Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 05-23 Meridian City Council Meetinq May 23. 2006 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, May 23, 2006, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, Shaun Wardle, and Joe Borton. Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Bob Stowe, Ron Anderson, Joe Silva, Doug Strong, Len Grady, Robin Jack, and Dean Willis. Item 1: RolI~call Attendance: Roll call. X Shaun Wardle X Charlie Rountree X X Joe Borton X Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd Wardle: All right. I'd like to welcome everyone to our City Council meeting for May 23rd, 2006. I will begin with roll call attendance. Mr. Clerk. Item 2: Presentation I Posting of the Colors and the Pledge of Allegiance by the American Legion Post #113: Wardle: Item No. 2 is presentation and posting of the colors and the pledge of allegiance by the American Legion Post No. 113. If you will all rise. (Pledge of allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Bud Henthorn: Wardle: Item NO.3 on our agenda is our community invocation by Bud Henthorn. Henthorn: Dear God, we thank you tonight that you are a father who picks us up when we stumble. We ask, Lord, that you would bless this time tonight as we have this awesome privilege of participating in our government. We thank you, Lord, for the privilege of casting a ballot this afternoon. Lord, we pray that as we participate in this great representative government of ours, that we would do so, always keeping in mind what is best for the city, what is best for our nation, what's best for our world. What's best for future generations. Help us, Lord, to set aside our own selfish desires and maybe what we think might be best for us and think in terms of what's -- what is the best and the good for the whole. Lord, we pray that you would make your presence to be known among us here tonight, giving us peace, giving us wisdom, filling our hearts with joy, in Jesus' name, amen. Item 4: Proclamation: American Legion Poppy Day - May 27,2006: Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 2 of 74 Wardle: Item NO.4 is a Proclamation. I'd like to thank the American Legion for being here to present the colors and lead us in the pledge of allegiance and I also have a proclamation regarding Poppy Day. I'm going to come right down here. Whereas the members of the American Legion Auxiliary are asking everyone to wear a poppy in observation of Memorial Day and whereas in the battlefields of Belgium during World War I poppies grew wild amid the ravages of war, the overturned soils of battle enabled the poppy seeds to be covered, allowing them to grow and forever serve as a reminder of the bloodshed of war. And whereas the poppy honors the hospitalized and disabled veterans who make these red handcrafted flowers, providing financial and therapeutic benefits and whereas the displaying of the poppy honors the millions of Americans who have willingly served and are currently serving our nation, as well as all too many who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Therefore, I, Shaun Wardle, on behalf of Tammy de Weerd, Mayor of the City of Meridian, do proclaim Saturday, May 27th, 2006, as American Legion Poppy Day, in recognition of the sacrifices of our veterans and those serving our country today by honoring these brave men and women. Veteran: From the battlefields of World War I weary soldiers brought home the memory of a barren landscape, transformed by wild poppies, red as the blood that had soaked the soil. By that miracle of nature, the spirit of their lost comrades lived on. The poppy became a symbol of the sacrifices of the lives in war and represented the hope that none had died in vain. The American Legion Auxiliary poppy has continued to bloom for the casualties of four wars. Its petals of paper bound together for veterans by veterans, reminding America each year that the men and women who have served and died for their country deserve to be remembered. Poppy Day has become a familiar tradition in almost every American community. This distribution of the bright red memorial flower to the public is one of the oldest and most widely recognized programs of the American Legion Auxiliary. This poppy as a memorial flower to the war dead can be traced to a single individual, Ms. Moyna Michael. She was so moved by Colonel John McCrae's poem, she wrote a response. The poem he wrote was In Flander's Field. In Flander's Field the poppies grow between the crosses row on row, that mark our place and in the skies, the larks still bravely singing, fly scarce heard amid the guns below. We are the dead. Short days ago we lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, loved and were loved, and now we lie in Flander's Field. Take up our quarrel with the foe, to you from failing hands we throw the torch, be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die, we shall not sleep, though poppies grow in Flanders Field. Her response was: The blood of heroes never dies, but lends a luster to the red of the flower that blooms above the dead in Flander's Field. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you for joining us this evening. I apologize I missed the ceremony. Thank you, Councilman Wardle. Item 5: Adoption of the Agenda: Wardle: We are on Item No.5, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Adoption of the agenda. Meridian City Council May 23. 2006 Page 3 of 74 Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: The published revised agenda of 5/22/06. I'd move that we -- at the request of the Council President and he would like Item 20, the Executive Session, removed and the city attorney says there is no problems with that as far as he's concerned. So, with that I would move that we approve the agenda, with the exception of Item 20, which would be deleted. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to accept the agenda as stated. All those favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of April 25, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 05- 060 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.92 acres from RUT to C- G zone for Ada County Hiqhway District Ustick Road Property by the Ada County Highway District - 3595 East Ustick Road: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06- 006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.01 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Kniqhthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC - southwest corner of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval; PP 06- 005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4 commercial lots and 1 common lot on 10.01 acres in a proposed C-G zone for Kniqhthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC - southwest corner of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06~ 011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision by Pacific Landmark Development - 5603 North Locust Grove Road: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06- 009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 88 building lots and 10 common lots on 29.69 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Basin Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 4 of 74 Creek Subdivision by Pacific Landmark Development - 5603 North Locust Grove Road: G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for Denial: AZ 06-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.43 acres from RUT to R-2 for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Subdivision, LLC - 4240 East Bott Lane: H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for Denial: PP 06-010 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval for 18 single- family residential lots and 4 common lots on 9.43 acres in a proposed R-2 zone for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Properties, LLC - 4240 East Batt Lane: I. Approve Permanent and Temporary Easement Contract for the Black Cat Phase 2 Sewer Project: J. Approve Contract for Professional Services with Jim Cox for the Biosolids Improvement Project Review: K. Approve Supplemental Agreement with Civil Survey Consultants for Acquisition of Sewer Easements for ACHD Overland Road, Under to Meridian Project: L. Approve Reimbursement Agreement with Tuscany Development. Inc. for construction of oversized sewer through Tuscany Lakes, Tuscany Village, Glacier Springs, Messina Village and Messina Hills subdivisions: M. Approve Contract with A.M.E. Electronics. Inc. for Power and Radio Installation at three PRV Sites: N. Approve Bid Award for Adventure Island Splash Pad to Recreation Idaho, Inc.: O. Approve Access Easement Between the City of Meridian (Grantor) and ACHD (Grantee) on Lot 21 of the Amended Plat of Block 1 of the Townsite of Meridian (55 East Broadway) requested as a Condition of the Creamery Alley Vacation: De Weerd: Item 6, Consent Agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council May 23,2006 Page 5 of 74 Bird: I'd move we approve the Consent Agenda as published and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all papers. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Department Reports: A. Planning Department 1. Discussion with Shawn Nickel on the proposed expansion of the Treasure Valley Veterinary Hospital by Theresa Shackleford: De Weerd: Item 7. Department reports. We will start with the planning department. Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I have suggested that Mr. Shawn Nickel come and talk to you tonight. We have been working with Shawn and the owners of some property on Meridian Road to work on the expansion of their current business and to also bring it into the city and reach their eventual development plans. I think we have been working on and off for about a year. They have decided at this point that they are not ready to commit to the full development of the property, so they would like to go and apply with Ada County to expand their Conditional Use Permit. They are not required to annex into the city by our agreement with Ada County, but they just wanted to come and talk to you and let you know what their plans were, when that referral came from Ada County that you would know what their plans were. So, with that I would suggest that you allow Mr. Nickel to speak briefly. De Weerd: Mr. Nickel. Nickel: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council for the opportunity. J will be brief. De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address. Nickel: Shawn Nickel. 839 East Winding Creek, Suite 201, in Eagle. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 6 of 74 Nickel: And I represent the Shacklefords. They are the owners of the Treasure Valley Animal Hospital located on Meridian Road in south Meridian. As Anna had stated, we have been working with staff for over a year trying to layout and design the property to bring it in with annexation and rezone request to the city. The problem we have had -- we have been waiting on is the extension of sewer and water south along Meridian Road. At this point the services are just not quite available or at least financially available for the Shacklefords to continue with their development of the animal hospital and also they were going to do an office complex on the property. So, what we have decided to do is go to the county, we are in the county in an RUT zone, go to the county and request a new Conditional Use Permit just for the veterinary hospital, which is an allowed use in the county's RUT zone. We will utilize the existing septic system based on our conversations with Central District Health. We will have to upgrade that system. There will be a sign off by Ada County for us to proceed with that and we will use the existing well on the property, again, with approval from IDWR for that. We also will agree to enter into a development agreement with the county and give our assurances to the city that when services are available and before we redevelop the property any further we will ask for annexation and go through the proper steps through the city. At this point we just want to update the existing vet clinic as it exists today. Stand for any questions. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Shawn. So, Anna -- you just need to get a motion, probably, from Council? Canning: I suppose a motion would help, just to know that you don't want me to oppose it when the transmittal comes over. I guess that's what I would be looking for at this hearing. De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I wonder, Mrs. Canning, if maybe what you could do is when it does come over and is consistent with what's been presented, then, come back to the Council saying we have got that. Now that you have it, is it consistent, now that might be the time to request -- Canning: Mr. Nary is right, of course. Nary: Well, I wouldn't say of course. but it might be the appropriate timing. Bird: Don't say that, Anna. Nary: I wouldn't say that either. Meridian City Council May 23. 2006 Page 7 of 74 Bird: I have got to sit next to him. De Weerd: But I guess at this point you need to know if there is any concerns. Canning: Yes, ma'am. De Weerd: Council, any concern at this time? Bird: This councilman don't have any concern. Borton: None. De Weerd: Okay. It doesn't look like it. Canning: Okay. Thank you. B. Fire Department 1. Discussion of Line Item Adjustment for Installation Costs for New 700 MHZ radios in vehicles and stations: De Weerd: Okay. Item 7-B is the fire department. Chief Anderson. Anderson: Madam Mayor and Council, I'm here tonight to grovel and beg for your generosity. Bird: I'll wait to see that. Anderson: Well, maybe not quite that bad, but what I'm here tonight to ask you for is for a line item adjustment in our budget and it's a considerable dollar amount in line item adjustment and that's why I'm bringing this before you tonight. In our '06 budget we were given 19,500 dollars to use for contract services to the help us get our ALS paramedic program up and running. We did not use that money in contract services, we did all of that work ourselves, and so, therefore, we are not going to be expending those funds on contract services this year. If you will recall about a month ago I came before you and asked for a budget amendment for some grants that we had received. Those grants were for vehicle radios and for base station radios, part of that money. What I would like to do is move this 19,500 dollars in contract service money over into another line item that allows for the installation of these radios. We will be taking receipt of these radios sometime this summer and I didn't want to wait until fall to install these radios, I'd like to get them installed as soon as possible. So, with your permission we'd like to be able to move that money from the two line item accounts that you see on the form in front of you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Meridian City Council May 23. 2006 Page 8 of 74 Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: If nobody has anything, I'd move that we move 19,500 dollars from the fire account number 2210-55000 to 2210-56103. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the request that is before you. Is there any discussion? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: I just -- Chief Anderson and the department, I applaud you for any efforts you take which saves otherwise allocated funds like this to work done that saves you money and in this case saves 19,500 of the city. I applaud you for those efforts and to reallocate this, I don't have any problems. This is a great way to use resources better and I appreciate you working hard to save the money. Anderson: Thank you, Councilman. De Weerd: Okay. Hearing no further comment, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. C. Parks Department 1. Discussion of an Extension of the Park Development Park Impact Fee Reimbursement and Real Property Conveyance Agreement for Champion Park with Hillview Development Corporation to September 1, 2006: De Weerd: Thank you, chief. Okay. C with the parks department, Doug Armstrong -- I mean Strong. Strong: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council. That must be some relative of mine. Armstrong. I'm here tonight to request an extension in the development agreement that we have with Hillview Development Corporation for the completion of Champion Park. With that wet spring weather that we had it delayed completion of the restroom building and the picnic shelter and, of course, the grass seeding around those particular facilities at the park. The restroom is currently being built and the walls are going up on it and it Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 9 of 74 will just need to be completed and the shelter is still in shipping status and will be here soon. So, the developer asked for a September 1 st date for conveyance of title and completion of all the transfer of deed and dollars for the project. So, with that [ will stand for questions. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? I think it delayed many projects, not just this one. Strong: It did. De Weerd: Okay. Council, I would need your direction on this. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move that we approve the extension of the park development impact fee reimbursement with Hillview Development at their request until September 1 st, 2006. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the request in front of you. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Strong: Thank you. D. Public Works Department 1. Discussion of AutoCAD Template to Change the Format Engineering Drawings: De Weerd: Thank you, Okay. Item D, Public Works. Len, are you taking this? Grady: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm going to turn it over Robin. She's been working on this project and this is her debut today, so -- De Weerd: Well, welcome, Robin. Jack: Thank you. Thank you for having me here today. I just am here to share a little information on some of the things that we have been working on in Public Works. There is going to be a change in what has been done in the past. And what we are requesting is engineering firms to deliver their autocad drawings in a specific format. In the past Meridian City Council May 23,2006 Page 10 of 74 we were taking them in any format that they delivered them to us. And the reason for doing that is that it will reduce the staff time in translating the drawings into what we use for modeling purposes for the sewer and the water. It will also give us more accurate location information of where the utilities are buried. And it will also be -- provide quicker information access to the information for the city employees who need to view that information to the GIS. The disadvantages that I'm here to talk about, because you may end up hearing about them, is that by requesting that they deliver in a specific format, the engineering firms, it may require slightly more work on their part initially. Once they become accustom to what we are asking, then, it shouldn't be a significant amount of work. So, that's one of the disadvantages. And some firms may be resistant to change. And what we are requesting is that -- I don't know how detailed I should get in this, but the autocad template request, basically we are requesting that the data be delivered on specific layers and a layer within an autocad file is sort of like a transparency of information that lays across the top of something else. And so we are asking specifically layers that things be presented on, as well as specific location of information. And we are going to go with the Ada County standard for the location of information and we are thinking along the line of giving this a six month trial of working with the engineering firms in a back-and-forth working situation to try to meet their needs, as well as meet ours. So, we will give it a try and see how it works. De Weerd: Okay. Questions from Council? I guess, Robin, I would be interested -- have you talked to some of the engineering firms to get initial reaction? Jack: Yes. We have talked with a few engineering firms. Some of the engineering firms are actually -- have started along that line and some of them are delivering it in the Ada County projection. Some of them are not. And we have gotten mixed results so far in the process, but it's still quite early. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Robin, is this -- does this change -- what type of out-of-pocket expense are we talking about for engineers? I mean does this make the process twice as expensive to comply with or -- Jack: Oh, no. Borton: -- what are we talking about? Jack: No. I think what we are talking about is the drafter maybe spending half a day or less. Borton: An additional half a day? Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 11 of 74 Jack: Yeah. Borton: All right. Jack: Just the autocad drafter. That's it. De Weerd: I guess on our end of it, does it cut time off of their process? Jack: Yes. It would drastically reduce our staff time. Right now the way that the engineering drawings come in is that the information could be on any layer and some of these drawings have over 200 layers. So, we have people that sit down and sift through these layers and try to determine what layer the water lines are on, what layer the sewer lines are on and literally pick that information out and put it into a format that we can use. De Weerd: So, have you been able to show cost savings as far as time in our process? Jack: Well, Len has -- Len has written some code and if the drawings come in in this format, then, the code that he has written, it will literally be just a few taps of a button to open a few files, just a few things that will cut our time down to -- down significantly. It will just be like an import and it will go directly into our mapping information. De Weerd: Okay. [-- Jack: Did that answer your question? De Weerd: No. I guess what I'm asking is the -- on one side you have four hours of additional engineering time. On our end -- that was on the engineering side. On our end we can almost cost that back where they can get that expenditure back in the amount of time that we can save them through our initial review; is that correct? Jack: No. These would be from the record drawings that are delivered after the plans have already been reviewed and after the -- after the subdivision has been constructed. De Weerd: Oh. Okay. Jack: So, this is after it's built. It wouldn't help with the plan review. Other than it would free up a plan reviewer to spend more time working on plan review, rather than working on the autocad drawings. De Weerd: Okay. Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, two questions, but one just to kind of clarify, Robin. If an engineering firm sets all their drawings up that are going to the City of Meridian to have Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 12of74 that specific layer with our specific request, will there be any additional time? Jack: On their end? Wardle: Yeah. Jack: Initially once -- initially learning what we are requesting will take some time. Once they have n they figure out what it is that we are requesting, then, they will figure out ways to export it easily. There is a lot of different tools in autocad that can help them do that and that's why we want to do a six month trial period and work back and forth with them. You know, we are not going to just say this is the way it is, this is the way it has to be. There is going to be some back and forth working with them. We are not trying to make it a demanding you must have it this way right now. Wardle: And then -- Madam Mayor? In addition to that, is our version new enough to upload all of -- an older version or are we requiring it in an dix format? How is that -- that technology going to translate? Jack: We are not requesting that they deliver it in anything different than the format -- than the software version that they were already using. They don't need to change to a different software version at all. Wardle: Okay. Jack: So, it shouldn't cost them anything extra there. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Robin, these are as builts. I can't -- why would it be an extra four hours. You just plug it in if it's -- if it's a program that they have already got, it's no different than doing your regular as built, except you're asking them to do it in a different format. Jack: I was erring on the safe side, to be honest. I didn't want to tell you that it would only take them half an hour, because it could take some drafters longer than that, because -- I just would rather err on the side of n Bird: It would take me a half a day to boot up, but I'm not a -- Grady: Madam Mayor, a couple of things I'd like to add. We have one engineer that has already adopted this and he's set up a procedure and it takes him -- it's virtually instantaneous for him to go ahead and produce those as we request. The second thing is that the engineers are all familiar with their drawings. They are better capable of extracting the information we want. I would estimate there is anywhere -- it's probably a two fold -- if it takes them four hours it probably would take us eight hours to do the Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 13 of 74 same work. They are familiar with their drawings. So, what we are asking for them to do is make that conversion with their drawings and, then, we would go ahead and accept it in our new template. The way it is now we have to shift through their drawings. It takes John Boyd hours and hours and hours. The new process would take that down to minutes. Like Robin said, we want to be flexible over the next six months, but with your permission tonight we will proceed and, then, come back in six months with a resolution adopting these new standards. De Weerd: Thank you, Len. Council, feedback on feelings about giving the nod to move forward with this? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Certainly I agree that the savings of time on our end and simply notifying the community of -- the engineering community of our procedures sounds like a great idea. So, I would fully support that and see if we need to tweak anything in the next six months, De Weerd: So, I could take that extra position request out of our budget? Sorry. Thought J would try. Okay. Is that the sentiment of the rest of the Council? Bird: It certainly is mine. Borton: Me, too. De Weerd: Okay. There you have it. Jack: Thank you. Item 8: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: De Weerd: Thank you, Robin. I hope your debut went smoothly. Okay. There were no items removed from the Consent Agenda. Item 9: FP 06~021 - Request for Final Plat approval of 16 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 4.99 acres in an R-4 zone for Buckeye Place Subdivision by John Fackelman - SEC of Manship Road and N. Black Cat Road: Item 10: FP 06-023 - Request for Final Plat approval of 31 single-family residential building lots and 5 common lots on 9.02 acres in an R-8 zone for Settlement Bridge Subdivision No.5 by Capital Development, Inc. - SEe of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road: Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 14 of 74 De Weerd: So, Item No.9 is FP 06-021 -- Anna, on all these final plats, these two on nine and ten, were staff recommendations agreed with? Canning: Yes, ma'am, they are. De Weerd: Okay. Council? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we approve Item No.9, FP 06-021 and Item 10, FP 06-023. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Items 9 and 10. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: Public Hearing: VAR 06-010 Request for a Variance to allow for larger temporary structures from the maximum 500 square feet allowed per UDC 11-3E-4C1 for TNT Tents by TNT Fireworks - 1601 S. Meridian Road, 1600 Main Street, 1850 E. Fairview Avenue and 4051 E. Fairview Avenue: De Weerd: Okay. Item 11 is a Public Hearing on VAR 06-010. Mr. Nary or Anna, who goes first? Canning: [think I do, ma'am. We didn't coordinate that. I'm sorry. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the TNT Fireworks projects. It is a variance request, but there are multiple locations and we have outlined them here. You can see them and the -- we do have the address, but a little bit of -- some of them are a little bit hard to see. This one is the Rite-Aid parking lot. This is the Fred Meyers parking lot. This is the Wal-Mart parking lot and, then, this one is the property formerly known as Country Corners. The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 11-3E-4C, that restricts temporary structures for temporary uses to a maximum of 500 square feet. The variance application was submitted concurrently with temporary certificates of zoning compliance to operate temporary fireworks stands at each of the locations. So, they do have four certificate of zoning compliance applications, then, and just the one variance. The applicant proposes three 1,500 square foot temporary sales tents and, then, one 600 square foot temporary sales tent. Staff has recommended denial. We were not able to make the findings for the variance. Those being that it grants a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district. And staff feels that this would grant a special privilege that isn't allowed for temporary uses in these districts. That the Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 15 of 74 variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site. There are no extraordinary circumstances regarding these sites. And the variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. And staff finds that allowing a temporary structure over 500 square feet -- the finding currently says that it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and/or welfare, but I think that the fire department has presented some new information since this has -- staff report has come out and I think that once you hear that testimony that you would find that perhaps it is detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. The outstanding issues before Council -- we do have concerns that approving this variance will set a -- set a precedent for other folks that may want to come in and ask for similar variance requests. We know that Council did approve a 700 square foot allowance for a temporary sales trailer. That was to accommodate the specific dimensions of the single side trailer and you have instructed me to include that as part of my next text amendment. The last UDC text amendment has taken me awhile to get through, so I haven't submitted that second one yet. But that will be coming up. If Council is inclined to approve this variance request, we do ask that you provide us some direction on -- if you want to see the standard changed in the UDC or under what circumstances you would be inclined to grant similar variances. This will just help us in talking to other applicants for variances. With that, I -- there are outstanding fire department conditions that either Mr. Nary or Mr. Silva will speak to. We didn't coordinate an order on this, so I apologize. That's all from the Planning Department, though. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: If it please the Council, I think the fire department standards might be little a different. I think I was going to simply give the Council some guidance as to the controlling code sections here and what they need to look at in making the decision. I think Mr. Silva has got some more specific factual things, but if you wouldn't mind, there are three different controlling city code sections that are in play. The request by the applicant is for the variance in regards to the Uniform Development Code section regarding temporary use requirements and that is 11-3E-4, subsection C1 and that is a section of the city code in dealing with any types of temporary uses and the actual specific language in the code is that a maximum of one structure shall be allowed and may cover a maximum of 500 square feet. That's the specific code section that the variance is being sought. There is a more specific reference in the city code in relation to firework stands in the Uniform Development Code and that is 11-3E-5 and that is standards for fireworks stands and in there it does require that the applicant or owner shall obtain written approval of the Meridian city fire department. So, there is the fire department's approval that is necessary for any firework stand. There is a section of the city code in temporary firework stands and tents and that is Section 5-4-15 and the one that is specifically addressing the size of the tents says no stand -- and this is Subsection M. No stand, tent, shall have a floor area in excess of 750 square feet, Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 16 of 74 unless the fire department has approved such structure. So, there is some discrepancies in the size. The section on temporary firework stands and tent, as well as the temporary use requirements in the UDC, still require the approval of the fire department. The last provision is in the International Fire Code, which you did adopt by reference in the city code last fall. It's the 2003 fire code and it has more specific regulations as to the size of the tents. And so at least my legal opinion is that that's the specific controlling one. The UDC is certainly applicable for the request for the variance, but all of them still point to the fire department's standards and requirements that exist in either the city code, the state code, which doesn't have specific sizes of the tent requirements, or the International Fire Code, which has been adopted in the city code. So, with that I would turn it back over to Deputy Chief Silva, because he has the specific standards from the International Fire Code. De Weerd: Okay. Joe. Silva: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. One of our concerns is that we are specifically trying to sort out the size of the structures that should be allowed in for these uses, like -- for example, like fireworks. We want to illustrate -- the bottom here is defined as a tent in the fire code. This is a picture directly out of the commentary. The picture just above it on the right-hand side is a canopy. A canopy -- thank you. A canopy by definition does not have -- as you can see in the lower structure it has walls completely around it or a fair portion of it. A canopy cannot have walls on greater than 25 percent of the perimeter. That's an important distinction to make between the two structures. And a canopy would be allowed to go up to 400 square feet. The tent would be allowed to go only to 200 square feet. A couple of reasons why we would like to -- a more restrictive provision considered before you this evening is that with these larger structures there is such a great amount of inventory in there that the vendors don't typically unload them at night and it poses a serious concern with safety as theft can occur on the back side of the tent, because, obviously, with a pocket knife you can make entry into the back side there. When people are inside these larger tents and at 1,500 square feet, there is, obviously, a safety concern for the workers inside the tent, because of the close proximity to large quantities of fireworks. There is also a large fire concern, because just the sheer amount of inventory that's contained in that -- in that tent structure. One of the other things in some packaging configurations is that the fuses may not be properly protected, so some -- a person could conceivably go in there and, you know, have readily -- have ready access to a fuse and ignite quite a demonstration of fireworks within that and that's one of the prime concerns we have in having these larger structures considered as being approved. We have had large tents that have been erected in fields before the clearance of the weeds to bare dirt have been completed and they will erect a tent and without even consideration of mowing down the weeds prior to the erection of tents and the installation of tables for merchandise. Last year we had a tent approximately 1,500 square feet collapse in a high wind and had anybody been inside not being able to scramble quick enough, that could have collapsed on them. Those tents are very heavy. Obviously, they are very heavy canvas and that could have trapped a person inside there. So, the sheer size is a safety concern, as well as the amount of fireworks that are contained within -- within Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 17 of74 the tents. When we consider a 1,500 square foot tent, that's, obviously, twice the size of what's currently in the city ordinance concerning stands for fireworks. So, these are very large structures. When we look at our surrounding communities, Boise does not allow any structure greater than 750 square feet for a fireworks stand and they don't -- do not allow direct contact with the product during the purchasing process. Garden City has a maximum size of 800 square feet. They do allow tents. They do not allow any direct access to product during the purchase. Caldwell fire, 750 square feet. Tents are allowed. They do allow direct access to product. Nampa fire has no size on the -- cap on the size of the structure, whether it's a tent or a hard structure, so they do allow tents and they do allow direct access. Eagle fire has no cap on the size of the stand. Tents are allowed, but they, too, do not allow direct access to the product during the purchasing. So, with that ['II stand for any questions should you have any. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, do you have any questions for staff? Bird: Not at this point. De Weerd: Okay. Is Mr. Handke here? Canning: Madam Mayor, the applicant is Mr. Bob Brown. De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Bob Brown. Okay. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Farley: Yes. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Jerry Farley. I live in Washington state -- do you want my specific address there? De Weerd: Yes, please. Farley: 16526 Shore Drive Northeast, Lake Forest Park, Washington. 98155. De Weerd: Thank you. Farley: I'm here as a government affairs person for this company American Promotional Events, which does business in this state and across the United States as TNT. Idaho is one of the states that I personally am responsible for. I was directly involved many years ago in the writing of what is the current law in this state and I was directly involved in negotiations and assistance with the fire service in attempting to get a bill passed in the legislature this year, which we failed, and also in years past to require age 16. That also failed. And I have been involved in the development and the enactment of laws and ordinances in about 40 states, I've also been directly involved in the development of codes and standards for the construction and operation of retail fireworks facilities, including tents, permanent buildings, and mixed mercantile occupancies, like Sam's Club, Wal-Marts, Fred Meyers, in all kinds of places. The company that I represent operates in every state that is -- in which fireworks are allowed. They supply more than 15,000 in-store, inside, mixed mercantile occupancies and about the same number of Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 18 of 74 outdoor. They have about 2,500 to 3,000 tents in operation and they have used tents in this sale of fireworks in some instances for more than 40 years. Tents have been used in surrounding states for more than ten years. Earlier today I presume to take some of your chiefs -- deputy chiefs time to try and convince him to change his mind and agree with me. As you can tell I failed. You don't always win these things and I respect their caution and their concern. But, respectfully, I ask you to disagree with them tonight and agree with us. Let me just say something about the points he made, if I may. Security. This is not rocket science. This is something that in every state where security has been an issue it has been addressed in an appropriate fashion. And when the -- when this economic scale of the sales that occur in the tents is warranted, hired security have been used and other options when the sales are lower. The size of tents that are being discussed here relate mostly to the quantity of sales. So, that you have adequate space in there for the people to move around. With respect to the large quantities -- the quantities that are proposed here, quite frankly, are substantially less than are found in many indoor locations like Wal-Marts and also many tents that have been in use throughout the United States, as J said, for more than 40 years. He talked about -- very briefly about the fuses not protected. There is none of the products where the fuses are not protected and I should tell you that for more than ten years I have been involved in an issue -- an effort in many states and nationally to write codes and standard so that we can protect those fuses even more. I'll talk -- come back to it if I may. Weed coverage. Quite frankly, that's not relevant to this -- to the variances that we are requesting, because the surfaces are all paved or gravel. And the tent blew down and wind -- well, that was not our company. We use the most respected and nationwide company to erect our tents for us. We have never had that problem in more than 40 years with thousands of tents in use and the reason we have had the success is because we respect the rights and the concerns of individuals and their safety. Then, he mentioned the direct contact. I want you to understand that the purpose you have tents and the reason that you make them larger is so that people can have access to the product, they can see it, and ask questions about it in a more efficient fashion. I think it's strange that someone would say to you people should not be allowed to touch fireworks until they buy it. How does that make anything safer? I'm sorry, I think that's just a red herring. And, in fact, there was a provision that was inserted in a surreptitious fashion by representatives of fire service, not Idaho, as far as I know, but other things, other states, to place that in the International Fire Code in 2003 and I would -- if I had the chance I could discuss that with you. But let me just say one thing further if I may. Your code contemplates a number of requirements for tents and stands. You have a lot of inclusions in here. This document right here, which is the second version, has many many more, far in excess of anything found in your standards here, found in the International Fire Code. How do I know? Because I helped write it. And as I told your fire service representatives today, we helped write this, we are prepared to live with it, we live with it in every state. We do it voluntarily. We are prepared to do it here. Why do we support this? Because it's safer for the people who sell the fireworks. It's safer for the people who buy the fireworks. And it's, obviously, safer for the fire service. It provides greater security. It's better in every way. We wrote it by looking at the problems that had occurred and there have been relatively few problems with respect to tents you should know. Almost none. Tents are generally found to be better, because Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 19 of 74 they are safer for people, because everybody can get out easy. There is no permanent walls anywhere. You can get out quickly. But the point is is that we develop this standard in conjunction through the -- with the fire service representatives across the United States. This was a consensus code process. It had fire service representatives, it had firework representatives, it had people that had nothing to do with either, rocketry and all kinds of stuff. This is the second version. This took six years to get done. It is far more specific and far more demanding than is found in your code and we tell you if you give us this variance we can live with this and you can require us to do so as a condition of the variance. Last year, as I understand it, the tents that we are asking for were use in this city. So, we are not asking for anything new. All we are asking is to be allowed to do the same thing that we have done in the past. We think it's better, not worse, but better for everybody to have a larger tent structure. Why? Are we going to just pack it with product? No. You put the amount of product in there that relates to the amount of sales you're going to have. In fact, this code requires width of aisles and all sorts of things, none of which are found in anything to do with the International Fire Code or anything to do with anything you have enacted here. Why do we do that? So, that everybody is safe in there. That's why. So, we think -- all we are asking for is what we have done in the past and we are willing to ask -- to let you tell us to live to a higher standard, because we helped write it, along with National Fire Service representatives. I truly respect your chief and your deputy chief. I have spent a lot of time with them. I respect their anxiety and their concern. But I think they are wrong. I think they are wrong. I think we have presented a better option for you and all we are asking to do is what we have done in the past in a safe, responsible manner to a higher standard. I hope that you will consider this variance favorably and we are willing to discuss with you, your staff, the fire service, how to implement this this year. I would be happy to answer your questions. De Weerd: Council, do you have questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone of the public who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Seeing none, Council? Canning: Madam Mayor, just for the purposes of having an understandable record in the future, if the gentleman that just spoke wouldn't mind reading off the title of the document he was presenting. De Weerd: Thank you. Farley: I apologize for not doing that. It's NFPA 11/24. NFPA Standards for National Fire Protection Association and it's 11/24. NFPA is 60 or 70 thousand people, the vast majority of whom are fire officials from across the United States. They develop hundreds of codes. Hundred of codes. There is probably 50 or 60 that have to do with this very room. They set up through committees, it's called a technical committee in Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 20 of 74 pyrotechnics, which has authority over this and other standards as well, including rocketry and display fireworks and this is called the code for manufacture, transportation, storing and retail sales of fireworks and pyrotechnics and this is the 2006 Edition. This was just approved by the NFPA standards council several months ago when this published. This is now available for adoption. Under the code that you have right here, the International Fire Code, the International Building Code, your fire official already has the authority to seek the guidance of this document when they grant a permit or a license for -- in this instance fireworks. The same way they do for anything else. They can look at any kind of a published model code and say that's a good idea and we want to do that, because they, like us, believe this is about public safety, the people that buy the fireworks, the people that use the fireworks, the firefighters who have to deal with the -- those rare instances when people misuse fireworks. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any additional information from staff? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I'd like to ask Joe a question. We had -- I don't know. I thought we had put this thing to sleep about six or seven years ago, this fireworks deal, but it's jumped up again. Have we had -- have we had problems or, you know, why -- what is the difference, other than accepting a couple of our UDC and our International Fire Code, that's different from last year? And do you get -- I mean I know we got -- I know the fire department goes and inspects and are supposed to and I know they do. Have we had any where they haven't done what they have said? Silva: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, a couple of concerns that we have is that we did have the experience of the tent blowing down last year, which was -- which was a safety concern from the standpoint that it collapsed and it had workers in it. A couple of things that Jerry referred to was the NFPA 11/24 and those requirements that are contained within that 11/24 is less restrictive than what we currently have and I'll give you two examples very quickly is the clearance to combustibles and clearance to buildings as an example. We have had very good -- the venders have been willing to, you know, address the issues we have identified on the inspection, so to that extent we have not had a problem. I mean there are issues that we identified, but they made correction and we proceeded with the sales period. Bird: Thank you very much, Joe. De Weerd: Thank you. Anything further from Council? Any further comment? Joe? Or Anna? Okay. Mr. Borton. Borton: Madam Mayor. Joe, a question. You might be able to answer it. I hope you can answer it. Is there something unique -- again, I didn't see how this was taken care of in the past. Is there something unique about a fireworks stand that doesn't exist Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 21 of74 when you're around 500 feet, that if you get to 1,000, 1,500 feet, any unique problems created -- I mean a 500 foot tent can blow down, as well as a 1,500. I understand that. Or it can be cut into with things stolen from it. What new problem arises in that case? Silva: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, just the sheer amount of inventory that's present, because they tend to use parts of it as a warehouse, quite frankly. When the tents get really large they will stock all the areas under the tables and it ends up being kind of a combination warehouse, retail outlet, and just the sheer quantity that's contained in a 1,500 square foot tent becomes large. So, if we have any ignition in there, it's going to be -- it's going to be a pretty quick, rapidly growing fire. Anderson: Madam Mayor and Council, I'd like to address this issue. Keep in mind fireworks are classified as a class C explosive and the history of fireworks is -- with the fireworks booth is they started off in small plywood sales shacks, if you will, or sheds that community groups put together and would sell the fireworks out of. The code specifically states that the consumer should not have access to the fireworks themselves, because of the danger of those fireworks being ignited and I was telling part of the city staff this morning, the fire that burned Nampa to the ground in 1907 was started by fireworks, because somebody dropped a cigar into fireworks in a store. So, the code specifically does not want the consumers themselves near the fireworks. So, the idea is -- somebody comes in, it's like cigarettes, when some body's buying cigarettes in a store and they say I'd like to buy three of those rockets and four of those -- whatever the other fireworks are and they are handed that and the money is handed there. These tents that are being proposed now allow the consumer to go in and walk around a large tent, pick up arms full of fireworks and, then, go to the cashier and check out. The problem with that is the large inventories. When you allow a 1,500 square foot tent or we have another request after this one that's a 2,800 square foot tent, that they fill these with fireworks and it's the same type of concept. I believe it is much safer to have a smaller tent, allow the consumer to decide what they want and they sell the inventory out of a tent and they can have a secure locked facility out in back and they can go get more inventory and replenish it as the stock rotates out. That's our concern. In addition, as Joe mentioned, we are getting tents now that are -- you know, we are one of the jurisdictions in the state that are even allowing tents. A lot of them don't allow tents. We have been flexible in that, but we are getting larger and larger tents and I have polled other fire chiefs in the state to see what their position is. Nobody is addressing this issue yet or hasn't been a problem in those other cities. But the last year we had one of the tents that they set up on a bare field with weeds three feet high. We had to go out and ask them to mow that after -- after they had already set up the tent, so it was still on a very combustible surface with weeds and about a week after they set it up we had one of our famous summer thunderstorms and it came in and blew the tent down. We are darn lucky somebody wasn't injured. These tents weigh hundreds of pounds that are set up. So, we are asking for you to abide by what's in our adopted code, to not allow these large tents. They will still sell their fireworks. We just feel it would be much safer for our community. We won't have the possibility of a large firework booth going up from access from the public and the possibility of the ignition or the danger of the tent coming down. It's a pretty simple matter in my mind. Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 22 of 74 De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions from Council? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: Just one thought I wanted the Council to consider as they deliberate -- and you might also want to consider having the applicant have an opportunity for rebuttal. But the standard that currently exists in the Uniform Fire Code is based on a standard that's been adopted through a tremendous amount of work and study and all of you are aware of that. My concern is that if the Council does want to consider a variance, is then establishing through your discussion how to establish that standard. If you -- if you want to deviate from the code, I guess what I would like you to consider is how you're going to come to a reasonable conclusion as to what's an appropriate size, because you will have a variance request from other vendors -- remember, this is for fireworks, but the UDC applies to all types of sales, temporary sales, and if you want to pick a standard out of the air, I think your concern you're going to have to articulate is how did we establish what's, then, appropriate for a vegetable stand, what's appropriate for an icecream stand, what's appropriate for something else. Because your -- if you pick a standard that doesn't have any basis in a code, you're going to have to substantiate why in relation to every other request you're going to get. If you pick 500, someone's going to think 500 works. Someone else is going to think 1,000 is more appropriate. I just want to caution you if you -- as you deliberate to make sure if you want to consider that, to also factor in how you make that standard apply equally. The applicant's testimony was how their particular operation is, but your variance, as you know, will apply to all operations, not just theirs. So, everyone else who may not necessarily be as diligent as this particular applicant, would be allowed the same standard. So, just a couple of things to think of as you deliberate. But I didn't know if Madam Mayor was going to give the applicant a rebuttal opportunity as well. De Weerd: Yes, sir. Mr. Farley, did you want to have a rebuttal or closing remarks? Farley: Thank you for the courtesy. And I would like to say a couple things. First, I have a great deal of respect for the chief and deputy chief. I just respectfully disagree with them. I think they are erring so far on the side of caution that they are being kind of anti-commercial. The tent is used, because it is a better selling mechanism. This is true for whether it's furniture or whatever. You find it all over the country. Tents were not used a lot in a lot of areas. Now they are used not just for fireworks, they have done so because it's good for sales. That's really what we are about for America. It's true that this is -- fireworks are hazardous materials and they are classified as explosives. But it is incorrect to say that if you started -- if you have a fire start in a fireworks stand or a tent, for that matter, that the rate of the progression of the fire is going to be so fast that people aren't going to get out is just wrong, because the majority of the product is cardboard, paper, and that's what constitutes -- let me just tell you also -- while it's true that some of the tent operators do store their product underneath tables, the simple fact Meridian City Council May 23,2006 Page 23 of 74 is that they put in a tent for the size of sales that they think they are going to do. They are not going to pack it full and then -- because they have to buy the fireworks, they have to store the fireworks, they have to find some way to do it. So, it's all a cost of doing business. They are rational individuals. They are going to have the tent and the amount of product that makes sense. Let me tell you, we have operated -- my clients have operated a tent 6,000 square feet in size for more than ten years. Just one. I know of many others. I'm sorry. Nine thousand square feet. Nine thousand square feet. No problems. Fire service comes in and inspects it regularly. It works fine. It works fine. All over the country these work fine. We have been using them for 40 years without any problems. The one that blew down was not our company and was not put up by somebody who really knew how to put up a good tent. We can work those problems out. We don't have those problems. We didn't have three feet of grass. So, I understand their anxieties, but they shouldn't be talking about us and they shouldn't be talking about a good responsible user, because they are not. They are talking about problems and they are trying to tell you that if they had this one problem, everybody should suffer. And, you know, this reminds me a little bit about kindergarten. When I went to kindergarten -- De Weerd: Sir, could you try and keep your comments short. Farley: Well, I'm just trying to say that what we should do is we should hold everybody to a standard and everybody should be held to that standard and it should be a reasonable standard. And this is one that has worked everywhere in this country, except around here, without any problems and even last year we didn't have this problem here. So, all we are asking for is something that's reasonable. We think it makes sense. We can live with reasonable controls. And we are willing to work with them on those reasonable controls. So, we'd ask you that you, please, approve the variance and make sure that they hold us to the standard you set. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council, if you do not desire anymore testimony or comments from staff -- I think Lieutenant Stowe has a comment. Stowe: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The police department does have some concerns. First off, I do agree that we should have standards and follow the standards and they are set forth in the UDC. Secondly, I'd like to address the direct access to the fireworks. He mentioned that people like to hold the product and should be able to look at it. Fireworks are a little bit different than a furniture store or an icecream store in that they are combustible. Not only will the person buying the fireworks be in contact and have direct access, but so will their kids and so will minor kids that go into that store or into the tent on the way home from school or school will be out, so they won't -- they will all be there. As you know, the Fourth of July and the days before it are very busy for the police department, very busy for the fire department. [ anticipate that with direct access to the product we will see instances of theft from minors or juveniles, which will, then, be used probably not in the most safest and sane manner. We respond to grass fires constantly during this season, because of the improper use of the fireworks. There is no guarantee of the volume that the tents will Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 24 of 74 have. In most instances if there is some type of accidental ignition, the police department is going to be the first on the scene as far as emergency services go. If the -- if there is more volume -- I think everyone has seen what happens in a fireworks fire, that they are quite spectacular and they aren't contained in a very small area. They do tend to expand into outlying areas and create other property damage than what is just the fireworks stand. So, the police department does have some concerns over the size and I feel that bigger would create more danger and we do support the fire department in their stand. De Weerd: Thank you, Lieutenant. Okay. Council, if you have received all the information you need, I would certainly entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing VAR 06-010. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 11. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Discussion? If not, do I have a motion? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: The balancing act, I think, on Mr. Farley's comments about the commercial or anti-commercial is a delicate balancing act. I don't necessarily see these -- that the tent size regulation being anti-commercial, nor its purpose being anti-commercial and the comment I applaud Mr. Farley for making and I applaud our staff for being is overly cautious. If there is any inclination on our fire department and our police department to be overly cautious, I would hope they would be and I would applaud them for being so. I, for one, have concerns about waffling and wiggling with sizes. Rules are best applied clearly and consistently and I think anyone who is going to try and do work with the city would hope that it's going to apply rules consistently and clearly and allows them to anticipate how we are going to operate, and allows our staff to anticipate how we can safely provide services to the citizens and customers of Meridian. I don't -- for my sake, I don't see any grounds, reason, or basis to grant a variance in this particular case. Weighing the pros and cons, I don't think there is anything unique about this particular request that they are unable to provide this business in comply with the UDC. I don't think that -- in this case that a 1,500 square foot structure is necessarily in light of the Meridian City Council May 23,2006 Page 25 of 74 concerns. So, that's a round about way of me to say that I'm opposed to granting the variance and those are the reasons why. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Borton. Any other comments? Or do I have a motion? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Just a comment that I have and this is in relation to -- I have heard some excellent testimony this even, both from the applicant and from our staff. In my opinion, these are things that are addressed when we do revisions of the UDC. We have kicked around this -- this temporary sales area. We granted a variance that said that 500 square feet wasn't enough. Our prior code said up to 750 square feet. I think we need some clarification. And so I guess in that respect I would be willing to consider the variance in the fact that for this year to have potentially up to 1,500 square foot seems reasonable to me. I'm not willing to set a standard and adopt a new code based on that, though. I think we need additional testimony, additional consideration beyond just firework stands. What about Christmas tree stands. I mean there are -- I would assume are very different issues with those types of applications versus this. So, that's kind of where I'm at for this year and the revision of the code. But I will see if Mr. Borton has a motion first. Borton: Any discussion? Bird: I have none. Borton: Okay. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I think Mr. Wardle's comments are well taken to the extent that it -- that we can benefit from continuing to look at these requirements and provisions, making sure they are applied consistently to go forward with different types of uses on temporary structures. Having said that, I think he's wrong in everything else he said. So, I would move we move for denial of Item 11, VAR 06-010, request for variance by TNT Fireworks. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second? Okay. Unless I have a second, I guess the motion dies. I guess I will put my two cents worth in before we entertain another motion. It's quite a drastic change going from the current 500 to 1,500, in particular in light of the concerns that were outlined by our staff. There may be some issues of what is the appropriate size, but you're tripling what we currently allow under code and we do have three findings that need to be responded to. I have no doubt that Mr. Farley feels that they can represent and be good stewards to this size, but that doesn't mean the precedence that you set determines that everyone else can be just as good at being Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 26 of 74 stewards to the safety and the security of what they will be proposing. So, I guess since I can't break a tie, there is three people up here with the vote, I would at least suggest caution on determining a size as well and also would, on behalf of our city attorney, do say we do need to find -- respond to each of the three things that you have to show a variance is determined through and you need to set aside -- because we will have greater ones coming in front of you. With that said, Mr. Wardle, do you have a motion? Wardle: Madam Mayor, I'll open the floor for discussion. I move that we approve VAR 06-010, request for variance to allow structures up to 1,500 square feet for TNT Fireworks. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second? Okay. I guess the only one who hasn't tried a motion is Mr. Bird. Would you like to make an attempt? Bird: I would. De Weerd: Thank you. Bird: Madam Mayor, I would move we approve VAR 06-010, variance, and allow structures to 700 square feet, as per -- Nary: Actually, 750 to be consistent with -- Bird: Oh. Okay. Consistent. Let's go with 750 square feet. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the variance to a maximum square footage of 750. Is there any discussion? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Just for additional discussion, I know staff is seeking direction on what kind of precedence this sets. I'd like to further have a revision to that UDC, but take additional comment not just based on fireworks stands, but all other potential considered temporary uses that we can think of. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would agree with Councilman Wardle. I think we need to really -- before this comes up again get something down firm and take some testimony and stuff and get it taken care of. Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 27 of 74 De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bird. Any comment, Mr. Borton? Borton: Yeah. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: Question for legal counsel, if we can or should be permitted to approve variances other than -- that are different than what's requested? If you ask for a variance for A and we say, no, but you can have B, are we within our purview to do that? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you certainly -- you certainly have the discretion to grant a variance up to whatever you think is reasonable. All I had suggested earlier is simply stating what the reason is. And if I understand Councilmember Bird and Council member Wardle -- and I think the prior testimony you had was that you had already granted a temporary use exception for 750 feet. There is a city code that has the same size and if I understand the discussion correctly, that's the basis of why you feel 750 feet is more appropriate temporary use size than 500 feet or the 200 that the International Fire Code has for fireworks stands. So, I -- if I'm correct, I think you're trying to simply be consistent with your prior exceptions and that's within your discretion. De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, nay. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Item 12: Public Hearing: VAR 06-011 Request for a Variance to allow for larger temporary structures from the maximum 500 square feet allowed per UDC 11-3E-4C1 for fireworks sales, Christmas tree sales, and produce sales for Fat City Fireworks by Richard Handke - 535 N. Eagle Road, 3301 W. Cherry Lane, 20 E. Fairview Avenue, 1375 E. Fairview Avenue, 97 Main Street, and for the lot at the northwest corner of Ten Mile Road and W. Franklin Road: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Item 12 has been -- needs to be reposted or they have additional sites to post? Berg: Madam Mayor, if I may, I think we opened the hearings, but we held it so the requirements for posting are met, because my understanding is they did not post all the properties that they are asking for a variance. Nary: Madam Mayor, I think our history has been we haven't opened the -- I don't think we have opened the hearings, if I'm correct, when they haven't posted. We have Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 28 of 74 continued the matter, but I don't know that we need to open the hearing itself. I mean they haven't posted all the sites. They need to comply with that. I believe part of the discussion that I was aware of is they have not held a neighborhood meeting, which is required for a variance. And so they need to hold that prior to having a public hearing. So, I don't know that it would be appropriate -- I don't think it's appropriate to open a hearing that hasn't been noticed properly. They will have to notice it properly. You can continue this matter to your meeting to make sure that they have complied. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if you would indulge me asking Mr. Nary a question. Is that okay? De Weerd: Do I have a choice? Canning: Mr. Nary, we had talked about having Council comments on the location of the neighborhood meeting. Would they need to do that in a -- with an open Public Hearing or can I present that information now? Nary: There is -- if I understand correctly, they still have not held a neighborhood meeting. They have posted one site. Canning: Correct. Nary: But have not held a neighborhood meeting for any of the sites. Canning: Correct. Nary: Is that correct? I guess for the limited purpose of at least advising the Council of that, not to take testimony, but simply to open it and advise them of that. The concern, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, is because you have a meeting next week and you don't have a meeting the following week, if there is any need to cure an issue, really, tonight is your only opportunity to cure that and that's what Mrs. Canning wants you to be aware of, if there is any concerns that you have. So, for the limited purpose of at least accepting that information and if you wish to discuss it or not, you don't need to do that, you can continue the matter for that point, t think you're okay. Does that make sense? De Weerd: Well, Mr. Nary, you're suggesting to open the Public Hearing to accept that information. Nary: Correct. And if the Council wishes to discuss that, you can certainly do that or just continue the matter to the following week. I just don't want the applicant to be caught short if that is -- if what Mrs. Canning has to tell you is of concern to you, they won't be able to cure it next week and they will have to wait two weeks, which will put Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 29 of 74 them unable to actually sell their products within the time period allowed by the statute. So, I don't want them to be injured and so I think that might be the safest way to do that. De Weerd: Okay. Council, then, if there is no opposition, I will go ahead and open this Public Hearing on Item 12, V AR 06-011, and ask staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, when we were drafting the UDC, we did consider putting strings on where and when folks could conduct neighborhood meetings. We elected not to, mostly for the reason that, you know, most people use good judgment when they set up those neighborhood meetings and I had seen cases where it backfired for the city that an applicant was not able to choose a reasonable time and place for that. As any in code, it's open for abuse and I just wanted to point out that the neighborhood meeting for this project will be held in Mountain Home and wanted you to be aware of that situation. Bird: What? Nary: And, again, Madam Mayor, the reason -- the only reason I asked to open the Public Hearing to get that information and if you wish to comment, is because if you found that out next week and found that to be defective, in your opinion, the applicant could not cure it in time to be able to sell their product within the time allowed by law. If that is of a concern to you, then, you certainly have the ability to make comment about that tonight, so he has the opportunity to address it. Canning: And one of the affected property owners did send me an e-mail asking if this was a reasonable location for a neighborhood meeting. De Weerd: I don't think it's very friendly to encouraging attendance. Canning: And I was told by a staff member that that is why he held it at that location, was to not encourage attendance. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: This is one councilman that if he's going to do it in Meridian, he's going to hold his public meeting in Meridian or -- or he don't need to come before me. We are not making judgments in Mountain Home, Idaho. De Weerd: Okay. It looks like Mr. Bird just spoke for the Council. Borton: It's held in Mountain Home at his peril. That doesn't make any sense at all. Canning: I will inform him and suggest that he change location and get that notice out quickly. He won't be able, probably, to get them the required five days notice before he Meridian City Council May 23,2006 Page 30 of 74 conducts the hearing -- oh, sure, he -- well, it will be very close. But we will inform him of your concerns. De Weerd: Thank you. At what date does this need to be continued to? June 6th? Okay. Council, I need a motion. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we continue Item 12 to June 6th. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to continue Item 12 to June 6. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 06-014 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.16 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) for Cabella Creek Subdivision by A TM Development, LLC - northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Mesa Way: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 06-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 47 single family residential lots and 11 common lots on 18.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Cabella Creek Subdivision by ATM Development, LLC - northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Mesa Way: De Weerd: Okay. Items 13 and 14 are public hearings on AZ 06-014 and PP 06-012. I will open these two items with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Cabella Creek project. You formerly saw a portion of this as just an annexation request, which was denied. It contained different properties, but if you -- if the aerial looks vaguely familiar, that's why. It's north of Victory Road and east of Mesa Way and it is -- this is Locust Grove to the further east. It is an annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat request. The gross residential density is 2.49 units per acre. It includes 47 single family residential lots on 18.84 acres and it's got about 13 percent open space. There are currently three houses on the property and two of the homes will remain. One of them will continue to take access off Mesa Way. The one that currently takes access off Victory will take access from within the subdivision. There is also -- it's the Ten Mile feeder, I believe, that comes through the site and that's -- they put their open space amenity along that feeder, along with the park, as you will see there. There is a development agreement proposed with this. Our staff has recommended one. Some of the nonstandard items in that development include -- develop agreement include that the applicant will construct a ten Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 31 of 74 foot wide multi-use pathway from Victory Road to Mesa Way along the south side of Ten Mile Creek. Will come through there. That a street buffer constructed in accordance with city code be installed along Victory Road prior to occupancy of any new dwelling units. So, it would be the full length of Victory Road. That one public street access and no driveways would be allowed to Victory Road. So, these would all take internal access, as I noted before. And, then, this was added later, but it will come up in Commission discussion, but it is -- we are suggesting that mitigate potential of light from cars exiting this site from entering the windows of the neighbor's house along Mesa Way, the Binford property. The applicant has volunteered to assist the neighbor, Binfords, by widening the U of their driveway. This is the U driveway here. And providing some berming and landscaping in between the large driveway area at the developer's expense. So, the developer has committed to an off-site improvement and we have recorded that within the development agreement. The Planning Commission did recommend approval at their April 6th hearing. Eric Cronin and Aaron McGee spoke in favor of the application and Anike Binford and Matt Binford spoke in opposition and no one was commenting. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the location of the Navaro Way and the impact to the existing house and that was the Binford house that they were referring to. And, then, the design and function of the storm drain. Somebody put -- somebody bumped up the time on my screen saver there. The design and function of the storm drain and amenity ponds that are in this central open space area. The key Commission changes to staff's initial recommendation were to amend the development agreement with those provisions that I just outlined a moment ago. To our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council. We haven't had anyone call us since the Planning and Zoning Commission that I'm aware of. And with that I will answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for staff at this time? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. And you can pull that up. Thank you. Cronin: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Eric Cronin with the Land Group, representing the applicant. I reside at -- again, the Land Group, it's 462 East Shore Drive. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present to you this evening for application for annexation, rezone, and preliminary plat of Cabella Creek Subdivision. As Anna indicated, you had previously seen this in some sort of configuration with some of the lots that -- or some of the existing lots within Kachina Estates. Anna, do we have that color rendering in the slide show that you are aware of? Okay. Well, could I have that slide that's not as busy as this one? Thank you. Anyways, today we are back to present to you, based on the remolded subdivision that was done so with your guys' comments, Planning and Zoning, a neighborhood meeting, public testimony, as well as meeting with the planning staff. Some of the items that were brought up -- and we feel we have addressed them is that we -- and it was asked that we limit the number of direct lot access onto Mesa Way and so to do so we have restricted direct lot access to Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 32 of 74 all lots along Mesa Way, except for the existing dwelling, which currently take access onto Mesa Way. Also, to help transition from Mesa Way into the subdivision and the existing lots across the street, we are providing a 20 foot wide landscape buffer that will be bermed and vegetated and have fence screening on the backs of the lots there. Let's see here. And also what was brought up at Council meeting last time was that the density of the subdivision and to do so, to create a transition from the existing lots along Mesa Way. The dimensional standards are consistent or mirror the -- those of the R-2 zoning for the most part. And we have also provided stub streets, which -- to property east of us that seem to be in better locations than we were previously providing them. We feel that this layout meets the density requirements within the low density of the Comprehensive Plan, which states up to three units per acre. Currently we are at roughly 2.5 units per acre, as Anna had indicated, and we are providing approximately 13 percent open space and the issue of -- one of the items that was brought up at the Planning and Zoning was the treatment of storm drain and originally I had calculated my open space area with the amenity pond, et cetera, which mayor may not need to store storm drain water. At this time we haven't got into the improvement plan, so we are not sure exactly how we are going to deal with that. So, I guess if you looked at the big picture, the common, you know, green space of the subdivision is approximately 22 percent, about a little over four acres. Let's see here. North of the subdivision is an existing subdivision, Salmon Rapids, and exists R-4 zoning. South of us is R-8 within Tuscany across Victory. And areas all the way around are R-4 or R-8. So, with that, I would stand for any questions you may have. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Cronin: Thank you. De Weerd: I do have some people signed up to testify. If you wish to provide testimony, when I call your name you can certainly come forward. Anike Binford. Against. You will have to pull that down. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Binford: Madam Mayor, Council, my name is Anike Binford. I live at 3101 South Mesa Way. We live directly across the street from the proposed Cabella Creek. Our biggest concern with this proposed development is with the southern most access road coming onto Mesa Way. This road lines up directly with our circular drive and the headlights from the oncoming traffic turn either direction will be flashing directly into our living room window. We have done some test runs in our car and the lights really are bad. I do have a DVD if you guys want to see that. It's about 15 seconds if you need to. As was discussed in the Planning and Zoning meeting, we cannot berm and landscape the lights out, as it would require landscaping across our driveway. The developer has graciously offered to relocate our drive and provide landscaping to block the lights. If Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 33 of 74 this ends up being our only option, we would like to have on record that all costs of doing this will be the responsibility of the developer. That being said, we have spent a lot of time trying to figure out exactly where they would relocate our driveway. It really is in the most logical and convenient location now. Moving it to the north would require taking out our 35 year old maple tree, not to mention that the driveway would, then, be located directly -- right in our front yard. If they moved it to the south, it would create problems with our flood irrigation and would also put the driveway too far from our front door. We feel that there should be much consideration given to this issue. The developers are coming into an existing neighborhood make these changes. They are already threatening to disrupt the quiet lifestyle that we bought into by subdividing within our estate community. We bought on home on Mesa Way because of the quiet country setting. We moved from an R-4 subdivision to the five acre subdivision of Kachina Estates to enjoy this lifestyle and never imagined that the growth going on around us would actually invade our fully developed subdivision. The developers are proposing 47 home sites in an area that previously only had three. This certainly will increase traffic and noise on Mesa Way, both in cars and people. It is the least that the developers can do to assure us that when we are within our own homes this disruption does not continue. De Weerd: Thank you. Questions for the applicant or the testifiers? Okay. Binford: I do have some photos of our front yard and kind of where our driveway sits, if you want to -- De Weerd: Can you give those to staff? That would be great. Binford: I gave the photo CD earlier. I don't know if that would be helpful. It's kind of hard, unless you're standing in the driveway to really be able to tell. De Weerd: I didn't think the tent was yours, so -- Binford: It might be. I don't know if you're really going to be able to tell a whole lot. What you see on the right is -- you can see the boxwood hedge that we are starting right there. That is one part of the driveway. So, really, to -- okay. There is a better shot. That's taken from our front porch. So, they are talking about widening the U, which to do that is going to take the driveway so far to the left of where you're looking -- that's our front yard, So, I don't really feel like pulling our car into the front yard. That's another -- yeah. So, see, if they widened it, it would be kind of in between these two trees. And that's another shot, as if you're pulling into it. That's our big dirt pile that we have kind of put there in hopes that maybe we could have blocked the lights out, but it just doesn't even begin to block the lights. That's standing from where the road actually will be. And you can see those -- that's our living windows right there. And that's about -- I think a four foot berm that we have got started there. So, I don't know if it really even kind of shows kind of where things are and how it lays out. De Weerd: And is that the existing home across the street? Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 34 of 74 Binford: That's the existing home across the street. De Weerd: That they would be keeping? Binford: That they are keeping. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Thank you. Any questions, Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you. Matt Binford is also signed up against. M. Binford: Not necessarily against, but against the road. Matt Binford. 3102 Mesa Way. My wife covered it pretty well. The only other piece I'd like to cover -- if you could go back to that berm. The dirt pile. We will take our time. The Planning and Zoning had us out there until 3:00 o'clock in the morning last time, so -- De Weerd: We are much more friendly. Bird: We are not going to be here until 3:00 o'clock. M. Binford: So, while that's being pulled up, my main concern, as part of the final plat map you had Victory Road, berm, landscaping, as part of this sign off. I'm hoping we can get also on Mesa Way that fencing and berm also be part of the final plat sign off. That way any fencing will keep trash away from our subdivision and also pushed back on what they are developing. So, I'm hoping Mesa Way can also be part of that final flat sign off. I don't know what the terminology is. And the other question we have is for the construction entrance, assuming this is approved, is there any way we can limit the construction entrance to only Victory access and not through Mesa Way. That way any dirt, debris, stays basically in the new development area. So, in this berm, the main concern is it's in an established neighborhood, it's a county subdivision. It's been there for 20 years. We thought at some point maybe, yes, we would be developed, but these homes have been there -- it's a county sub. These people have come in -- I don't oppose growth, progress, what I do oppose is somebody coming in, putting a road in front of our house in an existing neighborhood. That's my two cents. I just don't think it's right. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Okay. Aaron McGee. For. Okay. And Martin Ardis. Okay. Thank you. Those were the people that were signed up. Is there any testimony on this application? Okay. Would the applicant like to come up for a final word. If you will just restate your name. Cronin: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Eric Cronin. I believe the developer would agree to do whatever it would take to alleviate the headlights that might be in -- as a nuisance and I failed to bring it, but I did take a look at the aerial photo underneath Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 35 of 74 our existing site plan -- or our proposed site plan. And that roadway seems to be a little bit further north than I guess initially I thought it was. However, yes, there is going to be at some point the -- some point of the turn from the road -- or the Navaro Way, which is perpendicular to Mesa Way. At some point when you start making that turn you are going to have direct headlights onto it. As far as our location for that street there, we wanted to limit the number of accesses onto Mesa Way itself and also wanted to -- I guess have -- you know, larger size lot on Mesa Way as to be in -- within the R-2 zoning, as far as their dimensional standards go. And so snugging it up to here so that you -- I guess you would finish those lots as just common lots, giving it to this, and providing a nice amenity to these potential homeowners with the Ten Mile Creek and the ponds behind them. I'd like to say that I'm hoping that we can find a middle ground of what's acceptable for berming or vegetation, et cetera, I think that can be reached to mitigate the lights that would be shining into their driveway. And as far as construction, entrance goes, I'm not sure if it's something that Meridian Public Works tells where we can and cannot enter on a site. Do you know, Len? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I have seen you in prior instances designate a preferred construction route through a neighborhood, so -- I think it was just a condition of approval. De Weerd: Can you adjust some of the lot lines to position a house to help block that? Isn't it this curve that they are worried about or is it down here? I have it upside down. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: A couple of questions. I have -- I'll get back to the concern on the trash while the construction's going on, but is there any way you could bring that road and bring it out on Mesa Way, like down south -- come down there. You can have -- you can stub it and bring it right down and bring it out there. Is there any houses there that would be hitting it or is it too close to the -- Cronin: I believe ACHD -- I can't recall exactly what their offset distance is, but it makes more sense to push it further back up into it, so that -- so you could build it behind and, then, the roadway here itself. Bird: And getting back to the trash -- and this is -- this is definitely -- has always been a problem when you have existing places and you try to build and it seems like the wind always wants to blow directly into the existing place -- homes. [would like to see along Mesa Way a temporary -- you can use the plastic fence, but put it up not just -- you know, not throw it up, but put it up so that it's solid and that will stop 75 percent of the trash. It's not going to stop it all, but at least it's showing that you're willing to work with those neighbors and, you know, it's horrible for those people that come out into their yards and have a bunch of trash sitting there and I would -- I'm like the Mayor, I'd like to Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 36 of 74 see if there is any way that we could change that road, but I love the size of your lots along there, too, so -- Cronin: As far as the fencing goes during construction, there is no problem putting a temporary fence along the site and, then, for the -- for the infrastructure and, then, during -- before the -- I guess the final plat would be signed you have the needed landscape requirements with -- and there is a proposed fence along Mesa Way that would be permanent with not slats -- you now, I'm not exactly sure what exact type of fence, but more permanent and block the trash from shingles and builder materials, et cetera. Bird: And I don't -- I don't know, I think we have -- as Mrs. Canning said, we have designated on approval and we are asking for a development agreement on this. I would like to see it be Victory Road construction entrance on and off, not Mesa. That's not a real -- you know, it's not a big wide road there, Mesa isn't. Cronin: Okay. De Weerd: I guess I just have a question as to there is not very many houses on that road. Do you need an outlet to Mesa Way right there? Can you shift that -- that other lot and just block off that connection? No one trusts me with a pointer. Cronin: Anna, could j have the preliminary plat slide? De Weerd: On that one right here, if you just close that one off and kind of wrap your lots around -- Cronin: And cul-de-sac it? De Weerd: Yeah. I don't know if ACHD requires you to have that, but there is not a whole lot of lots that that road supports that you couldn't just use Victory Road. Canning: Madam Mayor, it would exceed our cul-de-sac length requirements. De Weerd: Well -- and they'd need to seek a variance for road length. Bird: Block length. De Weerd: Block length. I don't know. It was just an uneducated guess at a solution. Cronin: I had -- this was brought up at the neighborhood meeting and I went ahead and called Lori Den Hartog at Ada County Highway District and expressed to her the concern with this and the fact that that would be an extremely long cul-de-sac coming in here and she said ACHD likes the interconnectivity of it, you know, through the subdivision, more than one access point out, especially when you have got a natural barrier of the canal itself and currently we just want to cross it at one point and that way Meridian City Council May 23. 2006 Page 37 of 74 you're not having everything stem within the subdivision directly out to here. Now, the majority of these lots -- I would say somewhere in this vicinity, will exit or potentially exit out to Mesa Way, whereas these would continue out here, so a potential for a lot of traffic is not as if this individual would be exiting out there, so I did speak with someone at Ada County Highway District regarding that and how -- and, then, also as Anna said, there is a variance need requested and that's a pretty substantial length. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Is there any way the existing house stays -- is there any way -- how far if we -- if we move it -- yeah, a hundred feet, is that going to go -- is that going to help get the lights out of the living room? Is there enough room there at that existing house that you could drop that road down -- I know it would enlarge your lot to the north and probably take your lot to the south down a little bit, but, you know, how many feet do you have to move it? It's going to be pretty tough to move their entryway and stuff I would think. I mean it looks like their house is set for that entryway and if you change it around, then, their -- and I don't feel that -- you sound like you want to work with them. I don't feel that it's something that they should be penalized while -- for this development and I think it's something that we can work through in this development. Cronin: Yeah. And I wish I had that slide, I had printed it off that had the overlay of the subdivision on the existing aerial photo and it's further north than I really thought and another reason we -- I mean not -- if anything, I think they'd prefer to move it north and in doing so they still didn't think that the -- that moving it 30 some feet would even help it, so -- but I believe there might be a little bit of adjustment to see how far north we could get it to go and still meet the roadway requirements for Ada County Highway District. Bird: Well, the nice thing about it, the developer and the neighbors are willing to work through it. Nobody is being hardheaded about it. De Weerd: Tell me if this light shaded area, is that a flood plain? Cronin: Five hundred zone X in the FEMA designation and this blue area here, which is the Ten Mile, is the one hundred year flood plain and currently our layout shows one or two lot corners sitting there and Mr. Cole of Meridian Public Works spoke of it last time, that, one, you just slide those lot lines south so they are not in that hundred year or we would be required to get a -- to have a flood certification completed. So, once that's identified further, we are not going to be within the flood plain, so -- but this is 500 year on their designation. De Weerd: And when was the last flood? Are you okay with that, Len? Grady: Madam Mayor -- Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 38 of 74 De Weerd: It was 499 years ago. Grady: I was briefed just before -- just before this meeting and, apparently, we have looked at it and concur with what he said, so -- De Weerd: So, what he said, uh? Grady: They either need to adjust those lines or confirm that there is no impact on the flood way. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: That will be stated on the final plat, so that all purchasers of lots and stuff don't get any surprises or don't have some real estate person telling them they are not in the flood plain. Grady: I think that's an excellent idea. Bird: Thank you. De Weerd: Did -- Len, just one more thing. Did we do test drills? What is the water situation out there? High water table? Will we have issues with water underneath the homes or anything like that? Cronin: We did contact MTI and we had them do a preliminary ground report -- or groundwater report based on what they had seen in the area and they indicated from their previous knowledge that there was instances of shallow groundwater anywheres from one to three feet and as we move forward, if we move forward, a complete geotechnical investigation would be taken forth and find out where the exact groundwater table is and I believe the City of Meridian's requirement is -- is a three foot separation from the crown within the roadway to the high water ground table water. So, at that point if we had to bring the roadways up to meet that requirement, the lot fill would be the same to alleviate having I guess crawl spaces in danger of high groundwater fluctuating. De Weerd: So, no basements. Cronin: No. Definitely not. De Weerd; Any other questions from Council? Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 39 of 74 Bird: I have none. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Cronin: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, if there is no further information needed, I would entertain a motion to close. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we close the Public Hearing on Items 13 and 14. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close on Items 13 and 14. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Any discussion or do I have a motion? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I will make a motion and try to include all the things that we have talked about. I move that we approve Item 13, AZ 06-014, to include applicant's specific comments regarding temporary fencing, direct construction -- preferred construction entrance off of Victory. The applicant's agreement to off-site improvements to adjacent property west in an effort to mitigate specific light intrusion. I think that covers most everything. And to address these in the development agreement. Bird: I will second that. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve with the changes as noted. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Item 14. Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 40 of 74 Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we approve Item 14, PP 06-002. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 14. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 15: Public Hearing: AZ 06-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 58.56 acres from RR to R-4 (32.86 acres), TN-C (14.54 acres) and C-C (11.16 acres) for Kniqht Sky Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC - northwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Under Road: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval Item 16: Public Hearing: PP 06-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 126 residential lots (22 townhouse lots and 102 detached single-family lots), 7 commercial lots and 26 common lots on 55.83 acres in a proposed R-4, TN-C and C-C zones for Knight Sky Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC - northwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Under Road: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Items 15 and 16 are public hearings, AZ 06-005 and PP 06-004. I will open this with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Knight Sky Estates project. It's located on the northwest corner of Chinden and Under Road. It is an annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat request. The project includes the annexation and zoning of 58.56 acres to -- and that's broken out into three zones. One is R-4 and that would be 32.86 acres. TNC, which is 14.54 acres. And C-C, which would be 11.16 acres. This would be the R-4 designation. The TNC designation. And the C-C designation. The preliminary plat would give approval for 126 residential building lots, seven commercial building lots, and 26 common lots on 55.83 acres. Approximately 9.1 acres or 16 percent of the site is being set aside for open space. 6.2 of that -- 6.2 percent of that open space is considered usable. The rest of the open space is either used for street buffers or drainage areas. The gross residential density is 2.26. I was going to add the residential density for the R-4 area and I -- perhaps the applicant can include that as part of his discussion. I think it was around three. The proposed commercial square footage, even though they are proposing some commercial lots and those are the kind of dark green area here, they have not provided any specific site plans at this time. It would provide about 12 acres of commercial property. The Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 41 of 74 applicant is proposing one access to Chinden Road at the half mile. There is no need for the variance, because it is at the half mile. And it aligns with Long Lake Way in Lochsa Falls Subdivision. You can see that access point coming out here. Staff has recommended some provisions to be included within a development agreement, other than the standard ones. Those include that all future development of the TNC and the C-C zoned lots be subject to design review approval. And part of that is because all of them face a state highway, so that's required anyway. And that all TNC lots contain structures that are at least two stories tall. That prior to issuance of any building permit the subject property be subdivided. So, before any new projects go through that the -- that the plat does get completed and approved. The only one public access had no direct lot access to Chinden Boulevard would be allowed. And, then, prior to signature on the final plat at the last phase of the development by the city engineer, the applicant shall obtain a 20 foot wide sanitary sewer easement through the out parcel located in the northwest corner of the property and -- or to coordinate with the Public Works Department on an acceptable alternative plan to facilitate decommissioning the lift station when gravity sewer is available to the site. So, as you can tell from that condition they are proposing a lift station and it is a concern of the Public Works Department that that be able to come off line when gravity sewer is available. And I'll let Len speak in a moment if he has additional information on that point. The Commission recommendation was for approval at their April 6th hearing. Shawn Nickel and Brian Martin spoke in favor of the application. Allen Ward, Larry Woodard, Faud Rothani, Brad Larsen, Ken Mallea, Tom Holloway, and Lydia Agare spoke in opposition and no one commented. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the density, traffic, sewerability, and decommissioning the proposed temporary lift station and irrigation water service to Brandt Subdivision, which is just north of this property. You can see that it's a single loaded road, kind of an in and out there, and a number of large estate lots. These are smaller estate lots in this area just south of it. Key Commission changes to the staff's initial recommendation were they deleted the requirement for a stub street to the north and that was into the five acre Almaden Subdivision. I'm sorry. This one's Brandt. This one's Almaden. And the other change was to the development agreement and it was per the applicant's offer and that was -- that offer was to construct a six foot tall solid fence along the entire boundary of the subdivision. Mr. Nickel also offered to provide irrigation water to the homeowners in Brandt Subdivision, in addition to the -- those were -- offerings were included in the development agreement. The outstanding issues for City Council, one is the need for the easement through the out parcel on the northwest corner. That parcel is part of the Spurwing development and that would tie into that subdivision. Administrative issues pertaining to United Water serving this development. As you are aware, City Council decided that the United Water would serve everything north of Chinden and this would -- this is the first application north of Chinden that the Council has considered. Clarification on how irrigation water will be provided to the Brandt Subdivision homeowners. And also the applicant did submit a revised preliminary plat, which incorporated most of the changes required by staff. However, it added three residential lots and it was -- we had asked for kind of a reconfiguration of this area of the townhouse area, so that it met the -- qualified as a MEW design, so that it could take advantage of the private streets and in doing that they -- they had to shuffle things around and to make it work you really need to add Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 42 of 74 three units, but they have shown those three units, but staff has added a specific condition of approval that they not have more than 126 building lots, because that's what the application came in. So, they'd have to come in for a future application for those additional lots. So, staff further recommends that one of the townhouse groupings that contains four dwellings be platted as one large lot. So, basically, where these are townhouses, one of those that shows four -- and they are on the end here -- needs to just be platted as one lot and, then, they can come in and re-subdivide it later. And with that I will turn it over to Mr. Grady. Grady: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I did speak briefly with the applicant this afternoon and just a couple of issues. Like Anna mentioned, the easement issue we want to make sure that we are not boxed in and have that temporary lift station for perpetuity. So, we either need to come up with that easement or lift -- move the lift station around that out parcel or whatever combination they can come up with to insure that that doesn't dead end there. In addition, we would like the homeowners association to own and operate that lift station. And, third, it is to come up with an acceptable assurance for abandonment of that lift station and the pressure sewer that goes along with that. The United Water issue, just some clarification. We don't actually have a final agreement north of Chinden. It's -- at this point we are -- we took that agreement in two steps and the second step is to finalize that agreement. So, at this point ifs really more of a gentleman's agreement that they have backed off of the south and we have backed off of the north. But we don't have an actual final agreement with United Water north of Chinden, so clarification there. De Weerd: Thank you, Len. Any questions for staff? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: May I address that? [-- because I didn't think -- ] didn't think we would ever set any standard with United Water. I get a real heartache. If we are going to sewer, we are going to water. Any agreement we had talked to them before -- before this area north of Chinden, any of it was put into our impact area -- was asked to be put into our impart area. I have a real problem with somebody else supplying water and us doing the sewer. Especially when it's our people or our impact area, our city limits, which they are asking for now. So, that's one councilman's viewpoint. De Weerd: Councilman Bird, I guess what Mr. Grady was talking about is when they brought the map -- pretty much the most -- most of the discussion was south of our area of impact and this was one area that was the piece that we said United Water could serve, since they were already over there. And that was just a couple months ago. That's -- when we had that discussion -- Grady: That's correct. They have facilities in that area. It was more or less a trade. They backed off of the Black Rock and all of that south area. In return, like I say, they Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 43 of 74 do have services readily available there. We didn't at that time. So, that was the trade off with United Water and we would have to -- we have discussed and are pushing forward with working with -- towards a franchise agreement with United Water. We felt it was one of those that will -- it just wasn't worth the fight on that one. And like I say, in exchange for the south area. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: If we are going to -- if you're going to make an agreement with them, let's make sure the agreement is -- that once the water gets out on North Meridian Road to Chinden that the Catholic Church goes away from them and comes to us. Grady: Interesting enough, the Catholic -- I spoke with the Catholic Church here not too long ago and they expressed interest in our sewer system and converting back over to our water system. Bird: Okay. De Weerd: Is that enough? Do you have any -- Bird: I don't agree with it, but it's enough right now. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Any other questions for staff at this point? Okay. Is the applicant here? Nickel: Thanks again, Madam Mayor and Council Members. Shawn Nickel, 839 East Winding Creek, Suite 201, in Eagle. De Weerd: Thank you. Nickel: Representing the developer of the Knight Sky Subdivision. I passed out a packet to you this evening that just shows some concepts of single family, the townhouse product, the clubhouse, and the entranceway, just for your viewing. Thank staff for providing the information in the staff report to you. They did a very thorough job. We are asking for annexation with an R-4, and TNC, and a C-C zoning to allow for this high end mixed use development. We designed this development, you can see, to transition from busy Highway 20-26 as it moves north, providing transitional with the townhouses, the office and commercial, and, then, single family detached along that transition to the larger subdivision lots that are to our north and to our east. The townhouses and -- there is a picture in there, the concept plan, if Anna wants to put that up, please. The townhouses will be attached -- the townhouses will be attached, will be alley loaded. Each of them will face common area and water features. That was one of the revisions that your staff had recommended that we came through with at -- prior to P&Z was to provide that those MEW-type concepts and in your packet I have some Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 44 of 74 examples of how those MEWs look with the attached units fronting onto them. The office and commercial will also be high quality and will be -- will attract such uses as professional offices, light retail, restaurant, and a fuel station on the corner of Under and Chinden. Here is an example on the screen there of how the MEWs look, only our views will have -- actually have water features inside of them. But as you can see, the units will face out on that open space. The garages will be in the back, accessed through a private alleyway. The transportation system is designed with a collector -- Anna, could you put back up the site plan? I'm sorry. There you go. Thanks. The transportation system is designed to meet ITD's requirements of a backage road. This would be a collector road that would connect from Linder and out to the existing light that's at Long Lake at the half mile where Lochsa comes in on the other side of this street. The internal access has been designed based on discussions with the fire department, specifically for emergency access within that loop road system. And the cul-de-sacs are designed providing access to all those single family lots. And these are the private roads that go around the townhouse portion of the project. Again, the single family homes in the north area will be upper end quality. I did provide you with some examples in your packets. The open space is designed around this area right here. As you can see, we have pathways throughout connecting all the cul-de-sacs and focusing on this center area that has, in addition to water features, a clubhouse, park area here and here, and a swimming pool, that will be accessed by all the residents of the development. In addition, I have provided you with just an example of the water features that you will see at the intersection of the northwest corner of Under and Chinden. We are viewing this as a gateway type of development, the gateway to Meridian, so those examples that I gave you you can see I just put a little welcome to Meridian -- De Weerd: Anna, do you want to put that on there? Nickel: A little welcome to Meridian sign on the one that is actually going to be on the southwest corner of the intersection that this developer is also doing, welcome to Meridian right there. This is just an example of what that corner will look like across street and, then, on the northwest side that we are talking about tonight, water feature with that entrance quality look to it. Borton: Shawn? Nickel: Yes, sir. Borton: Could I interrupt just a second? Nickel: Absolutely. Borton: based on that picture you just had up there, I just wanted to ask you a question about and I know it came up before. Is the applicant in agreement to provide -- I guess in this case on the northwest corner, provide that gateway consistent with the gateway committee that's -- Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 45 of 74 Nickel: Absolutely. Borton: -- deciding that issue? Nickel: Yeah. Borton: And that's not necessarily -- is that what that's going to look like? Nickel: No, It's just to give you an example of how it could look. We will work in coordination with that committee. Absolutely. Borton: Okay. Thank. Nickel: Sorry, Anna. Can you jump back to the site plan? Regarding the transitional lots, a lot of consideration was given to the lots around the perimeter, specifically with the one acre lots in Brandt Estates and the five lots to the north of the project that are existing, what we did we tried to keep the eastern boundary at a minimum of 10,000 square foot lots and we tried to keep the ratio at about one and a half for every one lot that existed along the boundary right there to provide as much transition to those existing neighbors. On the north side -- these are five acre lots. Quite long. So, we kept the lots that are immediately adjacent to those lots at approximately a half acre in average and, then, along these open space areas in the corners we kept those and one of the requests from your Planning and Zoning Commission staff was to keep those at a minimum of 15,000 square feet. So, we lost one lot prior to Planning and Zoning and made up for them with adding those other existing lots on the boundary. We have been working with the neighbors, both the neighborhood meeting and sat down with a couple of them off and on and, then, after the ACHD meeting and the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings, just to keep trying to get their input on the development, what can we do to enhance their quality of life, because as we know they were there first, we are coming in, we are trying to be a compatible neighbor. So, issues of berming, fencing, we removed a pathway along the north boundary per the request of the neighbors to the north. Again, staff indicated to fence the entire boundary with a six foot solid fence. We have agreed to provide irrigation to the Brandt Subdivision. And, then, clarifications were made at the Planning and Zoning Commission and, then, again, after with the neighbors in the hallway about how drainage would be taken care of. And if you have any additional questions, Brian Martin from Toothman-Orton is available. He's the engineer for the project. And he can come up and address those questions. Traffic seems to be the major concern -- or one of the major concerns out in this area, as it is everywhere in the valley. A traffic study was performed by the developer -- or hired by the developer and turned into ACHD and the city. The projected levels of this development were acceptable by ACHD. I believe you have a copy of that in your staff report. We submitted a request to ITD to have a right-in, right-out only access at the quarter mile on Chinden and were rejected by that. We thought that it would be nice to have another -- at least a right-in, right-out out at that point. ITD said no. So, we removed that from our plan. Still, we feel that with the access to this existing stop light Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 46 of 74 here on Chinden and the access and the spacing that we have provided between the corner of -- or the intersection of Chinden and our entrance, that we have provided a safe traffic system for this development. In addition, we are providing the full one hundred foot right of way along our entire frontage on Chinden, as requested by lTD. We are also providing additional right of way along Linder. We are constructing a left turn lane as was requested by our highway -- or by our traffic study. In addition to other improvements along Linder, including detached sidewalk. Again-- De Weerd: Shawn? Nickel: Yes. De Weerd: Can I ask you -- did you say you're donating the right of way on 20-26? Nickel: We are providing the right of way. We are -- I guess we are donating it, because there is no -- nothing in place for them to purchase that, so we are providing with the platting of this development that hundred feet from center line along the entire frontage of -- I'm sorry. We are setting it aside for future acquisition, I guess. De Weerd: It would sure be nice if you donated it. Nickel: I think they heard you. However, we are -- assuming that that will go some day to ITD, we designed our development to exclude -- De Weerd: Well -- and the reason I'm saying that is we have pulled together a group from Meridian to Caldwell that is working to escalate this as a priority. In order for us to do that, we have to come up with certain match money, which we are working with a congressional appropriations request right now and that was one of the mechanisms to convincing Congress that this would be a worthy project, so -- and that's the only reason I'm asking. Nickel: I'm not even going to turn around and look at them -- De Weerd: Okay. Nickel: -- because I know that they will work with the city and ITD when it's appropriate to get -- so that portion gets transferred somehow. De Weerd: Thank you. You didn't get shot yet. Nickel: No. No. The concerns of your staff -- we did submit a revised preliminary plat. I think we addressed most of the concerns of the city staff, including the redesign of the townhouse areas. We did remove the stub to the north that was testified negatively by the neighbors. They did not want a stub to the north. ACHD also did not recommend that stub. So, the Planning and Zoning Commission did take that out. We also scaled back -- the staff had requested that we just keep the corner as the community Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 47 of 74 commercial zone and have the rest of it be the TNC and so we accommodated that and we will accommodate that with our rezone legal description. So, that TNC will stop right there and this will be the community commercial just on the corner. And added a stub street to the three acre out parcel that Spurwing currently owns in this area right here. We did talk to Len this afternoon and Brian Martin also talked to him and we will work with Public Works on determining the exact location of that lift station. Staff is recommending that we do a development agreement with this application and so I think that's the perfect place to put that type of language on the decommissioning of that lift station at a future date, that the developer and the city would be in agreement upon -- through that contract. And we can talk -- we can talk about that in more detail if you have any questions about that. But we will work with your Public Works Department on setting up the maintenance, setting up the decommissioning of the lift station. And, finally, the Comprehensive Plan as you know was recently changed in this area to a combination of medium density residential and mixed use, with an anticipated density of the three to eight dwelling units per acre. And, again, this development as designed is 2.26 dwelling units per acre. The comment that you had from your Planning and Zoning Commission about density was they were complimenting us on the fact that we did have a lower density than what was -- what we could have asked for based on the Camp Plan designation. I think we have got a nice development here. I think it's something that's going to do the city proud and I would request that you approve it this evening. Thank you very much. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Shawn, I think you said it, but might have missed it. Are these areas -- are those bermed areas or are those open sort of -- Nickel: These will actually be a combination of landscape and drainage areas back in the back right here. It will be open and, like I said, landscaped, but there is some drainage that will be back there as well. Borton: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Nickel: Thank you. De Weerd: I do have a number of people that have signed up. When I call your name if you'd like to provide testimony, please, come forward. Allen Ward. Signed up against. Okay. Thank you. If you will, please, state your name and address. Meridian City Council May 23,2006 Page 48 of 74 Ward: Allen Ward. 6598 North Barney Lane, Meridian, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Ward: A couple of concerns -- well, a few concerns I have is, first off, I'd like to say that we are not -- I Jive in Brandt Subdivision. We are not opposed to development of the property, I'm just opposed to, basically, the density and the traffic that's going to be there. Density is when the first -- first and only meeting that I knew of that the developers met with us, they said that they were putting half acre lots in there and a 10,000 square foot lot to me isn't a half acre, but we would like to see that -- these are half, these five. These are all 10,000 feet and smaller, I guess. What we would like to see is -- all the residents would like to see at least one acre lots, minimum 40,000 square feet, backing up to the subdivisions that are there already, just because that's the real community that we have already and if you want to go -- we'd like to see the whole development in one acre lots, but if we can't do that, we would like to see at least the perimeter all one acre with a minimum of 40,000 feet and the interior as half acre lots, only nothing smaller. Traffic is a big concern, because Under right now, as you know, is very busy. It backs up clear back to here on -- in the morning and the evenings and here passed this light in the evening, the light -- the traffic is there already and my understanding is this development will put almost 4,000 cars a day through here. The proposed big box store here is -- will put an entrance right there and they are proposing 10,000 cars there a day. This commercial here is proposing about five or -- I believe it's seven -- I don't know for sure -- here and, then, they are proposing another big box store on this corner. So, you can see the traffic is going to be a big deal and if they make this five lanes, which they are proposing, it's going to be really hard to get into our subdivision and, then, if you put all these cars into here -- and by making this bigger lots, you reduce the traffic down to less than a thousand cars that come in and out through that subdivision. I'd also like to propose that this road here be moved that comes in and it comes along here, so you put it along the residential lots that are there, so the existing homes have to deal with the noise and the lights and the -- all hours of the night and -- but that's up here out of the way and so that I'd rather have -- if this has to be -- I don't remember the zoning they have, but like a restaurant or a dentist's office, I'd rather see the back of that versus roads and pedestrians that come through here all hours of the night against our properties that have been there for awhile. These drainage ponds here, I don't understand, I guess, why they put them up against existing subdivisions. They could put those in their subdivision, so that we don't have to deal with the runoff. The -- I live right here. My well is about 15 feet off the property line there. They say that that is a safe drainage pond. I would agree with that, but there always is that possibility of failure right next to a well. And if this is going to be a gas station, all pavement mostly, any runoff is going to go there and eventually some year that's going to fail, then -- De Weerd: Sir, if you can summarize your remarks. Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 49 of 74 Ward: Oh, I'm done? Oh, I'm sorry. So, basically, larger lots to reduce traffic. Move this road to here, so it's not up here. Consolidate the drainage ponds somewhere within the subdivision over here, so that the existing people don't have to deal with the traffic, the water, and all the problems that they don't want with inside here. De Weerd: And, sir, if you could -- can you point where -- which lot is yours? Ward: Sorry. I shake too much. De Weerd: Thank you. Ward: Thank you. De Weerd: Any questions, Council? Okay. Thank you. Lydia Agare. Signed up against. Agare: Mayor de Weerd and Council Members, I live on 1895 Almaden, so I'm on the northeast corner of the subdivision that they are proposing and -- Nary: Name? Agare: -- I'm fine with development going in. Nary: Name for the record. Agare: I just -- De Weerd: I gave her name. Nary: Okay. Agare: I just think that the density issue is the only issue that I have. I would like to propose two acres along our five acre subdivision. We have livestock. We have horses. Our whole subdivision is five acres. So, to have that kind of density next to five acre lots I think is much too dense. So, what we are proposing -- what I'd like to propose is two acre lots on the perimeter and one acre lots in the center. But the rest of the subdivision I don't have a problem with. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Agare: Thank you. De Weerd: I believe it's Jane Lee or Jan Lee-- Lee: Jim Lee. Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 50 of 74 De Weerd: Jim. Sorry. I couldn't read your printing. Lee: I'm Jim Lee. I live at 1895 Almaden, which in the northeast corner on a five acre sub. De Weerd: Thank you. Lee: Good evening, Madam Mayor and City Council Members. Just a few deals here. We all knew that growth was coming and the traffic issues and all the complaints. We have all heard them all. So, I'm opposed to this project only to the density. These guys have been pretty decent guys to work with. I think they will do a good job. I just -- if you look at Chinden as you come down -- if you start at Eagle Road you have Banbury, one acre, one and a half acre. You go next to Spyglass, one and a half acres. You're headed west. Next one is Canterbury, I believe. One and a half. One acre. Then, you get to Fox Tail. Same situation. And, then, you come to this deal and that's, really, my only gripe about it is the density and they have agreed to -- up on the north corner, north borderline there, to increase the size of lots to half acre, but I'd like to see those larger. The fellow before me said you have got the box store coming in. On the northeast corner there is a new high school going on South Under. So, just the way this thing is is probably 140 lots, so there is 300 cars a day that we are throwing into the mess of Under and Chinden already. And so by reducing that -- you know, increasing the lot size, maybe we would reduce some of the cars. But, anyway, that's about all I have to say. Thank you for your time and consideration. De Weerd: Thank you. Lee: And, Mr. Bird, I liked your idea about the construction fence. So, I'd like to put in that here, too, because we are going to be fighting that northbound border. De Weerd: Thank you. Larry Woodard. Woodard: My name is Larry Woodard. I live at 1701 Almaden. I'm in one of the five acre lots right there on Linder. They have already talked about the density issue, so I won't cover that. But here is a broader picture that I'd like to paint and that is at the corner of Under and Chinden now is a problem and with Eagle coming with this big box store on the northeast corner, this subdivision on the northwest and other mayor projects on the other two corners, we have just got a bottleneck and I'm just wondering if somehow the county, ITD, and the city -- the two cities can't get together and kind of work on this thing. Because we have got a problem now of backed up traffic all four directions and it's just going to get worse. So, that's my only concern. De Weerd: Thank you, Larry. Brad Larsen. Larsen: Madam Mayor, Council. Brad Larsen. 2306 Riviera. Also in the five acre subdivision to the north. My concerns have been addressed and so in the interest of time I will just say that, but I want to go on record as having the same concerns and -- of Meridian City Council May 23,2006 Page 51 of 74 traffic and the transition -- they made an effort to transition, but it's so out of character with everything else that's north of Chinden that it still doesn't -- doesn't really blend in with the environment that it's being placed in and so if that transition from five acre lots - - you know, you go to a half acre lot, that's a ten to one ratio right there. It just doesn't seem like it's a very smooth transition. So that's all. De Weerd: Thank you. And Evelyn Petty. No, we can bring that microphone if you can't make it up here. You do need to speak into the microphone. And if you will state your name and address for the record. Petty: Evelyn Petty. 2101 Almaden Drive. I am in the very middle of the north boundary on my five acre parcel. And my concern is the density of the whole subdivision that is being proposed. We have horses and we know that we will be developed, but not to that extent. It was mentioned the other properties along the north Chinden are acres, acre and a half, and they are nice. And we had no idea that we was going to end up with something like this in back of us. And thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Those are the names that were on the list. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this application? Sorry. Sorry, sir. If you would like to come and provide testimony, you're welcome to come forward. We can't get you on the record back there. Council? If you will, please, state your name and address. Martin: Madam Mayor and City Council Members, my name is Brian Martin. I'm with Toothman-Orton Engineering Company. One of the things I wanted to address -- maybe clarify more than anything. Could you put the site plan back up there? One of the things is that I did talk with Public Works this afternoon and one of the issues was this proposed sewer lift station that we are proposing up in this area. What we did early on with this development is we met with public works and looked at their overall sewer master plan and what it generally shows is the sewer system basically draining kind of in a northwest direction just somewhere up in this general area, up here for a future -- when this future infrastructure come into the west to be able to tie into that. And so at the P&Z level we did meet and this issue came up and so we had proposed it up in this common lot area in here, which is a -- it's a storm detention swale area that would be dry, you know, most of the time, with the exception of after a storm event and those things would typically drain, you know, 24 to 48 hours afterwards. And so what we thought we could do is just within this common lot put in a sewer lift station here, but we also agreed that certainly we have enough flexibility in here we could relocate the sewer lift station and we could easily put it, you know, further back down in this direction here. So, that when this three acre piece here is developed with Spurwing, it would be an easy transition. We had proposed a stub road up in this location. We could easily put a stub road anywhere along this area here and I think we could easily incorporate into this common lot the sewer lift station. I think one of the things that that would do is, then, in the future as this stub road is extended in the future, it would be an easy connection. We would have a -- already have a stub right there. The homeowners association -- the homeowners association is developed for the subdivision. They are willing to own and Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 52 of 74 operate the system. They would just pay somebody to maintain the system and, then, I think as part of -- most likely as part of the homeowners association dues they could also put aside some funds to be able to decommission that lift station in the future. The other issue I wanted to address -- the thing that's misstated a few times -- these areas here we have provided up in these corners some retention swales, storm water retention swales. These are not pond areas. These are areas that are -- and we, actually -- you know, the reason we actually did this was to actually provide along these larger lots an actual landscape area. These things are going to be provided with trees or shrubs, grass, and these things are going to be dry most of the time. As far as the domestic wells down in this area, by all means if -- we are going to meet any horizontal separation requirements that DEQ requires, as well as any vertical separation the DEQ requires. De Weerd: Okay. Sir, can you summarize or you can be part of the closing remarks. Martin: I think that's it. I think that's pretty much it. The only other thing I'd like to address would be both Chinden and Under are proposed for five lanes and they would - - you know, certainly as part of that they would also look specifically at all these intersections to be able to handle those specifically with turn lanes and so on. De Weerd: The only problem is it's a matter of when, so -- Martin: I believe -- I believe that Under is on -- I think it's on ACHD's five year plan. ITD -- I know that we are currently doing a traffic study along the whole corridor, a corridor study, and I think it's going to be -- at some point they will be looking to acquire that right of way, probably in the next two or three years, I'm guessing. De Weerd: We need it yesterday. Martin: I know. De Weerd: Mr. Ward, if you have a few more remarks, certainly, you're invited forward. We usually don't do this. Okay. That's fine. If you will just state your name again for the record. Ward: Allen Ward. De Weerd: Thank you. Ward: I just I guess wanted to say that Ada County is saying that they will do this here pretty quick, within five years or so, make it five lanes and Chinden to five lanes. My concern is that when they do that, the commercial here is going to be really hard to get in and out, this street that's here, because you have got five lanes that are going to go back up into here somewhere and with this proposed store here and an entrance to that, they are going to match it up to here they say with this street here, so you will have traffic trying to go in here and in here and they have admitted that maybe there is a Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 53 of 74 concern that these are going to be hard to sell lots, because the traffic -- you can't get in and out. So, I'm back to this street here, I guess, again, saying that a lot of the traffic's going to come here and with these being commercial all hours of the night you have lights, delivery trucks, garbage trucks, backed up against a subdivision there that there is light shining all hours of the night and stuff and, then, these -- also that these can be two story buildings up to -- I don't know how many square feet, 20,000 I think I read. So, you have these big large buildings here with lots of lights and stuff up against a residential small subdivision. That's alii wanted to add. De Weerd: Thank you. Ward: Thanks. De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further testimony? Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Anna. Do you want to provide testimony? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members -- just to comment on one of the questions that was raised. Council may not be aware of it. One of the developers that is proposing development along north of Chinden is trying to organize a group of developers to proactively get some of the road improvements done, working with ACHD to see if they can expedite some of those improvements. So, it's nothing concrete yet, but there was that concern expressed and I wanted the Mayor and Council to know that there is one developer taking the lead to try and get some of that done. De Weerd: And that goes as well to the cities along Chinden, 20-26, it's been recognized this is a problem, folks, and certainly we need to do everything we can to escalate it as a priority for lTD and I certainly know that they have a full plate and limited funds that the group from Meridian to Caldwell and all of the highway districts are banning together to see what we can do to make this a higher priority. Thank you for that notation, Anna. Okay. Would the developer like to come -- Grady: Madam Mayor, just real quick, just one clarification that I wasn't sure I heard as far as abandonment of the lift station and pressure sewer. They were considering putting that over onto the homeowners association. That might be kind of a surprise for people to have to do that. We were kind of looking for some bonding for surety for that. I think it's reasonable for the homeowners association to own and operate it, but the abandonment is -- may be unreasonable, so you may consider that. De Weerd: Thank you. Closing remarks. Nickel: Thank you, again, Madam Mayor and Council. Shawn Nickel again for the record. The concerns of the density and traffic are well known by the developer. We-- from day one in the design of this through our first neighborhood meeting we knew we Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 54 of 74 had a challenge to transition this existing area. One thing I'd like to point out is if you know anything about the nonfarm development process in Ada County, you're starting to see some of these come back in front of you when the open space of these developments start developing. The intent of the nonfarm development when the county was approving these was to cluster the one acre lots in one location and keep the open space intact for future development at urban densities once services were available. And that's what you're seeing in this situation. And I think you're seeing it also in the southern part of your city where you're seeing some of these nonfarm open spaces come back. So, there is always kind of a struggle to try to make these lots that we are creating in this urban area be compatible with what was approved 15 years prior. I think we have done a good job of that. When we met at our neighborhood meeting this development was actually a lot more dense. There was no -- never a plan for half acre lots on this development, with the exception of the transition lots along the north boundary. So, when you look at this and understand that the majority of the density is found right here along Highway 20-26 in those townhouses, these lots from the collector road north are a minimum of 8,000 square feet and, then, they transition up again to the half acre lots along this area right here. As Brian stated, in designing the drainage in this development, we were trying to provide as much buffering and open space as we could along this boundary and that's why we incorporated our drainage. If you have the drainage areas, these are not going to be giant, open, full standing water ponds, these are small one to two foot indentations within this open space area that's spread out, it's treated, and usually is dry most of the time, except for large rain events. Up here I think the neighbors would nod their head that they are not concerned about the drainage up there, they would prefer to have that additional buffer and that's why we designed it that way. With regards to, again, working with the neighbors, again, that's why we agreed to do a six foot high solid fence to try to eliminate some of the glare and what would come with commercial uses. With regards to two story buildings, these are going to provide a nice sound buffer to a very busy state highway to the north and so development is only going to improve that quality of life when it comes to noise and detriment from Highway 20-26. With regards to the traffic, we are in a very -- I have said this a couple times already -- are in a very unique situation here where you guys -- and you guys are seeing three corners, but we are seeing all four of these corners come in relatively at the same time to develop -- at least to design the development. About two months ago the four developers met with ITD and ACHD and we talked about the four corners and the improvements that each developer would be providing. I think that needs to be taken into consideration that all four of these corners within the next year to two are going to be providing right of way, partial improvements, turn lanes within the four corners and that's going to help that traffic in this general area. As far as the traffic as it goes out and it goes north and south, it's kind of -- it's a valley concern that we all get stuck in in traffic no matter where we are at. The developers and the builders are paying impact fees. The impact fees are set up to provide for future widenings and improvements of the street system, but I think everybody is overwhelmed and I applaud the Mayor, because I know she has been working on 20-26 as kind of a pet project to get the developers -- and I would -- I'll get with Anna afterwards and find out who -- what developer is trying to lead the charge to get these improvements sooner. I think my Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 55 of 74 developers here would also entertain that and try to, you know, get involved with that and see what can be done. De Weerd: Either that or we are going to have the developers the crossing guards to move traffic out in the intersection. That's to save money. Nickel: Right. And that's about all I have. If you have any -- if you have any other questions, again, I think we have taken our time and we have listened to what the neighbors had to say and we have got a very nice responsible development here that I believe meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Shawn, tell me up on the north what size lots those are. Nickel: On the north side? Bird: Yeah. That abut up to the five acre lots. Nickel: These three right here that back up to the open spaces are 15,000 square feet. We have got a 22,600 square foot lot here. Twenty-two thousand three here. Twenty- one thousand nine. Nineteen thousand 400. And, then, 15,000 along this. Bird: So, basically, you have got to half acres and, then, we get smaller? Nickel: Correct. Bird: Thank you very much. De Weerd: Any other questions? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Shawn, are those -- did you say 15,000 all along that -- Nickel: Fifteen thousand -- no. Fifteen thousand here and, then, these are 11 and 10 thousand. Borton: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions, Council? Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 56 of 74 Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Shawn, will you -- Brandt Subdivision, are those one acre lots? Is that what somebody asked? De Weerd: Thank you. Nickel: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'd like to just -- the applicant has offered to put a six foot solid fence around the whole property. With regard to trash and stuff, I'd like to see that in the development agreement as a condition before any construction is started, if that is acceptable with the applicant. That will solve a lot of heartaches and phone calls from neighbors. I think the applicant's agreeable to that. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council that is a standard requirement. If they don't have a permanent perimeter fence we require construction fencing around any phase of a final plat. Bird: Before any building's done? Canning: Any vertical construction. Bird: Okay. De Weerd: Mr. Bird, does that answer that question? Bird: Yeah, it does. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Any other comments or questions for staff? Okay. I still have an open Public Hearing. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we close the public hearings on Items 15 and 16. Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 57 of 74 Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Items 15 and 16. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we approve Item 15, AZ 06-005 and to enter into a development agreement per staff recommendations and to include provisions by the developer for a six foot solid fence, in addition to include all statements from Public Works. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 15. Do [ have a second? Bird: I will second it. De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion? Okay. Hearing none, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Item 16. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we approve Item 16, PP 06-004, preliminary plat and to include additional staff comments with regard to the townhouse lots. Is that correct? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the current conditions of approval do address that. Wardle: In the current conditions of approval. Thank you. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 16. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg? Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 58 of 74 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Items 17 and 18 are public hearings on AZ 06-010 and PP 06-008. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments. Canning: Just a moment, Madam Mayor. Mr. Wardle, I was -- I spoke in error. Apparently, Mr. Hood had asked you to add that as a provision for the maximum 126 residential lots. J'm sorry. I had read the incorrectly. I don't -- this is on the past item. I'm not sure what you want to do. De Weerd: Mr. Nary? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you can move to reconsider your decision, since you have just made it, and include that if you wish. De Weerd: I think someone would have to go out and get the public and applicant, so-- if Council wishes to. Bird: Yeah. That's a big change. It might not change anything in our voting, but-- De Weerd: It is what was discussed. Bird: Yeah, it was what was discussed, but it's -- De Weerd: Okay. I did open Items 17 and 18. I will set them aside while we gather the former applicants or the applicant for the former -- Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: While we do that, procedurally, I move that we reconsider our decision on PP 06-004. Bird: I would second that. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion for reconsideration of Item 16. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Item 16 is up for reconsideration by a motion from Council and a second and all ayes. I would need to open the Public Hearing on this item. No? Wardle: Madam Mayor, I don't believe so. Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 59 of 74 De Weerd: Okay. Nary: You don't need to, because all you have is a motion to do. You don't have to take testimony. Bird: Just redo the motion. De Weerd: Okay. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we approve Item 16, PP 06-004, and to include all staff comments specific to the townhouse lots and to restrict this preliminary plat and final plat to a maximum of 126 lots. Is that correct? Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. You heard the motion. Any discussion? Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 17: Public Hearing: AZ 06-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.50 acres from RUT to a R-4 zone for Cardigan Bay Subdivision by Big River, LLC - 5450 and 5500 Larkspur Way: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 06-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 28 building lots and 3 common lots on 11.50 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Cardigan Bay Subdivision by Big River, LLC - 5450 and 5500 Larkspur Way: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Items 17 and 18. Public hearings. I will open with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, sorry about that last one, by the way. This is the Cardigan Bay project. It's located east of Larkspur Way. And, then, west of Locust Grove. And north of Ustick -- McMillan. It is an application for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat approval. Just to give you some reference points, there was a project approved just to the south and recently one approved to the north. This is an old preliminary plat layer. They don't seem to go away. We haven't quite figured out how to make them go away, but where it looks like the stub street doesn't connect, it does. This is Tustin Subdivision. And, then, this is the Grant Lee property. So, the Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 60 of74 actual subdivision is shown -- hard to see the boundaries. It comes down here and across like that. Is that correct? No. It's -- yes. That's correct. Sorry. It is 11.5 acres. In their original application proposed an R-4 zoning and there will be a little bit of discussion about that. The preliminary plat approval consists of 28 single family residential lots and three common lots. And the site currently has two homes, which are proposed to remain. They have put them on separate lots. I did want to point out that the -- the real unique feature about this property is that it did have access on Larkwood Lane and when the Tustin Subdivision came through we did require a stub street to the north. Although it was of great concern to the folks in the Larkwood Subdivision, because they were concerned that this public street would connect to Larkwood Place, which is a county road, built to county road standards. So, it's not the full improvement with curb, sidewalks, gutters, and all those things. But we were able to work with the applicant and with the Ada County Highway District to continue that road through the project and to provide a pedestrian connection to Larkwood, but to not have a public street connection. So, a number of the lots -- one, two, three, four, five -- six do take direct access to Larkwood, but all the remaining properties take access within the subdivision, which will connect to the north. And I wanted to point this out, because I think this question came up last week in a project -- the Hendrickson project that you saw and I wanted to show you that it does work providing those stub streets. We can work with the applicant and with ACHD to make those effective connections over time. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard this on April 20th -- or made their recommendation for approval at that time. At the Public Hearing Shari Stiles representing the applicant spoke in favor. No one spoke in opposition and no one commented. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were to change the zone of the lots fronting Larkwood Place. As I mentioned previously, they did originally request that the entire property be zoned R-4. We have asked that the properties that faced Larkwood have an R-2 zoning, which better reflects the actual size of the proposed lots. So, it would be two different zoning categories. And, then, with that would be a required minimum living area of 15,000 square feet. To our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council and I would answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any questions from Council? Would the applicant like to come forward. McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, in Eagle. I'm representing the applicant in this particular application. I know it's late, so I will be quick and brief, as much as possible. As Anna indicated, the parcel is in this configuration. There are two existing homes. These are estate-type homes that are consistent with the other homes that are along Larkwood, which is what we call kind of rural residential feel. There is no curb, gutter, or sidewalk on Larkwood Drive. In the neighborhood meeting we held with the residents of Larkwood, it was their request that we not make any vehicular connection to their subdivision and that we not install a discontinuous section of curb, gutter, and sidewalk. They thought it would ruin that rural feel that they have had out there over the past 15 years. Ada County Highway District was in agreement with us. I would like to mention in your staff report on page -- on 1.3.1 it Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 61 of 74 talks about sidewalks shall be installed in the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision, pursuant to UDC 11-3A-17. I want to make sure that although ACHD staff report clearly states that curb, gutter, and sidewalk is waived along our frontage on Larkwood, I don't want the staff report from Meridian to mandate that I install that, because it was the desire of the residents. In order to get the interconnectivity we are connecting to Tustin. This is where we will get sewer and water. We also are making a connection to Basin Creek, which was approved this evening. The Findings were approved. We have a pedestrian pathway that will come through here east and west, so we will have some interconnection. I have two pocket parks. One here and one located in this location. In order to break up this straight street here, we did provide like a small island for calming reasons and esthetics, so you can't see all the way down the street and it's just a straight shot. We will have some play equipment here and other than that we are at like six percent open space. As far as our density, we are 2.44 dwelling units per acre. That's our gross density. Up here at Basin Creek that was 2.96. So, we are well below theirs. The density here -- these lots -- I think it's 1.23 dwelling units per acre if we just isolate these lots here. They range in size from 25,750 square feet, all the way up to 40,000 square feet. So, we wanted to make sure that the lots were large, the homes built on them would be consistent with what's in that existing neighborhood. Here these particular lots are a range between 9,800 square feet and 11,900 square feet. Or 91 -- excuse me, 9,100 square feet to 11,900. We have an average of about 9,800 square feet. It's kind of a puzzle piece that connects this particular area. We feel that -- that we did the best that -- with what we have got to work with. We have worked with the neighbors and the adjoining developments to make sure that this fits and we think that it kind of finishes off this particular area. Do you have any questions? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Becky, are these -- and I can't tell. Are these two entire parcels open space? Is that what you're saying? McKay: Yes, sir. Borton: Okay. McKay: Yes. We stuck those kind of in the middle to break that block up, so it would be -- this would be a common lot here and another common lot located on the other side of the street. Borton: Okay. Got you. Thanks. McKay: Oh, one other thing I did forget to mention. A fencing -- the fencing issue. This resident is here this evening. We did agree that these lots will pay association dues to the Larkwood Homeowners Association, that they will also be subject to their protective Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 62 of 74 covenants when these homes are built, so that they can -- you know, they will be consistent with the rules and regulations that currently exist within Larkwood. Fencing. We need to discuss the fencing on this lot line and this lot line. Typically we go with the urban type fencing, six foot, solid type fencing along our perimeters, but here where we have an acre lot to the south of us and, then, we have got an acre lot here to the west of us, the applicant doesn't think that that's going to fit. So, he'd like to kind of work with the neighbors, you know, maybe they want something that's more rural looking, like a pole fence or something along that line. I don't know if the Council and the staff would grant us that latitude, but I'd like that option. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we do not require perimeter fencing. So, they can propose the different types of fencing style with their final plat. McKay: Okay. Excellent. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council? Anna -- I mean, I'm sorry, Becky, the open space lots, are those also drainage lots? McKay: Yes. They would -- the storm drainage, the property slopes like this. I'm hoping we can take the drainage back this way and this way. We do not have any groundwater in this area. I think we went down 13 feet and did not hit any groundwater. So, we shouldn't have any -- if we were to go with a pond, we shouldn't have any problems with a wet bottom or we could go subsurface. We have both options here. De Weerd: So, what kind of slope are you going to have? I mean is it going to look like a borrow pit? McKay: What I have been doing in the past is -- De Weerd: I'm sorry, that was not a politically correct question, but-- McKay: Is it going to be severely depressed? De Weerd: Yes. McKay: On some of these where I -- I consider them from a planning perspective severely depressed and esthetically unpleasing and unusable, then, my recommendation to the applicant and the engineer is that we use a combination of some subsurface retention via seepage bed and, then, bring that bottom elevation up of the pond. So, instead of being like five feet deep or eight feet deep, you know, we shallow them up, so that they are more mild, like three or four. We don't have a lot of hard surface area here. All the drainage here it will be in a borrow ditch, because that's what they do on these rural residential roadways. We just have this one street to contend with. There is about I think 28,000 square feet of open space between these two lots. If a pond will be too deep and unusable, I think your ordinance does not allow us to count it as open space; is that not correct, Anna? Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 63 of 74 Canning: Correct. If it has a wet bottom or if they -- if it has slopes in excess of three to one, then, they can't count it and they need to provide it elsewhere. McKay: Correct. So, that would, then, force us to go subsurface. De Weerd: What if it's -- if I can ask this. What kind of housing product are you going to have in that -- the single street portion of it? McKay: As far as size or architecture -- De Weerd: Size and type and -- yeah, architecture. McKay: Mr. Callister may be able to address that. I think his company will be building all the homes. He wasn't ready for that. De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Callister: I'm Dave Callister, 2873 West Wind Drive in Eagle. De Weerd: Thank you. Callister: We are a long ways from that, so we don't have specific plans, but the nature of this subdivision way before we got here is very large estate homes. So, they are probably going to be in the vicinity of 4,000 plus square feet estate homes with current designs, but county feel, because that's the area that we have. So, we are simply going to try to lay those things in a setting that we have, consistent with the setting that we have, so that folks that want to be there will want to buy the homes, so -- beyond that I don't have any specific plans. We don't have current customers or anything like that, so -- De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Becky. Were there any questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. I do have one person signed up. Craig Brumer? Bruneel: Bruneel. De Weerd: It's what? Bruneel: Bruneel. De Weerd: Bruneel. Sorry. I saw that as a B-r-u-m-e-r. Bruneel: I'm Craig Bruneel. 6395 North Larkwood Place. De Weerd: It's just my job to mutilate everyone's name. I feel that since my name is easily mutilated -- I apologize. Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 64 of 74 Bruneel: Not to worry. I'm used to it. That's okay. I was just here to make certain that the lots were included in our homeowners subdivision and subject to our covenants. So, I don't have anything else to say. De Weerd: Well, thank you. Is there any additional testimony? Sir. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Battazzo: Dan Battazzo. 5306 North Larkwood. And I'm the house that you can see at the bottom of the page there adjacent to the development -- both actual new developments, the Tustin Subdivision, as well as this one. And I'll just let you know that they have worked with us to considerable level. I have been here three times now since you guys opened up the discussion on the Grant Lee property up to the north and, then, the Tustin Subdivision down to the east and south, and these guys have been the most active about making sure that they addressed all the issues that we had. We are ecstatic about not having a stinking road going through connecting to any of the subdivisions. We have been asking for that for three years and that will be very -- that goes a long way towards meeting what -- meeting the expectations that we had when we bought into the subdivision. Their addition of four lots on our street is pretty consistent with our current structure. So, we are happy with all those things and everything that we have seen so far tonight is in agreement with everything they have discussed with us. So, we appreciate it. Thanks. De Weerd: Thank you. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry, sir. Battazzo: Yeah. Wardle: There was a question of the specific fence type. Do you have a preference or- Battazzo: Well, what's there right now is -- is a three pole fence and anybody who has ever lived in that lot to my north has completely abandoned the 25 feet between myself and that fence and treated it like crap. And so it will be really pleasant to have somebody move in there that pretty much has to do something with it to make it livable. So, I don't think that fence is going to be a big issue and based on what they have done with us so far, I'll just trust that they will work with us on it. De Weerd: Thank you for your candidness. Is there any additional testimony on this application? Canning: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 65 of 74 De Weerd: Yes, Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, with regard to the development along -- the improvements along Larkwood Place, I do notice that the applicant has stated in their application that they weren't going to do anything -- Mr. Hood is very careful and if he added a condition of approval saying that they would be required to do those improvements, I'm sure that's what he intended to do. So, I don't believe staff has had an opportunity to really consider that question, but I don't believe staff -- I believe staff's response to the application is that those sidewalks were required. Now, during the final plat application, because we are quoting improvement standards for the final plat -- or for the subdivision, I believe we have the opportunity to address it there. But I believe that the way the condition stands right now that it is intended to apply our code and that staff really needs to discuss this as -- if we are doing an alternative to that code and I don't have a copy of the code in front of me. It may require a variance application, but we are certainly willing to work with the applicant, especially since ACHD has, apparently, included that in their conditions of approval, but -- De Weerd: Mr. Nary, would you have any words of wisdom to add to that? Would a variance need to be sought or is this something that can be, as Anna had mentioned, dealt with at the final plat? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean I think if you want to leave that language open as part of the conditions of approval, that that will have to be determined before final plat. I think you can do it that way. We have done it -- we have left that type of condition for later review. That's okay. De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to have final remarks? McKay: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't -- De Weerd: Becky McKay. McKay: Becky McKay. I did discuss that issue as far as the improvements on Larkwood Way with -- or Place with the staff and on our preliminary plat we did not show any curb, gutter, or sidewalk along that corridor. We showed it just as it is currently, with just a 30 foot rural section with a borrow ditch and that was based upon, you know, the wishes of the neighbors and that's what I explained to the staff, ACHD staff and Meridian staff, that the neighbors did not want this little piece of curb, gutter, and sidewalk on their rural street. They said esthetically it will be ugly. And it won't go anywhere. If we install curb and gutter, then, we have got to do something, you know, with the drainage and they have got a borrow ditch system that currently works fine, based on density and the street section that they currently have. I just, you know, wanted to make sure that it's on the record that -- that we are not required to install that based on ACHD's requirement. And I know a lot of times in these staff reports it will say, you know, comply with all requirements of Meridian's ordinance, UDC, whatever. And that hooks us in. So, I wanted to make sure that that was clear. We also at the Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 66 of 74 Planning and Zoning Commission in our comment to the staff report, Shari included a bolded statement, the Planning and Zoning Commission, stating that no curb, gutter, or sidewalk would be installed along our Larkwood frontage. So, it was also submitted in writing and responses, too, in the application. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Becky. Any questions, Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: Madam Mayor, I just-- De Weerd: Yes. Anna. Canning: I'm concerned with striking a condition of approval without knowing the consequences of that at this time. I don't mind considering it at the final stage, but if the Council wishes to strike it before they approve the preliminary plat, I guess my recommendation would be that you hold it over for a week until I can get that amended, because if it was intended to be amended and that condition was still there, that it concerns me. I suspect that because it was specifically worded to say and along the perimeter, that that was indeed, intended as a condition of approval. But we can come back to you next week. If the applicant would prefer to do it that way, but either way I don't feel comfortable just striking the condition of approval. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean I guess I would concur with Mrs. Canning. I think all she's asking is that they have a little more opportunity for an analysis of that request. Again, if you leave it open they can work with the applicant, they can get this resolved before final plat. I guess I'm not hearing from Mrs. Canning or from the planning staff that they are adverse to what's being proposed, they just want some opportunity to have that discussion again. If you leave it open for final plat approval, that's not inconsistent with what we have done in the past and that would allow the project to move forward tonight and still allow the planning staff some discussion time with the applicant. De Weerd: But I think it would leave the neighbors with the concern that it potentially could still be there. Nary: True. There is certainly that discussion. But, again, they have the opportunity 1 guess to come again, although the final plat is not a Public Hearing. So, if the concern is that you're wanting testimony about that issue, then, maybe setting it over is the best way to do that. Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 67 of74 De Weerd: So, you have two choices, Council, and I guess I would look for your direction, Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I guess since we still have an open Public Hearing, I'd like to hear the applicant's -- whether they'd like to -- obviously, we are not -- we don't have a regular meeting next Tuesday, so it would be June 6th would be the soonest we'd hear this. Becky, would you prefer to leave it open, so we can take care of it or would you rather look at final plat I guess is my question. McKay: Madam Mayor, Councilman Wardle, I guess either way would work. You know, I want to make sure that this is resolved, so we are not hashing this at the final plat where staff says, you know, our hands are tied, the Council approved the preliminary plat with the condition of perimeter sidewalk. I guess I don't understand why staff is uncomfortable modifying that condition when they are in agreement that the -- that was acceptable on Larkwood to retain that rural residential character. I guess I'm -- I don't understand -- I mean even if you leave the condition and eliminate the word perimeter, it would be done. I guess I'm not following the concern that staff has. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm sorry, Shaun -- Mr. Wardle. Sorry. My only concern is that this may require a variance. That's really all it is. Wardle: I understand. Canning: Okay. Wardle: I guess my question, Mrs. McKay, is would you prefer we resolve this two weeks from now or would you -- is that your preference or would you like -- would you like us to set this over for two weeks and have you work with staff or-- McKay: I'd like to have this resolved as soon as possible. So, probably two weeks. And, then, we can just deal with it, instead of everybody trying to remember what we did when we bring a final plat and, then, if we have to do a variance, bring a variance onto it. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. McKay: We will be first. De Weerd: It's not 2:00 a.m., so we are doing good. We don't go that late. We don't go past 11 :00. Okay. Council, what would you like to do, then? Mr. Borton, did you have something? Meridian City Councll May 23, 2006 Page 68 of 74 Borton: Well, Madam Mayor, I guess, Anna, is this -- if push comes to shove, is it a matter that staff -- some staff member or something happened that didn't get done? I mean I don't like to delay this. Two weeks -- time is money. I'm sensitive to that. So, I'm just curious is there -- is this an item that could have or should have been clarified before tonight? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, again, I suspect that this requires a variance, so it couldn't have been done tonight and won't be able to be done on the 6th either. If it does require a variance, then -- then it needs a variance. You won't be able to have any different result on June 6th. If it doesn't require a variance, then, Council could approve it if -- assuming that's the way you're going. With staff -- or applicant comments and staff comments saying that we will work toward having no street improvements along Larkspur Way, but -- I'm just concerned that that condition of approval is in there. If it were any of my staff members, other than Mr. Hood, I could assume that perhaps it was just an error, but he is quite meticulous and so I want to make sure I have an opportunity to get with him and just see what the concerns are. I understand Mrs. McKay's concerns about having hands tied before the City Council, but I think we have been good recently about bringing -- working with applicants to resolve these issues and particularly if Council leaves a little wiggle room for staff in their motion. I think we can do that. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, why -- and I think we -- I think Mr. Nary said it. We have done this before with a condition of approval and not have to go to the variance. All we'd have to do is in our -- in our condition is say no sidewalk, gutter, on Larkspur as per agreement. I don't know. And I -- you know, I want to do it right, but I'm like Mr. Borton, you know, time is money to these people. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: And maybe I either misspoke or wasn't very clear. I would concur with Mrs. Canning that I think the only question that we need to be certain from staffs perspective is whether a variance is required. If it is, then, your condition would be on June 6, if you're willing to approve this project, that prior to final plat a variance will need to be requested and they will, then, have to go through that as part of the process. I would concur with Mrs. Canning that I think my initial feeling is that a variance is going to be required. That you cannot simply condition away a development requirement that's in your code by condition. You have to require that a variance be done. I think all that the developer and the neighbors are seeking is that in two weeks knowing that answer would resolve the issue of what's going to happen next with this project, rather that just making that condition tonight that if a variance is required, they will have to seek it, and, Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 69 of 74 as Madam Mayor stated, then, the neighbors aren't going to know whether or not that's going to happen or not and because the final plat is not a Public Hearing, no one's going to know until that comes forward. So, I certainly agree with the Council that time can be critical here, but the two week delay now will probably save a lot of issues with the neighbors later, as well as the unknowing from the applicant as to what's supposed to happen. If you're in favor of it and your direction is to apply for the variance, then, they will at least know that going forward and life can go on. It is a short delay and I know you don't like delays, but this is probably going to save more in the long run if you do. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Mr. Nary, you mentioned that if a variance is required. The variance proceeding would be a Public Hearing; correct? Nary: Yes. Wardle: So, I'm just -- do we need to wait two weeks to tell me that? Could we, if the Council so chooses to, approve the application with the relinquishment of those improvements and if a variance is required, require the developer to apply for that, if not, obviously, we've had testimony from both parties that they do not require that. Does that make sense to you? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yeah, that does. I think -- I think at least if you wanted to move the project along, I guess you could condition that you could remove that requirement subject to the decision if a variance is required. If no variance is required, then, the condition can be removed by your motion. If it is required, your motion would, then, require a Public Hearing be held for it. So, that probably would suffice and it would still allow staff the opportunity to make that decision and also, again, if it does need to come back, you're right, a Public Hearing is going to be held anyway, so -- De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the public hearings on AZ 06-010 and PP 06-008. Wardle: Second. Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 70 of 74 De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close Items 17 and 18. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: A question for Mr. Nary. Is that specific to the annexation? Preliminary plat? Both? Where would you like that condition? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Wardle, I think that only is necessary on the plat. I don't believe that's an annexation condition, so -- Wardle: With that, Madam Mayor, I move we approve AZ 06-010. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 17. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we approve Item 18, PP 06-008 to remove the specific condition of curb, gutter, sidewalk improvement along Larkspur -- Larkwood. Larkwood and if a variance is required to meet those findings, that the applicant, then, obtain a variance before approval of final plat. Bird: Second that. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 18 with the amendments as stated. Is there -- Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Anna. Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 71 of 74 Canning: Clarification. Is that approval of -- we always get in a little bit of a tricky quandary on final plats. Is that prior to submittal of the final plat to the City Councilor prior to signature on the plat? I would recommend the former, I suppose. Bird: Well, yeah. Wardle: Yes. Canning: Okay. De Weerd: Yes. Wardle: Prior to submittal. Canning: Thank you, sir. Wardle: Upon staff's recommendation. De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 19: Public Hearing: AZ 06-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.65 acres from RUT to a C-G zone for Williams Pipeline by Northwest Pipeline Corporation - 1301 Locust Grove Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 19 is Public Hearing AZ 06-020. I'll open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Williams Pipeline project. Do we have an applicant? Bird: If you do, he's invisible. De Weerd: I don't see one. Everyone just left. Canning: Okay. Bird: Unless he's outside waiting for us or something. De Weerd: Clerk, were you -- Mr. Clerk, were you aware of this having an issue that would prevent it being heard tonight? Because I wasn't. Nary: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 72 of 74 De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I thought I remembered this one when we met this afternoon. We did receive an e-mail from Senior Deputy City Clerk Sharon Smith yesterday that said that there was no posting for the City Council and asked that it be tabled and rescheduled. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Do J have a motion? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Do we have a date certain for that? Nary: Two weeks should be adequate for reposting. Wardle: Madam Mayor, I move that we continue Item 19 to June 6th. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second? Bird: Yeah. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to continue Item 19 to June 6th. By the way, I did open this Public Hearing. I did. And all those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Item 21 has been removed from our agenda, so I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Bird: Madam Mayor, before we adjourn, I need to know what are we going to do on August 1 st? That's National Night Out. Are we going to do like we did last year, all get together and go out and cancel the meeting for that night or what? De Weerd: Yes. Bird: Council? De Weerd: Council? It looks like it's a go. Mr. Borton doesn't know what we talking about. National Night Out is -- Meridian City Council May 23. 2006 Page 73 of 74 Borton: I know what it is. De Weerd: Okay. Borton: I don't know what you guys do. De Weerd: We go and tour all the parties. Bird: You go eat. De Weerd: I guess we do have one other question. On July 5th we want to make sure we would have a quorum. Council, will we have a quorum on July 5th, which is a Wednesday? Bird: July 5th? De Weerd: Yes. That follows July 4th. Nary: The city code requires that if a meeting falls on a holiday, that the City Council, then, meet the next day, unless you don't have a quorum. De Weerd: Will we have a quorum? Bird: I will be here. Borton: I will be here. Bird: If I have to. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle? Wardle: I'll inform the clerk's office. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Borton: So moved. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:40 P.M. - Council -dian CIty Men 2.006 M3'12.'2>, 74 page 740\ cccO\NGS) r\cSc PRO r:: ON f\Lc Of i (1 p...P t:- ( .... - .... .... $