paved over, but it's -- we are not crossing the same drain twice, we are not ripping up pavement, we are not digging 25 feet -- or 22 feet deep. It doesn't take a professional engineer or a -- you know, any kind of trained professional to Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 51 of 73 realize -- if you could put the actual map back up of our site, please. One back to the overall -- the landscape plan would be nice it kind of shows the site. This will work, though. This will work. Right now this -- my hand is terrible. This right here we have constructed sewer from here to here, it's 27 in Victory, 15 north, and we have constructed sewer in Locust Grove to here, 27, to here 15, and this goes all the way across and all the black has been installed, with the exception of this route that we are talking about tonight. We are asking, instead of going the long way around and, then, having to also put an eight inch sewer through our site -- I mean, like I said before, it doesn't take a trained professional to realize that this is a more efficient route that would save everybody in the service area, which I hatched here -- which is relatively small compared to the overall 2,000 acres, roughly, that it is. It's about a 150,000-dollar difference, which not small -- which is not a small amount. What we propose to do is right -- as soon as Brad will let me go do it, I want to build the section from here to here, 27. When I, actually, do this first phase this next winter, if assuming you like my plat and you approve it -- I don't want to be too presumptuous, but let's just run on that assumption that you do approve it, we will build in the winter and what I would propose is what we do with all of our developments is we extend full frontage with the ten to a 12 inch, whatever Brad decides is the best size, underneath the drain, bore it, get it done, the next guy can come along and pick it up. If that guy comes in, he pulls it to the next person. If that guy comes in, they pull it to the next person. If somebody wants to come in upstream early, like we did with Tuscany, they come in and they do an off-site piece for a little bit more money. The master plan was never intended to guarantee time certain sewer for everybody in an area. What we have done is really improve the situation in the area. You know, we have spent close to a million dollars so far in the area on sewer alone. We have opened up the property values of a lot of people's property. What we are asking for is the ability to put a sewer through our site with this preliminary plat, which I think at this point, in fact, gives you the justification to allow this alignment change that we are asking for and that we be required, as a standard practice, to extend it our full frontage. Mr. Watson is asking that I extend it all the way to this intersection. I just -- I'm respectfully disagreeing that that should be a requirement. That would seem to be an unfair requirement that's out of the ordinary for developers. You know, we are usually required to -- we are not getting off too easy by just getting the 27 foot through our site, it's still a big burden for us to put the 27 in. It's a very expensive line, it's a very dangerous line to build with the depths and, you know, we like to cut down the footage if we can from a cost and a dangerous standpoint, it's just -- I don't even like driving by the site as I'm looking down in there, it's just -- it scares me to see guys working down in there on that stuff, but I didn't want to barrage you with numbers and diagrams and everything else. I have kind of been pushed into a corner a little bit to defend myself, but I think what we are asking for is reasonable, it's fair, and we really are still shouldering the burden of it, we are financing it. There are latecomers, but, to be honest with you, it trickles back. We will get some paid back. That does soften the blow, but it's -- it's not a sweetheart deal that it goes and encourages anybody to go run out and build 27 inch sewer. I mean it's -- it's an expensive proposition to do it and what we are doing is still expensive, we are just asking for a little bit of relief on the master plan route, which I believe -- I don't know how it was drawn, but I used to do some of these and you put it down the right of way, Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 52 of 73 because you know these homeowners -- these landowners don't necessary want a sewer going through their. property sometimes. When you have right of way, use it, and that's what they did on the master plan. What we have is a better route and that's what we are proposing that saves everybody in the service area money and -- including ourselves and anybody else that is going to connect. So, I guess with that I will stand for any questions and ask for your approval. Corrie: Any questions? I have one. That number four up there, that lot, they would build their -- theirs when they wanted to do that from the -- where you stop? Schultz: Right here -- say we stopped here and say they wanted to come in and do it before either one or two developed -- if one or two developed, they would be required to extend their full frontage to the intersection. If they came in early, they would be required to go down and connect, just like we have been required to go down from here and connect all the way to there. It's 575 feet. It's not -- it's like two manholes. It's not a very long way. It's almost one manhole, but it's two. Over 500 feet is two. Yeah. It's a little more than maybe one of those persons wants to pay, but it happens to me every day, we are always coming up with new expenses and costs and everything to do these things and we just, in the long run, think it's best for everybody in the area to do more it. It's more efficient. It's just the way -- these 27 inch trunks are just -- you got to get in from the north or the south as quick as possible, because they just chew up, you know, money. They are spendy. Corrie: Okay. Any other questions? Any other questions for the developer on that at this point? Okay and this is a Public Hearing where we can hear from the public. Is there anybody here that's for the project, outside of Matt? Okay, Neutral? One way or the other? Yes, ma'am. If you would like. Or you can -- okay. Okay. Well, then, Cathy and, then, we have Sue. Is the testimony you're about to give the Council the truth, so help you God? Jerrems: Yes. Corrie: Okay. Give your name and address, please, for the record. Jerrems: I'm Cathy Jerrems, I live at 3245 South Locust Grove, number two. Corrie: Okay. Jerrems: I, actually, had several questions. Number one, I'm a little concerned. I wanted to know what would happen if something did happen to the main trunk line that goes through that subdivision and if they had to work on it and dig it up or whatever it is that they do. I'm a nurse by trade, by the way, so I don't know that much about sewer lines, but are they going to have to tear up the subdivision in front of those resident's homes or through their yards? Also, if I wanted to hook up to this at some point, my understanding is, is that I would not be able to go over Ten Mile Creek -- say Ten Mile Creek runs right behind me there,. it's between me and the subdivision. Can you picture Meridian City Council Meeting September 9,2003 Page 53 of 73 that? Yes. Thank you. That's Ten Mile Creek right there. That Ten Mile Creek separates them from me. . My understanding, even though this 22, 25 feet deep, I would not be able to run from the main trunk to my property or do I -- am I the first one that's going to have to run a line from that corner clear down to Locust Grove? Of course, as a single parent family here, I couldn't afford to even consider something like that. That's my second question. If the line is a ten inch line that would run down what they were proposing -- and I know Brad had talked about a ten inch line running down Victory bypassing -- or going alongside my property, as well as property number four there, I'd like to know how many residential -- or residents, in other words, would that cover. I don't know what a ten-inch line would accommodate, my next question was very similar to that one, and I did have something other than the sewer line as well. My understanding is, then, is that the fence line, then, that they are going to build -- and I'm one of those farmers out there, I have cattle and that and I do burn along that ditch line, because I get a lot of weeds out there, so they said that they would go ahead and put up something that was wrought iron or whatever, rather than vinyl, because I would probably burn it down. How far off of Ten Mile Creek is that going to be? Is that right up against Ten Mile Creek and is that where a pathway -- I understood that there might be a public pathway there. That is another question that I do have as well. I'm just full of a lot of questions. Thank you. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. We will see if we can get some answers for you. Sue Howard. Is the testimony you're about to give the Council the truth, so help you God? Howard: Yes, it is. Corrie: Name and address for the record. Howard: My name is Sue Howard, I live at 3420 South Locust Grove. I live on spot number five. Corrie: Lot five. Okay. Howard: And if -- I guess we are told our properties are not adversely affected by the sewer line not going down Locust Grove. I feel we are. The developer has offered and Brad agreed that it would work, that they could service our house off the east side right there. I guess I'm disappointed that we are not following the master plan, only because -- I'm not an expert and I have faith in what the city has put together. Brad seems to think that if it comes down the other side of the triangle and they put the line out, that that would work. However, that leaves me without anything, unless we can possibly make that stub off the east side of our property a requirement of the plat and I don't know the timing of when that street would go in. I don't -- I can't say that I would ever connect to it, but I just feel like we are kind of getting left high and dry without anything coming even close to the property. Is it possible to make the stub to the back of the property a requirement -- Corrie: I think so. Meridian City Council Meeling September 9,2003 Page 54 of 73 Howard: -- of the plat? I.would appreciate that. Thafs probably my only request and also, to know the timing, if it's required. I don't know when that phase of the subdivision will be put in. Thank you. Corrie: Thank you. Okay. Russ Liddell. Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Liddell: So help me God. Corrie: Thank you. Name and address, please. Liddell: Russ Liddell, 1777 East Victory, and that is the number four property there. Mayor and Council, I guess the major question I have for you is the potential adverse impact to us, but it's also a question of public interest and if you could go back a little further one map to the larger picture, Brad, of the entire sewer line on the little black and white diagram. Zoom out more, I guess. That showed the entire Tuscany Lakes and the master plan sewer route. When that map appears, I guess the question about the sitting of the sewer line and a three year process of master plan development raises the question of was the earlier engineering correct or not to service the public interest. We have an economic stake on our own little property. When this sewer line, 27 inch -- if you zoomed out one more step you would see the five or ten sections of land and you would also see some -- I'm not an engineer, but I do have some professional training in photographic imagery interpretation and LOC's and you notice the lay of the land, this gerrymandered jerry-rigged collection pipe of 27 inches, it doesn't follow the lay of the land. The master plan did. It was pretty well laid out, I think and now when you look at the entirety of probably a quarter section of a quarter section and we are looking at the top here that stretches all the way from Eagle Road west to Locust Grove Road, it's sort of between two hills at Amity Road and they sort of flow west and northwest and most of the water goes that way, too, and thafs what the master plan was originally engineered for and over a two year Public Hearing process or longer. Thafs what most of us in Meridian, who -- and certainly the Planning and Zoning, we bought into that. Our individual property was rezoned I would say several times, but it didn't not take us long to figure out, okay, the public interest kind of counts more. Well, now ramming through on a Public Hearing, only notifying local neighbors of impact after this sewer routing hasn't really followed the major routes or lines of communication or the elevations to a great extent that was sort of talked about, now as a result -- to back door for this little 39 acres, which was also the site three years ago of the two acre substation fight where we went down as a larger community, not 500 homes, probably 5,000 homes on the five or six or ten acres and the county planning and zone, they agreed that, hey, we ought to take a bigger picture. Meridian is growing so fast, they have only got two exits across the interstate. How is all that commercial development and residential development going to happen? Well, people start making plans. We have had our property rezoned in that -- replanned in the impact zone in the county now about five different ways in three years and we are living by the master plan and it is public interest. I think right now what you see is clearly right .here. It's all we have heard. We all have individual Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 55 of 73 dollar impacts. This developer says that these few -- I'll call myself yokels here out in the local area, we can save money if they save money on their big area by running it there, instead of doing it that way and oh, by the way, if you let us run it here only, maybe later, maybe later we will come -- or maybe somebody else has to come along and tie in toward the real master plan that the county, a lot of other people bought into. But that's what, I guess, they are asking you to do, is for their interest and a few of us to override the public interest. I don't think that's right and I guess another thing I'd ask you to consider is -- so what was wrong during that three year planning process? What's in the public interest now that causes you to go back and the engineering department to go back to concede to this developer a major change like that for their small property? I guess that's all I have to say, unless you have questions, Your Honor, Council members. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Did you say your name was Liddell? Liddell: That's correct. Nary: Maybe tell me a little bit clearer -- you know, because the developer is saying that the lesser cost to him means the lesser cost later for hooking up to that for latecomers fees. I guess what's your view on that? Liddell: Well, it's different change. It depends on whether you look at the situation now or if you look with the future view, which you're very used to doing, much like with the greenbelt discussion. It doesn't exist now, but if you lose the opportunity, you lose it for a long time and time does count. I'm almost 60, I'm not going to live a long time, I may want to sell the place, and so would some other people. There is another development you have heard coming in right around the corner. We have got more rooftops now, it's hard for the cattle and the burros and the chickens and foxes and the horses to make a go of it there. It's going to be a lot more traffic. It just isn't as attractive as a farm rural area as having lived there since '76 and owned that. It's just not that attractive if you want to be in the country. So, it's not commercial anymore, like it was for 15 years. I think it's going to be some adverse impact to me as a property owner, but it's not me, it's the future, and I guess was the plan wrong to start with? Or is it wrong now to require at the same time, whether you go with the 27 inch line down the original county roads in the public interest with pure county public access or whether you allow it to go down their area and they save some chump change on their multi-million dollar subdivisions, not this little one we are talking about. Nary: But my question is they are saying if it's cheaper for them to put it in, it will be cheaper for you to attach to it, therefore, it saves you money in the future. Liddell: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting September 9. 2003 Page 56 of 73 Nary: So, tell me why it doesn't save you money, I guess that's what -- Liddell: I guess it mayor may not save me money. I mayor not attach would be my answer and I guess I answered you the wrong way. What I would say is there is a technical issue, there is a geographic issue, there is a public interest and parks other issues, there is future development and owner's issues. It's not just us few landowners in this local area, as they would have believed. This goes from Eagle Road to Locust Grove and then it goes down Victory Greens. It's the same access that you're going to put the rest of the string of perils, the greenbelt, and the walkway, to enhance the community interest per the master plan. This was all talked through, as you well know, and you heard a lot of details. This one 30 acre parcel is now asking you to change a major public interest item for this and I have got this share of that. I'm submitting to you, do it whatever decision you make, whether the 27 inch line goes there and a little line goes there, they go in at the same time, we stick as close to the master plan and the public interest and the recommendations of both your planning council and your engineering staff. Is that an answer? Thank you. Nary: Thank you. Liddell: Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Russ. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm not going to be able to read that name, but, Brent, are you here? Okay. Would you like to -- it's the name right above you, but they'll get that chance. Oh. Okay. All right. Brent, then, is the testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Clayborne: Yes, it will be. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Name and address for the record. Clayborne: Thank you, Mayor and City Council. My name is Brent Clayborne, I'm a consultant here in Meridian. My office is at 1461 South Teare and I'm representing Quasar Development tonight. Quasar is the owner of the property -- I believe it was parcel number three on that prior map. It's on the corner of Locust Grove and Victory. This is a proposed planned development that we are going to be bringing before your body hopefully here quite soon. Our main concern is just two things in relationship to the question of the sewer and let me start off by saying I think that the Tuscany folks have an outstanding project. We certainly are not opposed to that project at all. The only concern we have is because ours is parcel three at the corner you can see there, our client has spent a lot of time and effort prior to purchasing that property in researching the -- not only the Comprehensive Plan, but also the sewer master plan to make sure it would accommodate .their development of that property. They based their Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 57 of 73 whole decision and their whole plan upon the sewer master plan making sewer available at the corner of Locust Grove and Victory Road, both from a timing standpoint and from a location standpoint. I think to carry it one step further, I don't think it's in our best interest to try and drive your decision on whether you make a change to your master plan or not, the only thing we would ask is that the availability of our sewer connection at the intersection of Locust Grove and Victory, be available to us in a timely fashion and at no additional cost to the developer, since they based it upon the original master plan. In other words, whether or not the 27 -inch would go to that intersection or whether some other diameter sewer comes up to that intersection and makes our connection available to us at that point would certainly be your decision. So, our main concern is from the standpoint of the timeliness and the availability of the sewer service to the property, which our client based their decisions upon. I'd certainly stand for other questions if there are any. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Maybe you can answer this for me, because J guess the only thing that sticks in my mind is the original plan was to go from here to there; correct? Clayborne: Yes. Nary: And down Locust Grove. So, to develop this piece, this piece, this piece and this piece, the sewer would be right there, you wouldn't have to pay to extend it, you would be paying basically to connect to it. Okay? Am J right so far? Clayborne: You are. We recognize that -- Nary: And I guess if you extend it further -- Clayborne: We have to go to and through out property. Correct. Nary: Sure. Exactly, but you would have to do that regardless, so -- but at least it would be here. You wouldn't have to pay the cost to extend it from here to there and, then, collect it back later. You would already be here. Clayborne: Correct. Nary: But what I heard Mr. Schultz say was that if it does cost him an additional 150,000 dollars to do this and they choose to do it, then, that cost is going to be borne by -- originally by these four property owners as a latecomers fees, a portion of that cost. That increased 150,000, how does that relate to the cost it would cost you to basically -- if you want to develop before one does, so it's not here yet, you have to go bring that line to you. How much -- and, again, I'm no engineer, but it appears to me from what they are saying, the cost that -- to you to bring that line to the edge of your Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 58 of 73 property and you can get latecomers fees from these two properties if you do it first, is smaller in comparison to paying the latecomers for 150,000 dollars amount it cost them to go around. That seems to me to be the issue in my mind. Now, maybe I misunderstand it, so, please, tell me, but that seems to me to be the balance. The cost is going to get borne by somebody that wants to do this, but what's the difference between the cost of bringing -- extending this line to you from there or paying the latecomer fee for the Tuscany people to extend the line to there. It seems to me like this -- the second one is cheaper. Clayborne: It mayor may not be. One of the concerns that we have discussed with our client and with some other folks with is also the rate at which the latecomers come into the picture and reimburse the city and that's passed on to us. Our client is extremely concerned that the way development would go in this area, because they are small parcels, the rate of development would be very slow and the amount and timing of latecomer reimbursement to them would be small and delayed and perhaps they may never see it if it doesn't appear in a ten year period of time. So, timing is a very critical thing to them, not only on their project, but also how quick these other properties mayor may not develop. If there was no development, there would be no latecomer fees rebated to them. Nary: Okay. Thank you. Corrie: Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Clayborne: Thank you. Corrie: Is there anyone else that would like to issue testimony at this time? You have once, but -- Howard: I have a question. Corrie: Okay. Howard: Again, I'm Sue Howard and I live at 3420 South Locust Grove. My question is if the line is extended to Victory or if it comes to Victory and down South Locust Grove, I didn't think that was shared by those homeowners that front on that, I thought it was shared by anybody in that entire benefit area over time. So, my understanding is if it came out, it's not just those people on the corner that pay for that extension, anybody even down the road that would connect in and I believe Matt is giving a positive response. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 59 of 73 Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yes. I mean you're correct, but what I would guess I was meaning by my question was -- is the first people that develop are going to pay it -- are going to be the ones paying it first. If it costs 150,000 dollars for that line, however that gets apportioned out, is that number that you would pay as one of those property owners, bigger than the number it would cost you to bring the line yourself? You know, if the line stopped here and you had to pay -- which property were you, ma'am? Howard: Five. Nary: Okay. So, if you have to -- if this is -- if this connection for you, would it be more expensive for you to pay to get this line extended to you, depending on when this property develops and we have that other issue about this east access, but the question is, is would it more expensive for you to -- if you're the very next person to develop, to build this line to you, versus paying the latecomer fee for the line that's already running by you? In your situation it's -- again, I'm no engineer -- it would appear to be cheaper to pay the latecomer fee down here, but it may not be the same for the person that's right there, but I don't know that. I mean I don't know any of them. I don't know the numbers there, that's why I'm asking the question. Howard: Okay. Thank you. Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Matt. Schultz: Matt Schultz, 660 East Franklin, once again. Thank you, Mayor and Council. Mr. Nary, I did break down the percentages of those homeowners across that area, because it was a question of mine too and say like Mrs. Jerrems, she's six and a half percent, Mrs. Howard, she's 7.6 percent. The Quasar development, they are 10.9 percent of that overall area, so anyone person may -- in my estimation would not -- it would be cheaper for them to pay the latecomer, than it would be to pay their share. It's worth them fighting for. That's why they are here. You know, I'll tell you, that's why it's worth fighting for and that's why they are here, because I have got numbers here that I'd like to hand out that shows what their cost would be to extend it. I'm here to offer in front of you and in front of that developer to share in that cost of extending -- get my laser pointer. If you could back out just one step, Brad, please. No. That's all right here, from here all the way to there. Share in that cost and what's interesting is it's already kind of a 50-50 split, it's about 30 grand for me to extend it up and out of my subdivision that's no benefit to me, but it's just my requirement, it's about 30,000 for that development to connect, but what that does is if we get a little private agreement going, their concern, if I were the developer, is, okay, when is Matt going to give me sewer to connect to, you know, and I'm not going to play any games. We are going to do that in our first phase. However, if we do it with one contractor, one boring, one permit, one repavement in Victory Road, that's the cleanest and easiest way for us to get that done. I'm willing to share in that cost with the developer. Don't -- I know I'm a bigger Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 60 of 73 developer in the case, I have more lots, but, I'll tell you what, you know, we should be treated fairly and I think them paying a little bit, us paying a much larger bit and sharing with them is more than a fair offer. To insure that we have some kind of an agreement to get that done once at the same time this next spring and just be done with it. If maybe I could back up to Mrs. Jerrem's question. I don't want to speak for Brad or anything, but -- he's welcome to jump in. I apologize, I should have wrote these questions down that she asked, but she's definitely serviceable right here. She would -- she's not going to be required to extend it if she doesn't develop. She just sits there and if she want to live there for ten years, the sewer goes by her and she can connect or not connect and if she does, I believe the city's policy is to annex if you want to connect to city services, pay the connection fees, you know, go through that process if you want to use city services, but she doesn't have to and that's -- and that's her right to not connect, not build if she doesn't want to develop. If somebody does want to redevelop, then, they do open themselves up to additional requirements of building infrastructure and roads and all that good stuff. I know that probably doesn't answer all of Mrs. Jerrem's questions. The fencing along the canal here, I believe our property line goes to the center of the ditch. I believe. Except right down here, the whole ditch is on her property for about 100 feet and, then, it curves over. We are going to put wrought iron on our side at the back of these lots, there is going to be a pathway between the wrought iron and the drain, in accordance with the city's master plan, we are going to pave a pathway there. If she burns weeds on her side of the ditch, with the exception of this whole area down here, it's all good, the water will stop, -- you know, she can burn on her side and that's fine. Down here I had asked her if I could just take care of the weeds on my side -- on her property on my side of the ditch, I could maintain that and make it look neat and clean and I could take care of those weeds no problem if she didn't mind or -- we can work out some kind of agreement. As far as Mrs. Howard goes right here, we will -- and I did told her this in our neighborhood meeting -- extend a sewer stub out our cul-de-sac that we are going to be planning here. It is in a phase that we probably will do at the earliest fall of 2004, most likely mid 2005. Like she said, she's not necessarily interested in connecting today, but just in case she changes her mind, she wants to have that flexibility to having a sewer stub and I don't blame her and we are willing, in the interest of, you know, coordinating with the area residents to do that, I think that's a much better solution than building a 27 inch line in her front yard -- I mean in the road in front of her. It's just -- it makes much more sense for me just to extend an eight inch line for 150 feet and stub it to her property and I'm willing to work with Brad to make sure we work out the easement issues and all that. The city may require a small turn around or a small easement on her property, I'm not sure, but just to kind of give her a heads up that that could be a requirement if she wants that sewer stub to her property. I'm willing to work with them on that. If I'm forgetting anything, please, let me know. Berg: Mr. Mayor, I wrote down a few questions. Schultz: Oh, the main line -- if the main line breaks. Berg: If the -- yes. Do you need to .tear up the residential street if the mainline breaks? Meridian City Council Meeting September 9,2003 Page 61 of 73 Schultz: You know, when we put these things in, we fully -- we test them, we TV them, we air pressure test them, you know, heaven forbid we have got to go in and rip it up, but it could happen. If so, it would happen -- usually, in this case with a 50-foot right of way, the pavement is about 36 feet. We could do that work within the 36 feet, we close the road, open it up and do the work within the 36 feet, usually. If, for whatever reason we had to do that, with that big of a pipe some of the repairs were able to actually -- I mean they are able to get a guy down inside these things and crawl down through them. I mean -- and there are ways to do that, these pipes are so big. There are ways to repair these things without ripping up the road, since it is so big. Even the smaller ones there are ways to repair them using what they call trenchless technology to not have to just rip everything to shreds, but -- anymore that I'm forgetting? Berg: Yes. What location would she be able to hook up to the sewer if it came down Victory? I'm paraphrasing. Schultz: Let's assume that we get approved asking for what I'm asking for, they get approved asking for what they are asking for and we work together and put this line in, I would assume that if she were to connect she would want to coordinate that with Brad Watson, but I don't think there is anything really too prohibitive about the location along there. If it were going to be the redevelopment of that parcel, they line it up with the driveway or something like that, if she wanted to switch over from her septic and annex and connect and all that, I'm sure she could work with Brad and connect to anywhere along there and if Brad will let us, I don't see why not, I have done that in other locations, while we are digging this line we can put a sewer stub out right now to not have to go back in the road later and tear it up. We have done that in other locations. While you're down 20 feet, pull a stub in and it's just so much easier to repave it once, than have to go back later and I'm -- that's assuming we work together, because that's really, I believe, outside of my area of responsibility, but if we do cost share for that whole length, I would -- I would be in charge of working with their engineer to make sure they get a stub there somewhere. Or if I don't, they should, in their plans. I think that's _ - it's an easy thing to do. It's a very small cost if you do it now. If you do it later, it's a much bigger cost. Berg: The other question was what size of line would probably go down Victory from __ Schultz: You know, I have got in my -- I was interested in how many -- I quoted earlier how many people served on the 27. It came off a chart from JUB Engineers, the same people that did the master plan for you. I used to work for them three years ago and I found this in my files and it was really interesting. A ten inch line -- I think she was wondering how many people could serve off a ten inch line, flowing half full, at the minimum slope, serves about 400 homes, about 120 acres. The service area we are talking about that's shaded there is about 92 acres. So, that's where the ten inch -- you can see a ten inch falls within that -- that service area and that's kind of how they use rule of thumbs to come up with those sizes based on area and proposed densities, not knowing, they take a guess. I think.JUB assumed on the list here, they said three and.a Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 62 of 73 half units per acre is what they assumed at build out for this 2,000 acres and that's how they came up with these pipe sizes. In this case, a ten-inch would be more than adequate to service this service area. Yes. Excuse me. Kent was mentioning to me -- I mean I think we have made our point that -- and I think Brad agrees with us that going through this site is just a much more efficient route, because we don't have to cross and Kent was just reiterating to me that crossing that Ten Mile Drain twice with a 27 inch line requires a bore. It's -- the steel casing, I think, is -- I think it's either a 36 or a 42 inch steel casing. I mean it's massive, it's dangerous, and, to be honest with you, I can't even find a boring contractor right not that can do it this year. That's beside the point, because even if I could, I still wouldn't be asking for it, but it just doesn't make sense to cross that drain twice. We have already crossed it once further down in the Tuscany Lakes stub, so if we were to do it, we would cross it three times and it just doesn't make sense. If you have got a better route use it and I think we have a better route and, by the way, I want to respond to Mr. Liddell's -- this is public right of way we are putting this in. Victory Road is ACHD. We have granted an easement to put this sewer line in soon, but when we do put the road in and pave it, it will be ACHD right of way, this is not a private street subdivision, we did a public street subdivision, and this is kind of a standard thing that we do know. I know it gets controversial, people think, somehow, the big developer is screwing them over. I'm sorry, but that's just kind of what they think, and, to be honest with you, I'm not -- I'm trying to really save them from, you know, cutting their own nose off to spite their face, really. It's going to cost everybody more money, you still get the same serviceability, let's do this the smart way and not succumb to emotion and not just -- you know, coming up with a better idea. The master plant was based on the best available information, we have better information now, we have exact alignments, we have a better route, and that's -- we are going with a better alignment. I think I covered everything, didn't I? Corrie: Any more questions of -- well, have you got a question or more testimony? Mr. Riddell. Riddell: Point of information and a question. Corrie: Okay. Come up here, would you, please. Liddell: I presume this is sort of Robert's rule of order? A point of information. Regarding the impact, in the master plan, now with this sewer sitting change, and the delay proposed engineering technical solution on economic grounds not to punch a bore underneath Ten Mile Creek twice, as I understand it. The proposal would be to run the ten inch line down to the Victory corner per the master plan at some point in the future, undisclosed, but to allow this portion to go through now, so their economic interest in selling lots, so they can connect to the sewer, happens more immediately; right? I guess that's the question. The other part of that question is when city sewer no longer collects here and for part of the other master plan area that it was originally engineered for -- and water doesn't come over here anymore. I presume we are not in the Meridian City anymore, I looked forward, you know, getting off a 15,000 dollar septic that the state of Idaho required and. Central District Health. If we are still in the count~, Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 63 of 73 then, I'll go back to the county, since we are not going to be annexed, we are not going to get city water and I. guess I will be forced to ask for some sort of a study on the existing development, what impact it makes on our continuing aging septic systems going into the subterranean system. I guess it just delays what we all know is in the public interest from the get go. The more development you have, the quicker you need sewer. This guy needs it quicker, because they got lots they can sell this summer -- this fall if they punch it in now. If they don't go in the public interest and punch both lines in at the same time, per the original agreement with the public, then, only the public gets screwed and that's, I guess, my question. Is that only the Council's intent is not to zone it. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Now, we are not going to do it anymore. We have already had a chance. You can answer that one and, then, we will close her up. Schultz: Thank you. Matt Schultz, 660 East Franklin. Let me just talk about -- he's uninformed about -- misinformed about the water situation. With our Tuscany Lakes down here we are pulling water from here all the way up to here this fall. I have to do it to bring these lots on line this fall, which I am doing, in front of this other developer. Water is going to be there when this development comes in, sewer is going to be there, he can connect, I -- I don't know what else to say, other than I just feel a little bit beat up on about the situation. I really think we are doing the right thing or I wouldn't be up here saying it. I have a professional reputation to protect as well, as well as -- I work for a developer and I'm a professional engineer and I wouldn't be asking for something if I thought it was wrong. I think it's the right thing to do for everybody. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Schultz, I thought -- I guess I thought I heard you say before about this cost share to bring it to the corner. Was that some far off time in the future or was that now? Schultz: This -- we want to build this immediately, as soon as Brad will let me. This right here -- this development couldn't get anything underway until next spring anyways, about the same time I'm doing mine. I mean that's th,e reality of the construction season, we are coming to the end of it this year and people usually hold off until late winter and, then, get the construction going and pave in the spring, which is, essentially, what this site is going to do and I'm going to do. We will be doing utilities if we both move forward like we intend at the same time. So, we would propose to punch not only this line, but all my other little interior lines that I may have in my first phase, and, you know, water lines and power and everything else, we will do that next spring, pull that out and I'm here to commit that. I mean if the economy keeps going and we follow through with that project, we will do that with our first phase to this point. I think it should only be required to this point. I'm offering to cost share for this the whole way to there, so we can work together on one contractor, one schedule, I'm here to offer that Meridian City Council Meeting September 9,2003 Page 64 of 73 right now at the podium. I have offered it in the past, I'm going to do it again, I think it's - - I think it's a good deal,. but that's just me, so -- Corrie: Okay. Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: All right. Thank you. Okay. The lady in the blue had a question. Cathy? Okay. Come up here. A question is okay. Testimony I don't -- Jerrem: I just wanted a clarification on that pathway, the walking pathway. Corrie: Oh, that's right. That's right. Jerrem: Because I have got cattle and horses and dogs out there and it sounds like we are just going to open it up to Ten Mile and kids are free to come and go from it. Corrie: Okay. Kent, maybe that is probably your bivouac here. She had a question about the pathway. Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland. As you can see on the landscape plan and the PowerPoint one that they had earlier, we are fencing at the back of the lots, which is right along here and you can -- we are proposing a wrought iron fence right here. That's what that designates right there and yes, you can see the pathway as it meanders in the Nampa Meridian easement area, which is the same thing that we did in the other sub and, as I understand, Cathy has, on the other -- has all the property and she has cattle and so forth on the other side, so I don't know how you -- I mean if they cross the ditch, she has a fence to keep them -- her stuff on her side, with the property line -- and this drawing does show it, the property line goes right down the ditch right here and, then, right at this point comes onto our side. That's where the property line is, so it goes right down the ditch, but that is a problem and I -- but that's what you want us to do. I think you have seen along this line tonight before, but this is what you have asked us to do and we are doing it. If you have a better solution -- Corrie: That is a metal fence; right? Brown: We would have a wrought iron fence at the back of our lots, but what Cathy is asking is that we are -- you got the pathway, she's got her cattle and animals right on that side, and the property line is the center line of the ditch and, I agree with her, there is a problem. She has a hot wire. That's a problem. So, got a good solution? Bird: Kent, you're telling me that her fence is on the west side of the -- her fence to keep her cattle and stuff in is on the west side of the Ten Mile? Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 65 of 73 Brown: As I understand from our neighborhood meeting that we had on the sewer, Cathy said that her hot wire is on the southwest side of the -- Bird: So, in other words, she's off of her property onto some of your easement property. Brown: Technically, yes. Bird: Okay. I see her concern now, because I couldn't figure out if she was on the east side. Brown: If she had her fence on the east side, then, obviously, her cattle wouldn't have access to the -- the water and so forth that are there and, you know, I see her concern, you know, and, technically, you know, it's a nice part for us, you know, on our side up to the point where you get to the water and I know you guys -- I mean you're not any different than Boise City or any of the other cities I go, you people want to walk down that pathway and listen and look at the water, whatever might be there and this is a unique situation with her cows. Over in our lakes portion we have both sides and, you know, it's not a big deal. You don't -- you don't want to have two fences, you know, realistically, a fence in the ditch that - Nampa Meridian is not going to have a ditch -- a fence anywhere there. That's just a unique -- but it's a normal place for a property line also, so it's not something that is not going to raise its head at other times as you try to put pathways down all of these drains and ditches but I couldn't come up with a solution for her. I'd love to make sure that where the property line runs and this landscape plan definitely shows that, and so you understand what she's asking and I think what you're asking us to do and we did it. Corrie: You did what you were told. Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. Any statements, anything for the Public Hearing before we close it? If you want to close it? You see what our problem is here on your property and the fence. You, evidently, have cattle that can go to that water, but people on that side of the fence, on the other side, like to walk along there and they are going to be walking in your cattle if they get to the ditch, that's just where the property line is. So, I don't know what else to do. Maybe the Council is a little wiser than I am, but -- so I'll entertain a motion and if there is no more Public Hearing required of Council to close the Public Hearing or continue it. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we close the Public Hearings AZ 03-014, PP 03-015, and CUP 03-029 for Tuscany Village. Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 66 of 73 Nary: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to close the three hearings. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Motion carried. The Public Hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Corrie: Comments. You want to take them one at a time here? Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: I think we better. Mr. Bird. Bird: I have got a question. Corrie: All right. Bird: The sewer issue would come under the Preliminary Plat, wouldn't it, Mr. Attorney? Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I would defer to Brad, but I think it's typically in the Preliminary Plat where the sewer line is shown. Watson: Yes. That's correct, Mayor and Council. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve the AZ 03-104, the request for Annexation and Zoning of 33.25 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, Incorporated, south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road, for the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order and to incorporate all staff comments, Planning and Zoning comments, and applicant and public testimony comments. There weren't any specialty items. Nary: Second. Bird: Yeah. There wasn't anything special on that. Nary: No, not on that one. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded for acceptance of the request of AZ 03-014, Annexation and Zoning. Any further discussion? Roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 67 of 73 Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, absent; Bird, aye. Corrie: Three ayes. Approved. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Corrie: Now public -- or Item 14, request for the preliminary plat. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess we are not ready to make a motion yet, I guess -- this was tough, because there is no -- there is no easy answer here. I think Mr. Schultz has made a very good case here, that, you know, the intent of when we make these master plans is as was stated, it is to give the public comfort and an idea of what we are doing and why we are doing it, but I also recognize, as was stated, is that when we do those, especially for the sewer, we do use the public right of way, because we have seen how horrific it can be to try to do it differently when it isn't, you know, a consent. So, here we have consent, you know. Here we have consent to use someone's property to push that sewer through. What I think I heard Mr. Watson say was that he agreed that it was a better alignment to do it that way and I guess, you know, I got to look in this crystal ball that we have in front of us and it tells us that, you know, if we knew that when we made the master plan, would we have made it a part of the master plan? I think it does. What's the expectation -- I mean this is -- this corner is going to be a very attractive corner in about five or six years. When that Locust Grove overpass does finally get built, because it will happen, this will be a very attractive corner to people, because it goes straight down to the high school and it will go straight over the freeway. So, this will be a very attractive piece. Does that mean those property owners will be able to develop their property? I sure think it will. I don't have any doubt that they will be able to if that's what they would like to do. So, what's the trade-off here if we grant what Tuscany Village is requesting? The trade-off here is, is that they aren't going to -- they are going to have to incur some expense to move that sewer line from the edge of Tuscany's property to the corner. That's all they would have got initially that would have been at an expense of a latecomer expense or the cost share that is being proposed today by Tuscany Village to be able to put that to the corner. Those are the only properties right here one, the ones that are one, two, three, and four, that are affected by this change. The lady who spoke regarding five is probably not impacted by this change, because she's got another connection that they are going to provide for her anyway, so I think -- I think the issue is, is do we deviate from the master plan, based on the reasons presented by Tuscany, which is partly economic on their part, but also partly geographic, is that a better plan and more serviceable and less expensive overall, which will be a less expensive fit overall for all of the other property owners. Also accept their offer of the cost share if the other property owners want to do that to bring it to the corner at this point, is that a better plan than just forcing them to move it down, at their own expense, at the expense of a latecomers agreement later. I think that's the Meridian City Council Meeting September 9,2003 Page 68 of 73 issue. I don't know that there is really anything more to it than that, but again, I don't know that there is an easy answer. I don't know if we are ready to make a motion, I just think that's where the issue is. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I agree with Councilman Nary on what he stated there. It is the real issue on the preliminary plat, is what do we do and which is best for everybody concerned and the cheapest for everybody concerned and to have less dollars -- that area is going to -- once the overpass is put across Locust Grove, that area is going to definitely -- and that is a well-thought out corner that will really develop, but I'm in a quandary of what is the best. I understand the developer's deal. Our staff has agreed to it, bought into it. We can -- we can make sure that area five, lot five, gets the east stub in in our Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, but we still leave the problem of -- and Mr. Schultz has agreed to share cost to the corner of Locust Grove with the other developer that's coming. The other developer that's coming, if this wasn't coming in, would have to get the sewer there anyway. He'd have to get the sewer to that -- to his property anyway, so it's just something that we have really -- and the master plan, as you said, is just -- that's what it is, it's a master plan. They haven't been engineered, I mean there is no guarantee that we are going to -- that that's going to be exactly where it goes. It's a tough -- it's a tough decision on my part. I think it's -- I think the way that Tuscany got it laid out is probably a very fine way to do it and I think it -- as Mr. Nary had stated before, I think the cost is -- to the properties on down the line is going to be the same whether it's latecomers fee or put it, in you know. I think that -- and I'm one that doesn't like latecomer's fees, period. I think they are a real problem for our staff and they fall through the cracks. Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council? Corrie: Anna. Powell: Could I ask that in your motion you give staff an idea of what you want to do with condition number two on page two of recommendations? That's the one that specifically references the sewer easement, so just if you could perhaps reference that, that would be helpful. Nary: Since we can't sit her all night long, or sit here long enough to wait until everybody leaves -- Corrie: Mr. Nary, you got the floor. Nary: I do want to say one other thing, too. You know, Mr. Schultz and I haven't always agreed on things, but I do respect what he said, that he wouldn't be proposing this only for their benefit. It is better. I mean Brad Watson it is the better serviceable plan. If we Meridian City Council Meeting September 9,2003 Page 69 of 73 had known that at the time, I guess I truly believe that would have been planed, if we had known at the time that we had had that availability, we would have made it part of the plan. So, I do -- and I do appreciate Mr. Schultz offering to help cost share that expense. That expense is going to get -- would get incurred in some manner by property number three. That's appears to be the -- potentially the first developable property at this point. It would have to either pay a latecomer cost if Tuscany built that line all the way to the corner and then, all the way down Locust Grove or they have to cost share it now. So, I don't know that it's really -- without more evidence than what we have, the evidence that we have tells me that it's at best a wash and maybe even a better -- a little bit better deal to them and it gets done sooner and can get done now, because of Mr. Schultz's commitment to getting it done. So, based upon that I guess I would move that we approve PP 03-015, the request for Preliminary Plat approval of 136 building lots and ten other lots on 33.25 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove, to include all of staff comments, the recommendations of Planning and Zoning and incorporate comments and testimony of tonight and, specifically, to amend -- appears the recommendation in regards to the sewer adjustment, that they provide sewer adjustment pursuant to the needs of the City Engineer, but it can be through their property and doesn't need to be extended to the corner of Locust Grove and Victory and south on Victory -- or south on Locust Grove, but also that it would include in the Findings of Fact that the developer has agreed to cost share the expense of taking the sewer line from the edge of their property to the corner of Locust Grove and Victory and for Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, Decision, and Order. Bird: I would second that, but I'd like to add one thing that Matt also offered to put -- to stub into number one and number two while they are going down the deal, make stubs to those properties. Nary: And I would agree to that. That was also contemplated. On the one for lot five for the east side, is that part of this -- Bird: Yes. Nary: -- portion also, that they -- that the developer has also agreed to provide a stub for lot five on the map that we were shown, to allow them access on the eastern boundary of their property to the sewer line that's available through Tuscany Lakes, that they provide that as well. Bird: And I would second that. Nichols: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I would ask you to put the last condition about that parcel five -- actually, that you go back and amend your motion on the. Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 70 of 73 Annexation and Zoning, because it's something that's off site. It has nothing to do with the plat itself. Nary: Okay. We will do that. Thank you. Bird: So, you want to remove that from the Preliminary Plat? Nary: So, we don't need to have that portion as part of the preliminary plat findings. Bird: Second agrees. Corrie: Okay. Is the Council -- does all of the Council realize what we are doing here? Bird: Yeah. Corrie: Okay. Any other discussion? McCandless: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Yes. McCandless: I wanted to explain my hesitation on my vote. As Mr. Brown knows, I have voted against any projects south of Victory Road, not because of the sewer and what we have been discussing her tonight, but because of the congestion out there. Excuse me. I'm losing my voice and I'm wondering what -- you know, I have been wondering all along what we are going to do with all the population, the congestion, the cars -- I do think that with the overpass at Locust Grove it's going to be a lot easier. This particular project is a little further away from Eagle Road, which was my biggest problem and my votes really haven't made a great deal of difference, because the other three have voted the other -- so I'm going to go ahead and vote for it. Corrie: Okay. We have -- discussion? It's getting late. Hearing none, roll call vote, Mr. Clerk. Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, absent; Bird, aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Corrie: Okay. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Bird: I'll go back and amend my AZ 03-014, if it's okay with you -- Corrie: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 71 of 73 Bird: -- at this point, if the second would agree? Nary: I would. Bird: Okay. I would like to add to that -- I'm not going to restate the whole thing, but I would like to add to that that on what we have shown -- been shown as the map as lot number five, that -- the Howard property, that from the east side, that Tuscany development stub in the proper sewer stub to their property. Nary: I concur. Corrie: Okay. All right. We need a vote on that one. I was just trying to figure out how to say it, but -- Berg: Amendment. Corrie: An amendment. All right. Roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, absent; Bird, aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Corrie: Need to pay more attention to parliamentary procedure a little bit. Now, we have request for Conditional Use Permit for a planned unit development with reduced lot widths and setbacks for Tuscany. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I take it this is one of the first CUP's I have ever seen that we didn't have any discussion on it? That the staff was all agreeable. It seems like everything was in the preliminary plat. So, I would move that we approve CUP 03-029, the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned unit development with reduced lot widths and setbacks for the proposed Tuscany Village by Tuscany Development, Inc., south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road and for the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order and incorporate all staff reports, applicant reports, and public testimony. Nary: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Roll call vote, Mr. Berg. Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, absent; Bird, aye. Meridian City Council Meeting September 9. 2003 Page 72 of 73 Corrie: All ayes. Motion approved. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Corrie: That takes care of the -- all the testimony and public hearings that we have. I would like to ask the Council to have an executive session for this evening on a personnel issue. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'd move that we that go into executive session as per Idaho State Code 67- 2345(a). Corrie: Okay. Nary: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded. Roll call vote Mr. Berg. Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, absent; Bird, aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Go into executive session, just -- won't be very long, but we need to discuss some things. Powell: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Did you open up and officially dismiss Mayfair? Corrie: Yes we did. Nary: We did. It might have been when you were- (Enter Executive Session) (Come out of Executive Session) Nary: Mr. Mayor. I move we leave executive session. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made and second to adjourn from executive session. All in favor say aye. All ayes, motion carried. Meridian City Council Meeting September 9, 2003 Page 73 of 73 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Corrie: I'll entertain a motion to close the regular Council session. Nary: So moved. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made and second to close the regular Council session. All in favor say aye. All ayes, motion carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:15 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: 10 / 1 I &3 DATE luauf,- ~ ~aJ:;et9t~ ATTESTED:J~~; WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CI September 5, 2003 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 9,2003 APPLICANT Public Works Department ITEM NO. ~ - B REQUEST Approve Purchase of Additional Lot for Well No. 24 -- 2870 N. Blue Springs Avenue: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY A HORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: See Attached Memo ~JP Contacted: Emailed: Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Gity of Meri~ialjl' '" " " , "~u6Iic Wonts"Degt: ,,' ,~' , ~'" ? / " .;:: ~ , ? ~".". ~ RECEIVED SEP = if 2003 Mem City of Meridian City Clerk Office To: Brad Watson Il n (b From: Lenard Grady ~ CC: Gary Smith Date: 9/4/2003 Re: Proposed Agenda Items for September 9, 2003 City Council Meeting ~ The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following items be placed on the September 9 City Council consent agenda: Well 24 Additional Lot Purchase - 2870 N Blue Sprinos Ave. With ever changing water quality regulations, it's likely that some form of water treatment system will be required in the future. With the pump house and parking area consuming the majority of a single lot, expansion possibilities are limited at best. With the purchase of the adjacent lot, a future treatment facility including storage could be added. The existing lot was donated to the city years ago when the lot requirements were smaller. Purchase of the expansion lot from Stubblefield Construction Company I Inc. will cost $33,000 plus $700 in closing fees, depending on final closing date. Costs for the purchase are requested to be transferred from future Well #27. Bill Nichols has read the closing statement and his comments have been addressed. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approve the Real Estate Purchase with Stubblefield Construction Company, Inc for the lot purchase of 2870 N Blue Springs Ave and authorize the Mayor to sign it and approve the budget line item transfer of $34,000 from account #3490-96157 to #3490-96149. FromthedeskoL Well 24 Pumping Facilities - CO #2 The contract for Well 24 pumping facilities was awarded to Irminger Construction and is nearing completion. Change order #1 was primarily for installation of a larger Lenard Grady StalfEngineef Meridian Public Works Department 660 E, Walertowef, Suite200 Meridian, Idaho 83642 . Page 1 (208) 898-5500 Fax: (208) 887-1297 grn.dyl@Ci.meridian.id.us and quieter muffler on the backup generator. This change order (CO #2) is for landscaping of the well house lot and adjacent lot. The design has been completed and approved by the HOA. Attached is a change order for $27,259.00 for landscaping of both lots. Costs were checked independently and found to be reasonable. Costs for the purchase are requested to be transferred from future Well #27. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Deparbnent recommends that City Council approve Change Order #2 for landscaping Well #24 lots with Irminger Construction, Inc. for $27,259.00 and authorize the Mayor to sign it and approve the budget line item transfer of $27,500 from account #3490-96157 to #3490-96149. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding any of these items. . Page 2 September 5, 2003 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 9, 2003 APPLICANT Public Works Department ITEM NO. 3~G REQUEST Change Order NO.2 for Well No. 24 Pumping Facilities -- Irminger Construction: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: See Attached Memo Ov~ Contacted: Emailed: Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. {. { \ CitY of Meridian. Public Works Dept. RECEIVED SEP - 4 2003 Memo City of Meridian City Clerk Office To: Brad Watson /J fJ (b From: Lenard Grady pA cc: Gary Smith Date: 9/4/2003 Re: Proposed Agenda Items for September 9, 2003 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following items be placed on the September 9 City Council consent agenda: Well 24 Additional Lot Purchase - 2870 N Blue Springs Ave. With ever changing water quality regulations, it's likely that some form of water treatment system will be required in the future. With the pump house and parking area consuming the majority of a single lot, expansion possibilities are limited at best. With the purchase of the adjacent lot, a future treatment facility including storage could be added. The existing lot was donated to the city years ago when the lot requirements were smaller. Purchase of the expansion lotfrom Stubblefield Construction Company, Inc. will cost $33,000 plus $700 in closing fees, depending on final closing date. Costs for the purchase are requested to be transferred from future Well #27. Bill Nichols has read the closing statement and his comments have been addressed. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Deparbnent recommends that City Council approve the Real Estate Purchase with Stubblefield Construction Company, Inc for the lot purchase of 2870 N Blue Springs Ave and authorize the Mayor to sign it and approve the budget line item transfer of $341000 from account #3490-96157 to #3490-96149. From the desk of... '>K ___ Well 24 Pumping Facilities - CO #2 The contract for Well 24 pumping facilities was awarded to Irminger Construction and is nearing completion. Change order #1 was primarily for installation of a larger Lenard Grady Staff Engineer Meridian Public Works Dcpartment 660 E. Watcrtowcr, Suite 200 Meridian, Idaho 83642 . Page 1 (208) 898-5500 Fax; (208) 887~1297 gradyl@Ci.mcridian.id.us and quieter muffler on the backup generator. This change order (CO #2) is for landscaping of the well house lot and adjacent lot. The design has been completed and approved by the HOA Attached is a change order for $27,259.00 for landscaping of both lots. Costs were checked independently and found to be reasonable. Costs for the purchase are requested to be transferred from future Well #27. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Deparbnent recommends that City Council approve Change Order #2 for landscaping Well #24 lots with Irminger Construction, Inc. for $27,259.00 and authorize the Mayor to sign it and approve the budget line item transfer of $27,500 from account #3490-96157 to #3490-96149. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding any of these items. . Page 2 WORK CHANGE DIRECTIVE No. Two (2) DATE OF ISSUANCE 9/16/2003 EFFECTIVE DATE 9/16/2003 OWNER: City of Meridian CONTRACTOR: Irminger Construction Contract: Well 24 Facilities Project: OWNER's Contract No. City Council Approval: 9/9/2003 You are directed to proceed promptly with the following change(s): Description: Landscaping of both lots as designed in plan set issued 6/26/2003. Purpose ofWbrk Change Directive: Comply with HOA requirements for landscaping. Attachments: Quote. If OWNER or CONTRACTOR believe that the above change has affected Contract Price any Claim for a Change Order based thereon will involve one or more of the following methods as defined in the Contract Documents. Method of determining change in Contract Price: o Unit Prices 1$1 Lump Sum not to exceed o Cost of the Work Estimated increase ( decrease) in Contract Price: $ 27,259.00 If the change involves an increase, the estimated amount is not to be exceeded without further authorization. Estimated increase (decrease) in Contract Times: Substantial Completion: ~ days; Ready for final payment: ~ days. RECOMMENDED: AUTHORIZED: ENGINEER By: OWNER By: Robert D. Corrie. Mayor Attest: William G. Berg. Jr. City Clerk EJCDC No. 191O-8-F (1996 Edition) Prepared by the Engineers Joint Contract Docwnents CommiUee and endorsed by The Associated Genera! Contractors of America and the Construction Specifications Institute. WORK CHANGE DIRECTIVE INSTRUCTIONS A. GENERAL INFORMATION This document was developed for use in situations involving changes in the Work which, if not processed expeditiously, might delay the Project. These changes are often initiated in the field and may affect the Contract Price or the Contract Times. This is not a Change Order, but only a directive to proceed with Work that may be included in a subsequent Change Order. For supplemental instructions and minor changes not involving a change in the Contract Price or the Contract Times a Field Order should be used. B. COMPLETING THE WORK CHANGE DIRECTIVE FORM Engineer initiates the form, including a description of the items involved and attachments. Based on conversations between Engineer and Contractor, Engineer completes the following: METHOD OF DETERMINING CHANGE, IF ANY, IN CONTRACT PRICE: Mark the method to be used in determining the fmal cost of Work involved and the estimated net effect on the Contract Price. If the change involves an increase in the Contract Price and the estimated amount is approached before the additional or changed Work is completed, another Work Change Directive must be issued to change the estimated price or Contractor may stop the changed Work when the estimated time is reached. If the Work Change Directive is not likely to change the Contract Price, the space for estimated increase (decrease) should be marked "Not Applicable". Once Engineer has completed and signed the form, all copies should be sent to Owner for authorization because Engineer alone does not have authority to authorize changes in Price or Times. Once authorized by Owner, a copy should be sent by Engineer to Contractor. Price and Times may only be changed by Change Order signed by Owner and Contractor with Engineer's recommendation. Paragraph lO.03.A.2 of the General Conditions requires that a Change Order be initiated and processed to cover any undisputed sum or amount of time for Work actually performed pursuant to this Work Change Directive. Once the Work covered by this directive is completed or final cost and times are determined, Contractor should submit documentation for inclusion in a Change Order. THIS IS A DIRECTIVE TO PROCEED WITH A CHANGE THAT MAY AFFECT THE CONTRACT PRICE OR CONTRACT TIMES. A CHANGE ORDER, IF ANY, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PROMPTLY. September 5, 2003 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT Meridian Fire Department REQUEST Update on Fire Station NO.3: Department Reports September 9,2003 ITEM NO. Lj--ft-I AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMP ANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: :C GU ~~M G Contacted: Emailed: Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at publlc meetings shall become property at the City of Meridian. September 5, 2003 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT Meridian Fire Department REQUEST Update on Fire Safe House: Department Reports September 9, 2003 ITEM NO. ....!J - It - 2. AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: uup ttIJ-/;v Contacted: Emailed: Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. September 5, 2003 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT Meridian Fire Department Department Reports September 9, 2003 ITEM NO. .Lf - A - 3 REQUEST Discussion of Revenue Percentages per Joint Powers Agreement: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Ufre-vUL Contacted: Emailed: Date: Staff Initials: Phone: MaterIals presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Meridian Fire Department 540 E. Franklin Road Meridian, 10 83642 208-888-1234 Fax 208-895-D390 Memo RECEIVED SEP - 9 2003 CITY OF MERIDIAN To: Mayor Robert Corrie, City Clerk, City Council Members, & MRFPD Commissioners From: Ken W. Bowers Date: March 11, 2003 Re: Demographics Report I have received the demographics report and the assessed values for the Meridian Rural Fire Protection District & the City of Meridian for 2002. The population for the Rural is 13,748 and the population for the City is 39,744. The percentages would then be 26% Rural and 74% City. The assessed value for the Rural is $648,169,991.00 and the assessed value for the City is $2,069,040,130.00. The percentages for the assessed values would be 24% Rural and 76% City. Applying the formula as per the Contract for Service/JPA, the percentages for the Rural vs. City would be: 25% Meridian Rural Fire Protection District and 75% City of Meridian. If you have any questions, please contact me. Ken W. Bowers, Chief Meridian Fire Department Mayor Robert D. Corrie Date ~u--f, '-~" <--__ Chairman Richard Greene a //1 /D.3 Date . Page 1 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL C/C 09/09/03 IN THE MATTER OF THE ) APPLICATION OF PARAMOUNT, ) LLC FOR APPROVAL OF 37 ) SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 2 ) OTHER BUILDING LOTS AND 12 ) COMMON LOTS ON 26.39 ACRES ) IN AN R-8 AND L-O ZONES FOR ) PARAMOUNT SUBDIVISION NO.1, ) LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ) N. LINDER ROAD, ) APPROXIMA TEL Y Yz MILE ) NORTH OF McMILLAN ROAD, ) MERIDIAN, IDAHO ) ) CASE NO. FP-03-047 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT This matter coming before the City Council for Final Plat approval pursuant to Meridian City Code S 12-3-7 on September 9,2003, and the Council finding that the Administrative Review is complete from Sonya Allen, Planner I for the Planning and Zoning Department, and Bruce Freckleton, Engineering Technician III, dated: Hearing Date: September 9,2003, to the Mayor and Council, and that Anna Powell Planning Director for the Planning and Zoning Department, and David Turnbull, commented at the hearing, and the Council having considered the requirements of the preliminary plat the Council takes the following action: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Final Plat of "PLAT SHOWING PARAMOUNT SUBDIVISION NO.1, LOCATED IN THE NW1I4 OF SECTION 25, TAN., R.1W., RM., MERIDIAN, ADA ORDER OF CONDITIONAL AFPROV AL OF FINAL PLAT / (FP-03-047) Page 1 of5 COUNTY, IDAHO 2003, ENGINEERING NORTHWEST, LLC BOISE, IDAHO, 02-037-00, SHEET 1 OF 4, HANDWRITTEN DATE: 6-12~03, J:\PARAMOUNT_SUBI_02037\Drawings\00_PARAMl",""PLATldwg 6/11/2003, ENGINEERING NORTHWEST, LLC", PARAMOUNT, LLC, Developer, is Conditionally Approved subject to those conditions of Staff comments as set forth in the Memorandum to the Mayor and City Council from Bruce Freckleton, Engineering Technician III, and Sonya Allen Planner I for the Planning and Zoning Department, dated: Hearing Date: September 9,2003, listing 13 SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS/FINAL PLAT and 7 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A", and consisting of four pages, and by this reference incorporated herein, and the additional requirements from the action of the Council taken at their September 9, 2003 meeting as follows, to-wit: 1.1 Comply with the conditions of the Meridian Fire Department as follows: 1. The project which comprised of single family dwellings will require a fire flow of 1,000 gallons per minute be available for duration of2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart. 1997 UFC Appendix III-A 2. Acceptance ofthe water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Water Department. 3. Final approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. The proposed fire hydrant locations will be submitted to the Public Works for plan review. The area in front ofthe fire hydrants will be painted red 10' to each side of the fire hydrant. 4. All roads and fire lanes shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside. ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT / (FP-03-047) Page 2 of 5 5. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before combustible construction begins. UFC 901.4.2 and 901.3 6. Two points of access will be required for the project or portions of the project that serve over 50 homes. This will be a concern the way the project is phased in the early stages of development. 7. Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire-flow consistent with the Uniform Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart. 1997 UFC Appendix III-A. 8. Multi-family residential on the site will require a fire-flow of 1500 GPM plus the amount required by the fire sprinkler demand. 9. All access roads within the project shall have a clear driving surface with a minimum width of20' available at all times. Restricted parking on some streets and access points to fire lanes may be required to maintain a clear emergency access which is 20' wide. The landscape island adjacent to Block 8, Lot 16 will be required to have a red painted curb. UFC 902.2.2.1 10. The phasing plan may require that any roadway greater than 150' in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. 11. The developer shall be responsible for the cost of the installation of Opticom for any future signalization that may occur as a result of this development. 1.2 Adopt the Recommendations of the Central District Health Department as follows: The Central District Health Department requires after written approval from the appropriate entities are submitted, they can approve this proposal for central sewage and central water; that plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality for central sewage and central water; that run-off is not to create a ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT / (FP-03-047) Page3of5 mosquito breeding problem; and it is suggested that stormwater be pretreated through a grassy swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface water quality; that engineers and architects should obtain current best management practices for stormwater disposal and design a stormwater management system that is preventing groundwater and surface water degradation. Manuals for guidance: 1. State of Idaho Catalog Of Stormwater Best Management Practices For Idaho Cities And Counties. Prepared by the Idaho Division Of Environmental Quality, July 1997. 2. Stormwater Best Management Practices Guidebook. Prepared by City of Boise Public Works Department, May 2000. 2. The final plat upon which there is contained the Certification and signature of the City Clerk and the City Engineer verifying that the plat meets the City's requirements shall be signed only at such time as: 1. The Plat dimensions are approved by the City Engineer; and 2. The City Engineer has verified that all off-site improvements are completed and/or the appropriate letter of credit or cash has been issued guaranteeing the completion of off-site and required on-site improvements. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAKINGS ANALYSIS The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, the Owner may request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT / (FP-03-047) Page 4 of5 at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Iudicial Review may be filed. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code ~ 67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by this decision may, within twenty- eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order, seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the q+~ day of 3 ~~ V:1vL \ ,2003. 8hcL' "",,,,,,,.\lx; ~;::~ \\\\~ Of ME!,>:IIII/ ROBERT D. CORRIE ~",O"\ ~ r:D..,", q':O/.~~~ayor, City of Meridian '" cU'" '.'"q" 'V-;' ~ ~} f(~ -::. f ~- () ~ - - - - - -. - - Attest: '2;, c'?-. ~,\ ~0 .~ " vflS1. _1'.'::- William G. Berg, Ir., City Cle " //;: oo';;;,:,-~~ ()'l'>,,~;- Ilitl ......, ,'J: ~" t\\l\\\\ \)W"I'/J'oji \ \, Copy served upon Applicant, the P~~l,).ni~~'W;Rpnj/~g Department, Public Works Department, and City Attorney. $'" ,,'-\ _n,"''-- 1'<')4" <.."....-;.. .::- (j ('I;". _.~,,, v-;. ~ ~<;'i '(-\ -::. -.. ~ 0- 2 ::. - - - - - "~"""1 it ...., _ ct r-,A_b Date~ ... ~ v, ,0 0 2 ~ '0 vSr1S\' -.co,.$ '<.- ':-1 ("\~ ,,-'- "'". (" \v " z:\ Work\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Paramount S<$;I'l6QL1lP.~tp'-lJ4.7\O~'FP.doc II" \\\\ l/IIIilliill' By: ~.-)e; -03 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT I (FP-03-047) Page 5 of5 MA VOR Robelt D. Come HUB OF TREASURE V ALLEY A Good Place to Live 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 - FAX (208) 887-4813 City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 466-9272 . Fax 466-4405 PUBLIC WORKS BUiLDING DEPARTMENT (208) 898-5500 . Fax 887-1297 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TammydeWeerd Keith Bird Cherie McCandless William L.M. Na[y CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNlNG AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 . FAX 888-6854 ST AFF REPORT: Hearing Date: September 9, 2003 To: Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission .(11/. Sonya Allen, Planner I 0 ~ Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Tech ~ From: Re: Paramount Subdivision No.1 · Final Plat approval of Thirty-Seven (37) Single-Family Residential Building Lots, One (1) Church Lot, One (1) Seminary Lot, and Twelve (12) Other Lots on 26.39 Acres in R-8 & L-O Zones, by Paramount, LLC (File No. FP-03-047). We have reviewed the above referenced submittals and offer the following comments, as conditions of approval. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: APPLICATION SUMMARY The applicant, Paramount, LLC, has applied for Final Plat approval of 37 single-family residential building lots, 1 church lot, 1 seminary lot, and 12 other lots on 26.39 acres of land located on the east side of N. Linder Road, approximately lh mile north of McMillan Road. The zoning designation for the proposed subdivision is R-8 (Medium Density Residential) and L-O (Limited Office). This phase of the subdivision will have a gross density of 1.4 d.u./acre. The minimum square footage for single-family residential building lots within the R-8 zone is 6,500 s.f., with a minimum house size of 1,301 s.f., excluding garage(s). The other lots within the subdivision consist of 12 common area landscape/drainage lots. Total acreage of open space within the subdivision is approximately 3.86 acres. The pressurized irrigation system within this development is to be owned and maintained by the Paramount Subdivision Homeowners Association. The submitted final plat is in compliance with the approved preliminary plat. Staff recommends approval of the final plat for Paramount Subdivision No.1 with the comments and conditions stated in this report. FP-03-047 EXHIBIT "A" 1 OF 4 Staff ropon { \.., Plmming & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council Hearing Date: September 9, 2003 Page 2 LOCATION This phase of Paramount Subdivision is located on the east side of N. Linder Road, approximately ~ mile north of McMillan Road. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES North: Future phases of' Paramount Subdivision, zoned R-8, rural-residential/agricultural property, zoned RUT (Ada County) West: Future phase of Paramount Subdivision, zoned L-O; proposed Lochsa Falls Subdivision (across Linder Rd.), zoned R-4. East: Future phases of Paramount Subdivision, zoned R-8. South: Future phases of Paramount Subdivision, zoned R-8. SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS / FINAL PLAT 1. Applicant is to meet all terms of the approved preliminary plat (PP-03-004), conditional use permit (CUP-03-008) and Development Agreement (lnst. No. 103137116). 2. The applicant has indicated that the Paramount Homeowners Association will own and maintain the pressure irrigation system within this development. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. If a creek or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the Meridian City Engineer. 3. Fencing adjacent to pathways and internal open space/drainage lots is to be no more than 4' in height if solid material is used, with the allowance of a 2' lattice to be placed on top of the solid fence. All fencing shall be reduced to three feet in height within twenty feet ofthe right-of-way. 4. The proposed landscaping plan (prepared by The Land Group, entitled L-l & L-2, dated 6/5/03) is approved as submitted with the following exceptions: · Revise the pathway in the micropath lot (Lot 9, Block 8) to be a minimum of 5 ft. in width. · Revise the landscape island at the entryv.ray of W. Paramount Drive to match the plat (the plat shows two separate landscape islands). FP-03-047 EXHIBIT "A" 2 OF 4 Staff repon ( \ Plmming & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council Hearing Date: September 9, 2003 Page 3 5. Street signs are to be. in place, water system shall be approved and activated, pressurized irrigation system approved and activated, drainage lots constructed, fencing installed, and road base approved by the Ada County Highway District prior to applying for building permits. All development improvements, including perimeter fencing, irrigation, and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing, landscaping, pressurized irrigation, amenities, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 6. Sanitary sewer service and municipal water to this site shall be via extensions from existing mains. Applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer and water mains to and through this proposed development, thereby making them available to adjacent properties. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. 7. Add record bearings, as noted in the legal description of the Certificate of Owner's, to the face of the plat. 8. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat per Resolution 02-374. 9. All drainage areas (detention/retention basins) must be designed to ensure that water is retained only during 100-year storm events, and for a period of time not to exceed 24 hours. Side slopes within drainage areas shall not exceed a 3: 1 slope. 10. Revise or add the following notes to the face of the plat: (15.) Add Development Agreement Instrument No. 10313 7116. 11. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 12. Remove the graphical representation of the "special" storm drain easements across lots 2- 7, Block 8 and Lots 2-4, Block 7, as by note number 1 provides for public utilities, drainage, and irrigation across the front of all lots within the development. As currently designed, no storm drain facilities fall within the special easement areas shown. 13. Staffs failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved preliminary plat does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate FP.o3-047 EXHIBIT "A" 3 OF 4 Slaffrcport { "\ Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council Hearing Date: September 9,2003 Page 4 irrigation/drainage. district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, plans will be reviewed and approved by the meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3. Two-hundred-fifty and lOa-watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are detennined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and pennit from the Public Works Department prior commencing installations. 4. Compaction test results must be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 5 Applicant's engineer will be required to submit a signed, stamped statement certifying that all street finish centerline elevations are set a minimum of three feet above the highest established nonnal groundwater elevation. 6. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridianrs Water Works Superintendent. 7. Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those trees that have to be removed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the final plat for Paramount Subdivision No. 1 with the above stated comments and conditions. FP.03~047 EXHIBIT "A" 4 OF 4 Storr report ADA COUNTY RECORDER J. "QAVID NAVARRO BOISE IDAHO 09/22103 02:~ DEPUTY Joanne Hooper RECORDED-REQUEST OF MERIDIAN CITY AMOUNT .00 6 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 103160745 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 03- I tJ 1-2. AN ORDINANCE FINDING THAT THE OWNERS OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, JOHN T. SCHROEDER AND MARGARET M. LEZAMIZ, HAVE MADE A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR REZONE OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 921 WEST 2ND STREET, MERIDIAN, IDAHO, AND THAT LIES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN FROM R-4 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) ZONING DISTRICT TO 0- T (OLD TOWN DISTRICT) AS DEFINED UNDER MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 11-7-2 L, REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS ORDERS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO ADD SAID REZONING DESIGNATION TO THE OFFICIAL MAPS OF THE CITY OF MElUDIAN, IDAHO. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MElUDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. FINDINGS: 1. The owner of the following described property has made a written request for are-zone of the zoning classification for the subject Real Property herein described from R-4 (Low Density Residential) District to 0- T (Old Town) District as defined under Meridian City Code S 11-7-2 L; and SECTION: 12 T3N, RIW, B.M. DESCRIPTION OF A TRACT OF LAND - In the Southeast Y4 of the Northeast Y4 of Section 12, Township 3 North, Range 1 West of the Boise SCHROEDER APARTMENTS (O-T) RZ-03-007 / RE-ZONE ORDINANCE PAGEIOF4 Meridian, in Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. FOR: Lots 5 and 6, Block 3 of Niday's Addition to Meridian, Idaho, Plat Book 2, Page 75, Ada County Records. A portion of the Southeast 1;4 of the NOliheast 1;4 of Section 12, Township 3 NOlih, Range I West of the Boise Meridian in Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described to wit: Commencing at a found brass monument marking the Southeast corner of the Southeast l;4 of the Northeast 1;4 of Section 12, Township 3 North, Range 1 West of the Boise Meridian, thence North 89025'48" West 673.21 feet to a point on the center line of West Pine Avenue; thence North 00028'34" East 168.04 feet to the Southeast corner of Lot 5 of Niday's Addition to a set 5/8" iron pin with a plastic cap on the Westerly right of way ofW. 2nd Street, said point also being the INITIAL POINT of this description. thence NOlih 89025'58" West 119.89 feet (formerly stated as 120.00 feet) to a set 5/8" iron pin with a plastic cap marking the Southwest corner of Lot 5, Block 3 of Niday's Addition; thence NOlih 00030'07" East 60.01 feet (formerly stated as 60.00 feet) to a set 5/8" iron pin with a plastic cap marking the Northwest corner of Lot 6, Block 3 of Niday's Addition; thence South 89026'03" East 119.86 feet (formerly stated as 120.00 feet) to a set 5/8" iron pin with a plastic cap marking the NOliheast corner of Lot 6, Block 3 of Niday's Addition; thence South 00028'34" West 60.02 feet (formerly stated as 60.00 feet) to the Initial Point of this description. This tract contains a total area of 0.165 acre, more or less, and is subject to all other existing rights of way and easements. SCHROEDER AP AR TlvIENTS (0- T) RZ-03-007 / RE-ZONE ORDINANCE PAGE 2 OF 4 2. The City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council having given notice and conducted all public hearings in accordance with law and having issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law and Decision and Order granting the application for rezone and which conditions and requirements Applicant shall comply; and 3. The real property which is the subject of this ordinance is legally described in Section 1.1. on page 1 and 2 ofthis Ordinance. SECTION 2. That the above-described Property be, and the same is hereby re-zoned and designed (0- T) Old Town District. SECTION 3. That the City Engineer is hereby direct to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps depicting the City of Meridian land use zones in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 4: All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and millulled. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 9-1;6: day of J:ej/lern b<rv , 2003. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this q~!!:- day of rR:j?fel?v~, 2003. SCHROEDER APARTMENTS (O-T) RZ-03-007 I RE-ZONE ORDINANCE PAGE 3 OF4 ~ Attest: \\\\\1111/11111 \\\\ M 1111 ,\",~! Of EFlI.'D 1/11 ...\ -t, :-A ...... ...... ~, ~1A. "/ 2.... (j O~POI14):; 'V ~ f ~0 <to \ - SEAL - ~ & ~ ,q; 0 ~ City Clerk ~ <> 'Sr- 19"\ . ~ $ First Reading: If -- tf - tJ :3 ".........11;; COUN1'< ,f) ,'\,....,$' III \,.... Adopted after first reading by suspension/(jtl~,Rui'e as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code 50-902 Yes: )( No: Second Reading: -- Third Reading: STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss. County of Ada. ) On this \O.-t\.A- day of 3~p~\o-vu ,2003, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ROBERT D. CORRIE and WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the CITY of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. ..~".IlI.... ...oN SA!. ~.._---~~~~. .,... .....<. .. lit" /~o'tA.J?.A'\~'. el;jl ~ 'r~ : f It: NOTARY PUBLIC FOR I~AHO ~ \ ;: RESIDING AT: A de<- LOt-WLW-r Jdk-e-v .0 \'" br-"\c/ol MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:~ -2.~::o<;" . d''>...~ UJjJ.,.../ ~10." .. ....,4~---.~'P;. .....t; OJ lY... Z:\Work\M\Mcrldian\Mcridian 15360~IM'd~r Apartmcnts RZ-03-007 CUP-03"()26\RZOrdinance.doc ~trvmov\k~ (SEAL) SCHROEDER AP ARTMENTS (0- T) RZ-03-007 I RE-ZONE ORDINANCE PAGE 4 OF 4 ~ .l.S N\i\a\B311\l N n ;:== , ~ ~. . ...J U ';( tu8 a: Ul'j!j\.:t: ~ I- ~~Ul ~l-O uJ ~Q o..(f)(/) 'd. t5 5 'it \ ~ \ I- (/)4:0 .~ '." <:J:J... -... 1.0 . COIC'"J \ . ~ (9 $ z I u..~ oz \ r-~ r ~ -(9 ou.! :a::z.J \ -uJ8 g~ \ ~\ a:w:t: uJ;...IO ~uJ(/) J ::::: .l.S aNZ i11\ ..vo.a9~ t: ""J,.'::J \ U [] 3..\1~.J ~OCN 5 .,,- ..J \ - .v 1 ~ , ~ ro j .... ;0 \ .s ~ ' ~ ~J...;::) ) '( A 1 ;: L--- , 1!J fl '- -' ~ \ I \ \ \ o ..., en ~ i It. o ~N ~i:t ,W \ \\-: ~z ~ ~.~ ~ ~~~ o~ It. o~g ztt Z ~liO <( c;t) Ulu.l~ \.U 0.. \-~ -== 3 9 o c.l?"'- z.c:( ..- 1.1- It. ~ <C. ex: E O~g z u.l '.g >- ~ ffi - D Q) \- .~ ~u.l(/)O% O~ :c o c.f) (/)'a ~~ Ul cP ;...I .' 4. $ <.) tll (/) 0 \ C)?'f~t ZCObO~ _lO(:)(O(P ~ l!?, ~ N C'I ~ \"..... 0 0 0 WO 0010 (0$0000 Zz(f)({) '1 ~ \- E 01 ..- $ "'0. Ult9<P;~ . z 0100>9- :::im~tO~""" .-I - ~..-C'l~~ _...I,.J ...I \ \ \ \ \ CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To: The Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor of Ada County, and The State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho I, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk, of the City of Meridian, Ada County, State of Idaho, do hereby celiify that the attached copy of Ordinance No. &.3-104-2- , passed by the City Council of the City of Meridian, on the 9"fj? day ofS~, ,2003, is a true and conect copy of the original of said document which is in the care, custody and control of the City . .. \\\\lllltlfllll Clerk of the Clty ofMeng,~a)iOf MEn,'11111 ,','.......t. '. 1 U:OLn 1/// " " -lA. 'l $' 0 O?,POR4l; 'v ~ :.: ~G ~o\ JJI {" J1-.dk,,-~&~~ I~ - ~ & WlLLIAM G. BERG, JR. f/ . ~ vQ ,Q; 0 2 ~"70 uS/iSi, ~.:f -:;.. ;,{t ^~ " // Ie' '\V ~ ) "''.1'/ OUNT'l. \"" STATE OF IDAHO, /11 \\\ 1IIIwn 11\\1\\ : S8. County of Ada, ) On this ~-I- '^- _ day of (g ~..AJ.r AnA h, ^ , in the year 2003, before me, S\(\ a .n_ SVVL-0-f:::\^ ~ry Public, appeared WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known or identified to me to be the City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho that executed the said instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of the City of Meridian. (SEAL) ....a12..""~ .ooON SA'!.. !t~;;<iA-';'~.r;:o 1Ig~i..l;"r'~ 0 - -..q:J-.. "d->o,. iii":)' '"'Y' \ .. .III : \ Q : I : : ~ , , 0 t1 ' , Q . " t ill .0 d"....~\<;-":~O.. ..~~---'1Q?>;.. .iIl;~OF _... ."1lI"~ (qh CGffi\(3rru-tt:-> Notary Public for Idallo Commission Expires: 1-2~-OS Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\$chrocdcr Apartments RZ-03-007 CUP-03-026\CertificationOJClerkRZOrd.doc CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN RZ-03-007 PAGE 1 OF 1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SOUTHERN SPRINGS SUBDIVISION FOR AN 11 LOT COMMERICAL SUBDIVISION ON 10.97 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF OVERLAND ROAD AND HIGHWAY 69, MERIDIAN, IDAHO BY: THE LAND GROUP, INC., APPLICANT C/C 09/09/03 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. PP-03-016 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT CDy(tc-kc{ [;uki- ( ~r) [aCe )st Sti Wl VVLln, I~IL- ~ fkOltCAn~ ~~'I "'T~)< .. The above entitled matter corning on regularly for public hearing before the City Council on September 9, 2003, and Anna Powell Plarming Director for the Planning and Zoning Department, and David Koga, Richard Jewell, Darrell Tomlinson, Dale Rogers, Jeff Rowe, Ginger Jewell, Raleigh Bunch, and Gary Smith and Brad Watson of the Public Works Department, appeared and testified, and the City Council having received a report from Brad Hawkins-Clark PlalUler III for the PlalUling and Zoning Department, and Bruce Freckleton, Engineering Teclmician III, and the City Council having received as part of the record of this matter the recommendation to City Council of the PlalUling and Zoning Commission and the applicant having submitted the "PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTHERN SPRINGS / (pP-03-016) PAGE 1 OF 16 SOUTHERN SPRINGS SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NW 1,4 OF THE NW 1,4 OF SECTION 19 TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2003, SOUTHERN SPRINGS MERIDIAN IDAHO, Project Number: 03062, Designed By: MLlRHIKK, Drawn By: RH, Checked By: ML, Issue Date: 5-30-03, Sheet Title: PRELIMINARY PLAT, Sheet Number: PP-l, Roger Michener & Lawrence Ross - Developer-Owner, The Land Group, Inc. - Engineer", The Land Group, Inc., Developer, submitted for preliminary plat approval and which preliminary plat for approval application is herein received and adjudged by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code S 12-3-3. Therefore the City Council makes the following findings: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Amended Comprehensive Plan by reason of the fact that it lies within the existing Urban Area as defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map, Infrastructure Planning Analysis Amended Comprehensive Plan Map, adopted August 6,2002, Resolution No. 02-382, and the property is presently zoned C-G, and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer System. [Meridian City Code S 11-7-2 KJ 2. The preliminary plat is in conformance with the Amended Comprehensive Plan City of Meridian adopted August 6,2002, Resolution No. 02-382, including Chapter VII, Goal I, Obj. B, #5, Chapter VII, Goal IV, Obj. A., #6, Chapter IV, Goal I, Obj. A, #6, Chapter IV, Goal FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL AFPROV AL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTHERN SPRINGS / (pP-03-0 16) PAGE 2 OF 16 II, Obj. A, Chapter V, Goal I, Obj. A, Chapter V, Goal I, Obj. A, #11, Chapter V, Goal I, Obj. A, #4, and Chapter V, Goal III, Obj. B, #6. It is found that the subject property is designated as Commercial" on the Future Land Use Map. The purpose of this designation is "to provide a full range of commercial and retail" services, including retail, wholesale, office and other similar uses. The existing C-G zoning conform to this stated purpose of the Comprehensive Plan designation. 3. It is determined that Urban Services can be made available to accommodate the proposed development if the plat complies with the requirements and conditions hereinafter set forth as conditions of preliminary plat approval. It is found that public services are readily available to the lots within the proposed subdivision, provided changes as may be required by the Public Works and Building Departments are made. The developer is proposing to utilize the existing sewer trunk line adjacent to Ten Mile Creek. It is also found that the proposed uses will impact the level and flow of traffic on the surrounding streets. By 2007 (build-out), the Traffic hnpact Study estimates this development to generate 13 ,945 average daily trips. Of these trips, 1,395 are estimated to be captured within the subdivision and 5,773 trips are estimated to be pass-by traffic. The development would generate an average of 6,775 new vehicle trips per day on adjacent roadways. By 2007, the study projects a Level of Service D for the Meridian/Overland Road intersection in the AM and a LOS for the PM. The need for a deceleration lane on Meridian Road/SH 69 was confirmed by the study. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTHERN SPRINGS / (pP-03-016) PAGE 3 OF 16 Also, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan Policy #12 (pg. 79) and policy #2 (pg. 107), it is found that the number of vehicular access points to Meridian Road/SH 69 should be restricted and comply with ITD policies in order to preserve the capacity and movement on the roadway at build-out. 4. The proposed development is a continuity of the proposed development within the City's Capital Improvement Program and if the conditions, which are requested by the Planning and Zoning Administrator and the Engineering Teclmician III, and as proposed by the developer as stated on the preliminary plat, there will be public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. It is found that the development will not require major expenditures for supporting services. The developer will fund and construct the majority of the supporting services. 5. The development ifbuilt in accordance with the conditions and as proposed, will not create health, safety or environmental problems and there have been no specifics of any such concerns brought to the Council's attention. It is also found that as long as the developer complies with all regulatory agency standards, no health, safety or environmental problems are anticipated by this development. 6. It is found that the Recommendation To City Council ofthe Planning and Zoning Commission is reasonable and appropriate for the conditions of approval of the preliminary plat as hereinafter set forth. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTHERN SPRINGS I (pP-03-0 16) PAGE 4 OF 16 7. The applicant has submitted for consideration of this approval drawing of the preliminary plat herein designated as: "PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTHERN SPRINGS SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NW y,j OF THE NW ~ OF SECTION 19 TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2003, SOUTHERN SPRINGS MERIDIAN IDAHO, Project Number: 03062, Designed By: MURR/KK, Drawn By: RR, Checked By: ML, Issue Date: 5-30-03, Sheet Title: PRELIMINARY PLAT, Sheet Number: PP-!, Roger Michener & Lawrence Ross - Developer- Owner, The Land Group, Inc. - Engineer". 8. The property owner of record is Queenland Acres, represented by Mr. Theron Scott of Meridian, Idaho. Mr. Scott has provided notarized consent for the subject application. 9. The City Council recognizes the concerns of the residents of RU1111ing Brook Subdivision, in their letter dated July 25,2003; Blaine and Mary Jane Bennett in their letter dated August 1, 2003; Raleigh and Myrna Bunch in their letter received August 5, 2003; Dale and Tammy Rogers in their letter dated August 28, 2003; Geraldine Snowball in her letter dated August 30,2003; and Carla Everhart, Association Manager on behalf ofthe Meridian Greens Homeowners Association, in her letter dated September 3,2003. DECISION AND ORDER Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code S 12-3-5 and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND THIS DOES ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTHERN SPRINGS / (pP-03-016) PAGE 5 OF 16 1. The Preliminary Plat of the applicant as evidenced by "PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTHERN SPRINGS SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NW )i OF THE NW )i OF SECTION 19 TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2003, SOUTHERN SPRINGS MERIDIAN IDAHO, Project Number: 03062, Designed By: ML/RHIKK, Drawn By: RH, Checked By: ML, Issue Date: 5-30-03, Sheet Title: PRELIMINARY PLAT, Sheet Number: PP-l, Roger Michener & Lawrence Ross - Developer-Owner, The Land Group, Inc. - Engineer", The Land Group, Inc., Developer is hereby conditionally approved; and 2. The conditions of approval are as follows to-wit: A. Adopt the Recommendations of the Plmming and Zoning and Engineering staff as amended by the Commission as follows: PRELIMINARY PLAT SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1. Sanitary sewer service to this site will be from main line extensions ofthe Ten Mile Trunk adjacent to the east ofthe project. The applicant will be responsible to construct lateral sewer mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer mains will not be allowed within landscape areas, beneath landscape islands, and manholes will not be allowed in parking and loading areas. 2. Water service to this site will be from main line extensions from existing water mains in Meridian Road. The applicant will be responsible to construct water mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. 3. Sidewalks shall be detached along Meridian Road/SH 69 and a minimum 5- foot-wide landscaped parkway shall be installed between the edge of pavement and sidewalk in accordance with MCC 12-13-10-8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTHERN SPRINGS I (pP-03~OI6) PAGE 6 OF 16 4. Approval of Southern Springs Subdivision application does not imply approval of the buildings, uses, parking or other development features shown on the face ofthe preliminary plat. Each individual lot will require a Certificate of Zoning Compliance be obtained prior to submittal of building permit applications. 5. MCC 12-13-10-4 requires a minimum 25-foot wide street buffer along Overland Road and a minimum 35-foot wide buffer along Meridian Road/SH 69. All required buffers shall be located beyond any right-of-way. If the ITD intersection and road widening project on Meridian Road/SH 69 requires additional right-of- way, the Applicant may qualify for a buffer width reduction under MCC 12-13-10-5. If a reduction is desired, submit a written request to the Zoning Administrator with evidence of the need for reduction. 6. On or near the western easement line of the 50-foot NMID easement, begi1ll1ing approximately 450 feet south of the Overland Road right-of-way, Applicant shall construct a 25-foot wide landscape buffer and/or other screening as approved by the City. Said screening shall not obstruct visibility of the pathway from within the development and shall be placed east of all commercial uses. If NMID requires a written agreement for landscaping or fencing within their easement, Applicant shall submit said agreement with the final plat application. 7. A blanket, vehicular cross access easement shall be provided for all lots within the subdivision. Said easement shall be shown as a note on the final plat. 8. A vehicular cross access easement agreement shall be entered into with the Bengson parcel to the south to provide for a future c01ll1ection to E. CaldelWood Dr. Submit said agreement prior to City signature on the final plat. 9. All perimeter lots along E. Overland Road are subject to a minimum 25-foot wide landscape easement. This street buffer shall be designed in accordance with MCC 12-13-10. The Southern Springs Business Association shall maintain said easement and all common area lots within the subdivision. 10. The preliminary landscape plan (Sheet PL-l, dated 5/30103 by The Land Group) is approved. If the landscape buffer widths must be reduced due to roadway expansion, Applicant shall re-submit a revised landscape plan to the Pla1ll1ing & Zoning Department for review prior to City Council approval of the preliminary plat. (Per the City Council meeting held on September 9,2003, a revised Landscape Plan has not been submitted by the Applicant, as the Applicant is still negotiating FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTHERN SPRINGS 1 (pP-03-016) PAGE 7 OF 16 and waiting on the Idaho Transportation Department's comments on the redesign of the intersection of Overland Road and Meridian Road.) 11. Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches oftrees that were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those trees that have to be removed. 12. A detailed fencing and landscape plan, in compliance with MCC 12-13, shall be submitted with the final plat application. 13. Applicant has indicated that the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District will own and maintain the pressurized irrigation system within this development. The applicant shall be required to provide a backup source to the pressurized irrigation system. 14. A drainage plan designed by a State ofIdaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer COrd. 557, 10-1-91) for all off- street parking areas. Storm water treatment and disposal must be designed in accordance with Department of Environmental Quality 1997 publication Catalog of Storm Water Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties and City of Meridian standards and policies. Off-site disposal into a surface water is prohibited unless the jurisdiction which has authority over the receiving stream provides written authorization prior to development plan approval. The applicant is responsible for filing all necessary applications with the Idaho Department of Water Resources regarding Shallow Injection Wells. 15. All drainage areas (detention/retention basins) must be designed to ensure that water is retained only during 1 OO-year storm events, and for a period oHime not to exceed 24 hours. Side slopes within drainage areas shall not exceed a 3: 1 slope. PRELIMINARY PLAT GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Submit letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 2. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. 3. Assessment fees for water and sewer service are determined during the building plan review process. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTHERN SPRINGS I (pP-03-016) PAGE 8 OF 16 4. Two-hundred- fifty-watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections andlor fire hydrants. 5. Underground, year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all landscape areas on site. Please submit hook-up and design details based on the proposed landscaping. Due to the size of landscaped area, primary water supply connection to the City's mains will not be allowed. Applicant shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If City water is proposed as a secondary source, developer shall be responsible to pay water assessments for the entire common open area. 6. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4-13. The ditches to be piped should be shown on the site plans. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 7. Show all existing and proposed easements for irrigation/drainage facilities located within the boundaries ofthis proposed development (i.e., Eight Mile Drain easement). 8. Remove any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 9. Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks throughout development in accordance with City Ordinance. 10. All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. B. Adopt the Recommendations of ACHD as follows: Site Specific Conditions of Approval FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTHERN SPRINGS / (pP-03-016) PAGE 9 OF 16 1. Dedicate 52-feet of right-of-way (estimated) from the centerline of Overland Road abutting the parcel by means of a warranty deed. The right-of-way purchase and sale agreement and deed must be completed and signed by the applicant prior to scheduling the final plat for signature by the ACHD Commission or prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be paid the fair market value ofthe right-of- way dedicated which is an addition to existing ACHD right-of-way if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with the ACHD Ordinance in effect at that time (currently Ordinance #197), if funds are available. Preliminary right-of-way estimation for Overland Road is approximately 52-ftet from centerline abutting the site. The applicant shall work with ACHD Traffic staff and Development staff for the dedication of additional right-of-way. 2. Meridian Road (State Highway 69) is under the jurisdiction of Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). Application materials shall be submitted to ITD for review and requirements ofthat Department and the applicant shall submit to the District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements prior to District approval of the final plat or issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. The applicant may contact District III Traffic Engineer at 334-8341. As indicated on the site plan the applicant is proposing to construct a deceleration lane on Meridian Road with the project. The applicant shall contact the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) for the scope of work for the Overland Road/Meridian Road intersection project. The applicant shall work with the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) for the dedication of additional right-of-way and the location of the deceleration lane on Meridian Road. 3. Provide a $2,840.00 deposit to the Pub lie Rights-of- Way Trust Fund for the cost of constructing 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk for approximately 142-feet abutting the frontage on Overland Road. ($20.00 per L.F.) The applicant shall work with ACHD Traffic staff and Development stafffor the placement and tie-in proposal for the proposed pathway to the sidewalk abutting the site and extending to the intersection of Overland Road and Meridian Road. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL AFPROV AL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTHERN SPRINGS / (pP-03-016) PAGE 10 OF 16 4. In lieu of constructing the pedestrian ramp on Overland Road, the applicant shall be required to provide a $350.00 deposit to the Public Rights-of-Way Trust Fund for the cost of constructing the pedestrian ramp. 5. No access to Overland Road was proposed. Therefore, no access to Overland Road shall be approved with this application. Lot access restrictions, as required with this application, shall be stated on the final plat. 6. Provide a recorded cross access easement for the lots within the subdivision, and to the south, to utilize the common access point(s) on Meridian Road to use for access to the public streets. 7. Comply with all Standard Conditions of ApprovaL Standard Conditions of Approval 1. Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of- way. 2. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 3. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 4. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 5. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify an improvement plans. 6. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTHERN SPRINGS / (pP-03-016) PAGE 11 OF 16 7. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 8. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #197, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800- 342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 10. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 11. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. C. Adopt the Meridian Fire Department Recommendations as follows: 1. That a fire-flow as required by the Uniform Fire Code shall be available for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart. 1997 UFC Appendix ill-A 2. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before combustible construction begins. UFC 901.4.2 & 901.3 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTHERN SPRINGS I (pP~03-0 16) PAGE 12 OF 16 3. Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Water Depatiment. 4. Final approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. 5. All radii for internal and complex entries shall be 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 6. The roadways shall be built to Ada County Highway Standards. UFC 902.2.1 7. No vertical obstructions or mature landscaping which obstructs the outlets of any fire hydrant are permitted within 10'. 8. All building uses and processes to comply with the Fire Code in effect at the time of construction. 9. A 20' wide fire lane shall be maintained around all proposed buildings. 10. A vertical clearance of 13' 6" shall be maintained over fire lanes, this may affect mature trees. D. Adopt the Recommendation ofNampa & Meridian Irrigation District as follows: 1. Applicant shall apply for a land use change/site application. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. The District's Ten Mile Drain courses along the eastern boundary with a recorded easement of one hundred feet, fifty feet each side. This easement must be protected and any encroachment without a signed License Agreement and approved plan, before any construction is started, in unacceptable. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any surface drainage leaves the site, the District must review drainage plans. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. E. Adopt the Recommendations ofthe Central District Health Department as follows: 1. This proposal can be approved for central sewage & central water after written approval from appropriate entities is submitted. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTHERN SPRINGS / (pP-03-016) PAGE 13 OF 16 2. The Applicant's central sewage and central water plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality. 3. Run-offis not to create a mosquito breeding problem. 4. Stormwater shall be pretreated through a grassy swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface water quality. 5. The Engineers and architects involved with the design of the subject project shall obtain current best management practices for stormwater disposal and design a stormwater management system that prevents groundwater and surface water degradation. F. Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Parks Department as follows: I. Build pathway to recommended Pathway Standards. G. Adopt the Recommendations of Sanitary Services as follows: 1. Further review of the trash enclosure size, design and access needs to be done. Also, there needs to be consideration for front end load commercial collection services, etc., and developer shall contact Bill Gregory or Steve Sedlacek at Sanitary Services. H. Adopt the action of the City Council taken at their September 9, 2003 meeting as follows: For clarification: 1. If the parcel abutting the south property line is a residential use at the time of development of Lots 8 and 9, a 25 foot buffer shall be constructed on said lots adjacent to the south boundary. 2. The Applicant shall construct a minimum ten-foot-wide, hard surfaced pedestrian pathway system from Overland Road to the southern boundary of the property for use as public pedestrian access. A permanent pedestrian easement, in favor of the City of Meridian shall be recorded for said pathway. The existing 20-foot sewer easement adjacent to Ten Mile Creek shall also be improved for access to Public Works FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTHERN SPRINGS I (pP-03-016) PAGE 14 OF 16 Department standards. Additionally, the Applicant shall meet with the Planning and Zoning Department to determine the width, location, and adequacy of the pathway along a predominately eastern section of the property from the northern boundary to the southern boundary of the property. 3. The Applicant shall be required to construct a minimum six foot vinyl fence along the eastern property line along the western easement ofTen Mile Creek, beginning approximately 450 feet south of the Overland Road right-of-way line. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAKINGS ANALYSIS The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, the Owner may request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code ~ 67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by this decision may, within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order, seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 2. ~ r-cf day of 8~~ ,2003. ROLL CALL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTHERN SPRINGS / (pP-03-0 16) PAGE 15 OF 16 COUNCILMAN BIRD VOTED~ COUNCILWOMAN deWEERD VOTED~ COUNCIL WOMAN McCANDLESS VOTED~ COUNCILMAN NARY VOTED~ MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED - Attest: rrie SnaJIOYl William G. Berg, Jr., City CI€rk Qu ...q; 0 ::; ~ J1() :Sr 15\ ' .:f- "'.:.:: .-;, ;.y f0 tr- ,,' ///1 OOf)",,J""'! '\ ",,, 1'11// "-''ti~ t.\\\,\ Copy served upon Applicant, The Plafitting and'Zoning Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney. \\\\\\lII1IJtt/J, \\\\ r:: MI::' "f/ "~I _lOr ,c.RI.'D. 1;/ ,,\ ~ '\ ~ // " ~, 'VI. // ;;:;.' () o~P01t<l)'; 'V ~ 2" _",0 ~O ~ ~ ~ ::. .~ :f - 2t -03 ~ ~ f:? ~ -;:. <f;.u ...q; 0':::- \ '76 Sr 15\ . ..:f-';- ~ AI ~~ " Z:\ Work\M\Meridian\Meridian ] 5360MIBear Creek No. 8 PP?(Y}i02~t!J?l<pr<ll?f'9~ ,\\", III '-'.'IT \\\ 'IJII;itlll1\\\\\\ FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTHERN SPRINGS / (PP-03-016) PAGE 16 OF 16 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF WILDWOOD DEVELOPMENT, LLC FOR REZONE OF 12.74 ACRES FOR MAYFAIR COMMONS SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 1125 EAST PINE STREET, MERIDIAN, IDAHO C/C 09/09/03 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. RZ-03-008 ORDER ACCEPTING WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION FOR REZONE The applicant's representative having withdrawn the Application for Rezone for Mayfair Commons Subdivision, during the hearing held in front of the City Council on September 9,2003, the withdrawal is hereby accepted and the matter is dismissed. The applicant By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 8 ef)k1'YL~ , 2003. / may submit a new application. q+J. day of ~ B~ ' ~ ROBERT . CORRIE Mayor, City of Meridian ORDER ACCEPTING WITHDRAWAL OF REZONE FOR MAYFAIR COMMONS SUBDMSION - RZ-03-008 Page 1 of2 Attest: \\\\\111111111/ ,\\\ r:: Me- //1/ "~I' 'l 0, ''-fYll'; 1111 ...." :<. _",", .:.ItA //// ....... c} -C}'C>{1!"" ""fA. /. ~ ...("1"; c'- """ .t~,~ I'''''''''''-V "',.... ~ ",V'- 1-(.., -:::. ... ,,,,"" ',-' .- 2 " .-I ~ w~I~~1~~fC?elt~~:&OU:T~:L'0~:f' i ...... -1 ~" ,.... .........I/IOOUf.-JT'< . ~ \\~", Copy served upon Applicant, the PlannifigvaW.ltlUmi>>~ Department, Public Works Department, and City Attorney. ...,,\\~-{ OF lvU::ITII);I/111 ....... ct'" "-1>LI ....... $' -o~>'POFl/.i 'T~ ~ ~ ?;'-.0 ~ -;.. g ~ 0 ~ = ~ 8E'I~ir. 9.~/9--o3 ~ (:' ,..P:: ~;.: Un ".....J ~ ~. 0'1' ~ x9,{: '/// Co ~~ ....,' I,; ! 'lilT" '\ \" I, J~ '2! 1 I \....' 1/1/1//11 tillllll\\\ Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian I 5360M\Mayfair Conunons Sub RZ-03.008 PP-03.Q 17 CUP-03-032\OrderAcceptingWithdrawal RZ.doc ORDER ACCEPTING WITHDRAWAL OF REZONE FOR MAYFAIR COMMONS SUBDNISION - RZ-03-008 Page 2 of2 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL C/C 09/09/03 IN THE MATTER OF THE ) APPLICATION OF WILDWOOD ) DEVELOPMENT, LLC FOR ) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ) A PLANNED UNIT ) DEVELOPMENT FOR MUL TI- ) FAMIL Y RESIDENTIAL ) SUBDIVISION REQUESTING ) REDUCED SETBACKS, PARKING ) STANDARDS, AND DIMENSIONAL ) REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSED ) MAYFAIR COMMONS ) SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 1125 ) EAST PINE STREET, MERIDIAN, ) IDAHO ) ) CASE NO. CUP-03-032 ORDER ACCEPTING WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The applicant's representative having withdrawn the Application for Conditional Use Permit for Mayfair Commons Subdivision, during the hearing held in front of the City Council on September 9,2003, the withdrawal is hereby accepted and the matter is dismissed. The applicant may submit a new application. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the qfh- day of 8 flJ-!e1YZ)UV I ,2003. ORDER ACCEPTING WITHDRAWAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MAYFAIR COMMONS SUBDIVISION - CUP-03-032 Page 1 of2 By: RJ--;;;;,_..;:~ ~ \\I\lllltlJ~RBERT D. CORRIE \\\ f M"l . f .. "~"~I --( O~Or,<l CIty 0 Mendlan v' 0 '4. 7~ $ CJ o?,POA....... '-t- "-;. ~ 0 "I,"" -:;:. 2 ~ \0 ~ Attest: SEAL'~ - ~ [>;J :;:. V'Q. caO;: ...... ~ u.,.... "0 .:::- ~ () ().,. 1 SI . . R " ~ -..., ~. "'-.'",' // ('\ A," ....' /;,/ "O/lf'iT" \'v ,,- II. ~ - 1, \\\ . (/ _ '1If. . I" 8hQrM~:Jh , ()ep1w f;v 'filll; Hillll\ William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk ~ Copy served upon Applicant, the Plmming and Zoning Department, Public Works Department, . 1\\\\111111111/1 and CIty Attorney. ",,\\\ Of ME~ 1111111 " ,.<'\ :Q)j 1/ :;:-' (}~" '??OP. '-1..t- ~/ ~ 0" i.<l,r -:;:. ~ .;:.0 "6 -:;:. By: g;nll~6>1Svw---M,' d,~,dtJ ~~@f ~ City Clerk '7 ~ U 7G &_ ::. 0(;. ,,0 0 ::: % 70 :Sr 18\' ~.f ~/;, :<J_c: f;)'i?- ~.::- Z:\ Work\M\Melidian\Meridian 15360MlMayfair Conunons SLfb, Jy,;-wwoalPtto3-R ~v-'CUP-03-032\OrderAcceptingWilhdrawal CUP.doc Iii '!i tJ II \ n \ 1 \ \ \ \ ORDER ACCEPTING WITHDRAWAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MAYFAIR COMMONS SUBDIVISION - CUP-03-032 Page 2 of2 ~- .;' ?' .. WORK CHANGE DIRECTIVE No. Two (2) DATE OF ISSUANCE 9/16/2003 EFFECTIVE DATE 9/16/2003 OWNER: City of Meridian CONTRACTOR: {rminger Construction Contract: Well 24 Facilities Project: OWNER's Contract No. City Council Approval: 9/9/2003 You are directed to proceed promptly with the following change(s): Description: Landscaping of both lots as designed in plan set issued 6/26/2003. Purpose of Work Change Directive: Comply with ROA requirements for landscaping. Attachments: Quote. If OWNER or CONTRACTOR believe that the above change has affected Contract Price any Claim for a Change Order based thereon will involve one or more ofthe following methods as defmed in the Contract Documents. Method of determining change in Contract Price: o Unit Prices o Lump Sum not to exceed o Cost ofthe Work Estimated increase (decrease) in Contract Times: Substantial Completion: ~ days; Ready for fmal payment: ~ days. Estimated increase ( decrease) in Contract Price: $ 27,259.00 lfthe change involves an increase, the estimated amount is not to be exceeded without further authorization. ;(Jl)1 ENGINEER ~ By: LJr]UI4R..() A ~ADY AUTHORIZED: ",';' WORK CHANGE DIRECTIVE INSTRUCTIONS A. GENERAL INFORMATION This document was developed for use in situations involving changes in the Work which, if not processed expeditiously, might delay the Project. These changes are often initiated in the field and may affect the Contract Price or the Contract Times. This is not a Change Order, but only a directive to proceed with Work that may be included in a subsequent Change Order. For supplemental instructions and minor changes not involving a change in the Contract Price or the Contract Times a Field Order should be used. B. COMPLETING THE WORK CHANGE DIRECTIVE FORM Engineer initiates the form, including a description of the items involved and attachments. Based on conversations between Engineer and Contractor, Engineer completes the following: METHOD OF DETERMINING CHANGE, IF ANY, IN CONTRACT PRICE: Mark the method to be used in determining the final cost of Work involved and the estimated net effect on the Contract Price. If the change involves an increase in the Contract Price and the estimated amount is approached before the additional or changed Work is completed, another Work Change Directive must be issued to change the estimated price or Contractor may stop the changed Work when the estimated time is reached. If the Work Change Directive is not likely to change the Contract Price, the space for estimated increase (decrease) should be marked "Not Applicable". Once Engineer has completed and signed the form, all copies should be sent to Owner for authorization because Engineer alone does not have authority to authorize changes in Price or Times. Once authorized by Owner, a copy should be sent by ?ngineer to Contractor. Price and Times may only be changed by Change Order signed by Owner and Contractor with Engineer's recommendation. Paragraph 1O.03.A2 of the General Conditions requires that a Change Order be initiated and processed to cover any undisputed sum or amount of time for Work actually performed pursuant to this Work Change Directive. Once the Work covered by this directive is completed or final cost and times are determined, Contractor should submit documentation for inclusion in a Change Order. THIS IS A DIRECTIVE TO PROCEED WITH A CHANGE THAT MAY AFFECT THE CONTRACT PRICE OR CONTRACT TIMES. A CHANGE ORDER, IF ANY, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PROMPTL Y. CITY OF MERIDIAN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing for consideration of an amendment to the 2003 fiscal year budget by appropriating additional monies received by the City of Meridian, said hearing to be held at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, at 7:00 p.m. on September 23, 2003. PROPOSED ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES General Fund: General/Admin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Police Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fire Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parks Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Special Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL ............................. GRAND TOTAL ............................. $ (26,400.00) $ (9,800.00) $ (45,922.00) $ 180,320.00 $ 697,527.00 $ 795,725.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 803,225.00 Enterprise Fund: Water & Wastewater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROPOSED ADDITIONAL REVENUES I FUNDING SOURCES General Fund: Other Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Special Services Revenues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Special Services Fund Balanc~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL ............................. TOTAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 98,198.00 $ 112,060.00 $ 585,467.00 $ 795,725.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 803,225.00 Enterprise Fund: Other Sources GRAND TOTAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expenditure of the monies will be in accordance with the provisions authorized by the amendment of the budget. Publication dates of the notice ofthe public hearing are September 15th and 22nd, 2003, in the Valley Times. \\\\\\\1\11111[11/(1/1/ ..,,\\~ Of MERI/) I11I ....',' ~ '0. /~ Dated this 10th day of September, 2003 ~~_ ~ A .$" (j o'i'\POR"l):; "'V ~ , .:: -,,-0 (:'A -::;. ~ ~ v ~ - ~