Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 03-06 Meridian City Council Meetina March 6. 2007 A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:05 P.M., Tuesday, March 6, 2007, by President Joe Borton. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Joe, Borton, Keith Bird, and David Zaremba. Members Absent: Charlie Rountree. Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Len Grady, Gene Trakel, Joe Silva, Caleb Hood and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X David Zaremba o Charlie Rountree X X Joe Borton X Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd Borton: Welcome, everybody. We will go ahead and get started. We will go ahead and get started. It's Tuesday, March 6th City Council meeting at about 7:18. We will begin this Council meeting with roll call attendance. Mr. Berg. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: Borton: Thank you. Item No.2, the Pledge of Allegiance. We will be led today by Blaine Moorhouse. If you will, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of allegiance recited) Item 3: Community Invocation by Bill Nary. Borton: Thank you, Blaine. Blaine, if you will come on forward. We appreciate you leading us in the pledge and we are going to give you a City of Meridian pin. Appreciate it. Item No. 3 is our community invocation. We will be led tonight by Pastor Gordon Slyter. If he is present or another representative with the Treasure Valley Worship Center. Or, in the alternative, we will be led by our City Attorney Mr. Nary. Nary: Thank you, Mr. President. If we could all take a moment, please. Lord, we thank you for bringing all these people together. We ask you to bless our city, bless our leadership, God. Give them wisdom to carry out the needs of the city and to make wise decisions and just decisions for all of our community. We bless all the people that have taken their time out of their day and their lives to be here this evening as well, God, and we just ask for this meeting to be conducted in a good manner and a positive manner as we move forward on the business of the city, in your name we pray, Jesus, amen. Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 2 of 48 Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: Borton: Thank you, Mr. Nary. We will provide you with a City of Meridian pin. If you need some more, they are in your drawer. Item No.4, adoption of the agenda. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: On the agenda as published, on the Consent we got a resolution and that number will be 07-548. Item No. 9 on the regular agenda has been asked to be continued to the 20th of March 2007. And Items 19 and 20 are ordinances and those numbers will be 07-1299 and 07-1300. With that I move we approve the revised agenda. Zaremba: I second that. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the revised agenda. All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of February 6, 2007 City Council Regular Meeting: B. Approve New Beer and Liquor License Applications for EI Tenampa Restaurant by Dave Edmark - 906 N. Main Street: C. Development Agreement RZ 06-004 Request for a Rezone of 5.49 acres from R-4 to R-15 (2.17 acres) and L-O (3.32 acres) for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC - 1021 West Pine Avenue: D. Resolution No. : VAC 07-002 Request to Vacate a public utility, drainage & irrigation easement common to Lots 1 & 2, Block 1 of the Olson & Bush Industrial Park for Lanark Street Easement by Ronald W. Van Auker - NWC of Eagle Road and East Lanark Street at 3180 East Lanark Street: E. Approve Task Order 0666 with Civil Survey Consultants Inc., for Engineering Services related to Sanitary Sewer Relocation Study for $25,000.00: Borton: Thank you. Item No.5, the Consent Agenda. Meridian City Council March 61 2007 Page 3 of 48 Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: On the Consent Agenda, Item D is Resolution No. 07-548 and with that I move we approve the Consent Agenda as published and for the president to sign and the clerk to attest on all papers. Zaremba: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Berg, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Department Reports: Borton: Thank you. There are no department reports. Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: Borton: And there are no items that have been requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda. Item 8: Request for Refund of Fees regarding withdrawn application for Baltic Place CPA in the amount of $1018.00: Borton: So, Item No.8, request for refund of fees regarding a withdrawn application. Anna, turn it over to you. Canning: President Borton, Members of the Council, the requested refund is for a project that was submitted and withdrawn before we had done any substantial work, so we are recommending that Council refund the entire fee. Borton: Thank you. Council? Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move on the recommendation of staff that we approve to refund the fees for Baltic Place CPA in the amount of 1 ,018 dollars. Zaremba: I'll second that. Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 4 of 48 Borton: It's been moved and seconded to approve the refund of fees. Any discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 9: Continued from February 20, 2007: FP 07-002 Request for Final Plat approval of 120 single-family residential building lots and 13 common lots on 34.74 acres in an R-8 zone for Solitude Subdivision No.2 by Solitude Development, LLC - SEe of McMillan Road and Meridian Road: Borton: Thank you. Item No.9 has been asked to be continued to March 20th. Zaremba: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we continue FP 07-002 to our regularly scheduled meeting of March 20th, 2007. Bird: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item 9 to March 20th, 2007. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from February 27, 2007: Proposed Fireworks Ordinance: Borton: Thank you. Item No. 1 0, continued Public Hearing on the proposed fireworks ordinance and, Mr. Nary, I think I'll let you initiate as far as the scope of the discussion and presentation for this evening. Nary: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. It was a very late night last Tuesday night, Council, if you recall. You continued this Public Hearing for a couple of purposes. One was the fire department, because of the late hour, didn't have the opportunity to rebut any of the comments that were brought forward and whether or not they had any recommended changes or recommended amendments to the ordinance in regards to the public comment. Secondarily, the legal department, we had requested another week to do additional clean up. There was some language that we were a little uncomfortable with, we wanted to have another opportunity to get cleaned up and, again, making sure that we were clear as to the intent of the ordinance and what was going to be required. And, third, you had invited any written comments from the public. Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 5 of 48 They would have the rest -- the remainder of last week to provide that written comment and we have had some written comment that has come in and Deputy Chief Silva will be addressing some of that in -- in his comments as well. So, we have received public comment. It was not to have an additional Public Hearing tonight, but simply to invite the -- or allow the time for staff response, as well as written comment. I would make note there was a couple of things that we in the legal department had reviewed and have amended in this draft ordinance that's in front of you. If I could just point out those things. There was a -- okay. Sorry. There was a concern that was raised in regards to part of the language in the permitting process that gave the clerk the discretion to not issue a permit if it would serve the best interest of the city. We weren't comfortable in being able to find a definition in the Idaho Code that we felt would be applicable to that section, so we took that out. There is a provision that is already in the state code in regard to initiated investigation and exercising of reasonable powers of the city clerk and, basically, verifying the information that's requested in the permitting process. So, that language still is contained in the ordinance, but the language regarding the discretion to not issue in the best interest of the city has been deleted. Borton: Mr. Nary? Nary: Yes. Borton: If you have got a page number or item number -- Nary: Oh, sure. Borton: -- that you can make reference to. Nary: Certainly. The section that's been deleted was Section 5-4-05C.2 and it's the portion, again, that is regarding -- that says whether the issuance of such permit will serve the best interest of the city. That language has been deleted. There was a section in 5-4-058.1 Db. This is in regards to the application for non-aerial common fireworks permits. There was a concern that was raised that it says the -- the portion that has now been deleted says the distance from any structure to any and all temporary firework stands and their short-term storage containers. So, that -- that portion of that section has been deleted. Make sure I have -- the next there was a concern that was raised in regard to the length or period of time that the permits were to be good for and the prior -- the original one that you had seen last week, basically, had two permitting periods per year. There was a term raised that the period of time should be once a year, there should be an annual permit, rather than twice a year permit. State code does support that notion and so in Section 5-4-05D we have recommended amending that to, basically, have one permitting period a year. The time period is still the same for the application, it's just that now the permit, instead of having to come back a second time in October for the same permit, the applicants can apply once annually for this permit and receive it for both sales periods that are allowed under the code. In section -- excuse me -- in Section 5-4-07D, one of the people testifying had raised a concern that the language in regards to residential districts was confusing, that this type Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 6 of 48 of sales of fireworks is not allowed in a residential district in the city and the person testifying was concerned that that wasn't clear as to what that was supposed to be. So, we have amended 5-4-06E and D to -- excuse me -- and 5-4-07D to reflect that residential districts are what are defined in our code and the Unified Development Code does define what those types of districts are, so there is a cross-reference there, hopefully, to make that clearer to folks. The last one in 5-4-06P14 and also it indicates it's the same language in 5-4-071.13 and 5-4-08A.6. There was a concern raised by one of the people testifying that the prior language that said it was unlawful for the operator to allow discharge of fireworks within 300 feet of their stand was problematic from the sales permittees's operation, since they can't necessarily control everything within 300 feet. So, what this code provision has been recommended to be amended was, basically, it still requires the signage, which was in the code to begin with, that they must display signs that indicate that no fireworks could be discharged within 300 feet, but our -- the responsibility of the enforcement and responsibility for discharge is on the person discharging them. So, the permittee isn't responsible if some other third party goes out and discharges fireworks. Thafs not their responsibility to police that. And the reason we felt that was an appropriate change was as was stated, they don't always have the legal authority to enforce things that are 300 feet away from them, but the person certainly igniting fireworks has that responsibility. So, we felt that was a reasonable change. I think -- and Deputy Chief Silva can correct me if this was an amendment or a clarification. There was some concern raised regarding the times of the sales of when the sales can begin and end and so Mrs. Kane in her review of that in the definition section, which is in 5-4-02, subsection H and subsection I, for the summer and winter sales period, makes it clear that the beginning of summer sales period can begin at 11 :59 p.m. on June 22nd and ends at 12:01 a.m., July 5th, and that the sales period for the wintertime in I begins at 11 :59 p.m. on December 25th and ends at 12:01 a.m. on January 1 st. So, those were some clarifications we felt were appropriate to clean up in the draft and I think Deputy Chief Silva has a few more, but those are what we took from the comments that we received. Again, I would let Deputy Chief Silva take the rest of it. Borton: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Deputy Chief Silva. Silva: President Borton, Members of the Council, we were able to clarify -- we took a lot of that input that was provided to us and clarified it with some of the comments provided by the vendors. With respect to the sales period, there was some -- it was kind of ambiguous the way it was worded in state law and our existing city ordinance, so we clarified that and put specific times. We, in effect, lengthened the sales period by just a few minutes to, but that provides specific times when sales start and when it ends. We -- one of the things that was indicated by one of the vendors was, for example, the -- they wanted some language incorporated in 5-4-04C that they were -- just would be responsible for producing records and displaying licenses and permits issued by the city, because the records of where their product may have come from may be back at their business office. So, we incorporated that language. One comment on 5-4-05, for example, in ten, subsection D, referred to just some clarification on what constitutes waste receptacles. As Mr. Nary had referred to, what we did is we made -- we Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 7 of 48 shortened the notification process or the -- I would call it the reactivation of a permit, because a permit would be issued for a one year period and when a vendor has operated during the summer and, then, reactivates that permit, what we have done is just simplified that process. Instead of having to go through the entire application process, they would just have to notify the city that they intend to activate a permit at a given location consistent with the requirements that were laid down -- or that were associated with that permit issuance at that particular location. And, then, there was just some clarifying language with reference to the Uniform Development Code where that applied. And with that, basically, those are the highlights of the changes we made. We made some other small changes to route the document, but those just were some editing and things that were provided -- input provided by the vendors. So, with that I will stand for any questions should you have any. Borton: Thank you, Joe. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: Joe, have the vendors had a chance to see the revised draft ordinance in its entirety; do you know? Silva: President Borton, Councilman Bird, I don't believe they have seen the most -- the latest revisions that were incorporated from the legal department. That would have been -- I received it about 5:00 o'clock on the 5th. So, that has not been uploaded, would be my understanding. You could perhaps consult with Bill Nary. Nary: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, from a process standpoint I guess if -- we can take a couple of different actions, depending on what your desire is. If your desire is to see the changes that we have discussed tonight in a final format prior to the beginning of the reading schedule, we can do that. It's not required by statute, but you certainly can do that if. you wish. The changes that we have made were, basically, in response to the people's concerns. So, you know, they may have a different perspective, but to me we have addressed some of their concerns, we haven't addressed, obviously, all of the concerns that were raised. I mean as you sat through the Public Hearing last week and had some written communication, obviously, there are some things that we are going to have to agree to disagree on from the -- at least the fire department's standpoint. We feel from the legal department that we are at a place with the ordinance that you can either direct to have another discussion or review by you prior to the reading process or you can begin the reading process. Under the state statute you can have three readings, you can have an accelerated reading schedule, that's your -- that's your choice. There is some method to doing it either way. If you Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 8 of 48 want to invite additional written comment, again, you're not obligated to hold public hearings on legislative actions, which is what this is, but if you want to invite written comment, because some issues may not have been raised to this point that -- that the fire department's not aware of, that the legal department's not aware of, that you as a Council are not aware of, if you want to invite written comment, that's part of what the reading process is meant to accomplish, some opportunity for people to provide some further written input. If they wish they can do that. So, that's your decision. We will certainly take whatever direction you want us to do on bringing this matter forward. Borton: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: I got a question for Mr. Nary. We very rarely go through three readings on an ordinance and this has no fees or anything. You give me some reasons to why we probably needed to go through three readings, but was that -- is that the basic reason you think we need to go through three or would you mind stating why you feel that this one ordinance we need to go through three. Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, there isn't any particular reason. I mean the state code, like I said it gives every city the option in passing ordinances to accelerate the reading process. Mr. Bird is correct, on the majority of the ordinances that are in front of you, which are predominately land use ordinances, you generally don't have three readings, you almost always have one and only one. On legislative acts, such as criminal ordinances and the like, we have done it both ways and it's just -- it's, basically, at your discretion. Obviously, there is a lot of public interest. We had a lot of testimony. We have had a lot of opportunity to have written comment and public comment on the record submitted to you. If you want to have another opportunity -- we can begin the reading process next week and if you want to invite additional comment you can. If you're comfortable that after that comment that nothing in that has really raised a different concern or a new concern to you, you can ask to accelerate the second and third readings into one reading the following week or if you still want time to consider that or ponder something, you can allow the second and the third reading to occur. So, really, I guess it's a non-answer to your question, but it's really your call, you can do it either way you want. Bird: Yeah. And I understand. Thanks, Bill. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: A couple of questions. I guess the first one I will direct to Mr. Nary. I'll direct my first question at Mr. Nary. We were given the memo that you read from and my first Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 9 of 48 comment was that I felt it addressed most of the things that had been raised. I don't think you read all the ones where the answer was no, but the fact that we didn't change something doesn't mean that we didn't address it. It was considered and there are reasons for not changing it. So, I just didn't want to leave it unclear that a subject that you didn't mention hadn't been considered, it was certainly considered and the answer was no. My second question is having seen that memo, were those changes incorporated into the draft that we are looking at or are we looking at a draft that doesn't have those changes? Nary: I believe the draft that's still in front of you that was on your packet is a draft from last week. Zaremba: Okay. Nary: So, those changes have not been incorporated, because, as Mr. -- as Deputy Chief Silva said, we finished that -- the real -- that redraft yesterday, so I hadn't transmitted that before tonight to you, but the intent was if we are going to put this on for the reading schedule, then, that will be the process that you have it back in front of you, but I wanted to make sure you knew what those were. I can certainly go through the other -- some of the other points that were raised if you would prefer. Zaremba: I don't think that I -- Nary: Okay. Zaremba: What I was thinking was to an eventual motion should we move this forward, we need to incorporate that memo into the motion I take it. Nary: Well, like I said, if, for example -- and, Councilmember Zaremba, you have raised a great point. I mean there were some of the things in the information that was provided to the Council that was the intent of the ordinance and I will just give you an example. One of the questions that was raised was that the ordinance prohibits sales from any permanent structure. That was the intent. And so there was no intent to change that. Another question was raised about under the ordinance the public may not have access to the fireworks under any circumstances, that the fireworks are to remain behind the sales staff and only be accessed by sales staff and, then, given to the public. That was the intent. So, no change was noted. So, yeah, there are certainly some of those that haven't been changed and because this is a pretty lengthy ordinance and because there has been a lot of contention, I certainly understand if you folks want to either have another discussion week or at least you want to have the opportunity at the first reading to make sure it fits all of these things that you folks envision this to be, we certainly can do that, so -- and if there is something else that you think I haven't raised that we changed that you or -- or you want to ask fire department about, that's something that we should be talking about as whether to change or not, you're certainly welcome to do that. That was the intent of tonight to give you folks that opportunity. Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 10 of 48 Zaremba: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I also have a new subject that I would raise if I may. I realize it's late in the process, but prompted by a submitted -- a submission from Ralph Chappell, I have worked my way down to the violation penalty sections and it says any violation thereof shall constitute a misdemeanor, which shall be punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. And I guess what we were sent I think we all got and is probably in the public record, is a copy of a news release about another city that changed their ordinances and included administrative fines as the first step and I -- and what brings -- what that brings to mind is whether we might -- is it too complicated to make several tiers in the penalty that first there would be an administrative fine, which is money that the city keeps and, then, the second offense is a misdemeanor and the third offense is stronger than a misdemeanor, whatever that is, I forget. Do we want a tiered set of penalties or is -- are we satisfied with what it says, any violation is a misdemeanor period? Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Councilmember Zaremba, gosh, I wish I could do that, but I can1t. We don't have the means in Idaho for a city to impose anything other than a misdemeanor or an infraction as a penalty. So, there isn't a mechanism in Idaho that I'm aware of that allows to create an administrative fine from a city standpoint. So, we don't have a means to do that. So, we are kind of hamstrung by that misdemeanor provision and infraction provision. Infractions can only be what are considered -- called civil penalties and they are a maximum of a hundred dollars and there is no jail time, so all of the penalties in this -- in this currently are misdemeanor offenses, which has a maximum under the state code of a thousand dollar fine, so -- and a year in jail. So, there is higher penalties for misdemeanors, but that's the most the city has the power to do. Zaremba: Mr. President, a follow up. Are we able to -- I can see a situation where what would appear to be one instance actually would be multiple misdemeanors. Are we able to treat -- I mean if somebody sets off ten aerial fireworks, is that ten misdemeanors? Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Councilmember Zaremba, as long as the factual circumstances can be separately distinguished and there is two -- there is two things you1re really asking. If one person commits ten violations, sets off ten bottle rockets, are those ten distinct criminal acts in themselves. Probably. But it depends. It depends. It depends on how it's done. Courts will normally look at a couple of things and one of the things they will look at is there, really, essentially, a merging of one act. And so if you -- if how it's done is so closely related that a court can't really or doesn1t really think it's distinguishable as separate events, they are so close in time the way they are done they are all closely together when they are done -- so it depends. Another question that comes up that's similar is can you have multiple violations of the same offense. If you were a person selling fireworks and selling an legal firework that violated our permit requirements and you sold ten different -- to ten different people, are Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 11 of 48 those ten criminal acts. Same thing. I mean if you commit a theft and you steal ten items in a store, a court merges those together as one theft, not ten. It's the same thing in a sale circumstance, it depends on what the circumstances are. So, unfortunately, I wish I could tell you, but the law is not quite so clear as I'd like it to be. Depending on what it is it may be one act, it may be -- it may be multiple violations. Most of the time, especially when you're looking at illegal activities of this nature, it would be a fairly rare circumstance that a person has only one illegal firework or commits only one violation when they do it. Not that it can't happen, but it's certainly more rare. It's more likely that a person has multiple types of illegal fireworks and commits multiple violations of them, but, again, it really is driven by whatever the individual facts of the circumstance are. Zaremba: Thank you. Borton: Mr. Nary, I think the best way going forward, in light of the fact there has been some recent changes and not everyone's had an opportunity to review it, this is -- I'll float this out and see if Council agrees with it, that we continue the Public Hearing to next week and, if permissible, have a Public Hearing and perhaps the first reading scheduled at the same time and invite the public to provide written comment after receiving I think it's only fair so everyone receives these most recent changes, had a chance to review them. The written comment is extremely helpful. We have received a lot of it. In my mind have raised many good questions and to the extent these additional changes create some more questions and concerns, I'd rather have us know that on the front end and if we shorten, perhaps, the reading schedule on the back end and provide the better product, since this is a pretty comprehensive change. So, I would be inclined to continue this hearing until March the 13th and have it scheduled for a first reading at that time as well in between now and then receive that additional written comment from whomever cares to do so. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: I agree wholeheartedly, but -- and we'd also make sure that the drafts get out to the people that would so want to come in and pick it up, so that all the vendors and stuff can have an opportunity to read it, too. Nary: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Councilmember Bird, what we could do is we could have the final draft with the changes that Deputy Chief Silva has and the changes that our legal department have to the city clerk by -- by the end of business tomorrow and, then, any member of the public that would like it can have access to that from Mr. Berg's office -- I guess it's not common, but I guess we could probably put it on our website, if you'd like. Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 12 of 48 Borton: Whatever provides better access to the public. Bird: Yeah, that's the -- Borton: It could be on the site fine and the clerk's office. Berg: Mr. President, it's not uncommon. We did that with the lease agreement with the golf course and -- as long as they know it's a proposed ordinance, I think they can find it and we can have it on there. Nary: We can have a pdf copy on our website probably by the end of tomorrow. Borton: Okay. Let's do that. We need a motion to continue this hearing to next week. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we continue the Public Hearing for the proposed fireworks ordinance, a revision, until March 13th, 2007. Zaremba: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item 1 0 to March 13th. Any discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Berg. Berg: Mr. President, I know your preliminary motion referred to a first reading. Is that still the intent of the motion or not? Bird: First reading and also with -- along with the Public Hearing. Borton: Second agrees? Zaremba: Second agrees. Borton: All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: Public Hearing: VAC 07-003 Request for a Vacation of the 10 foot wide property drainage and utility easement located on portions of Lots 5 and 6, Block 5, Gemtone Center #5 for Gemtone Center Subdivision #5 by DMB Investments, LLC - 2589 and 2547 E. State Avenue: Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 13 of 48 Borton: Thank you. Item No. 11 is a Public Hearing on VAC 07-003 for a request for vacation by Gemtone Center Subdivision. Canning: President Borton, Members of the Council, this is the Gemtone Center Subdivision No.5. There we go. Thank you. sir. Sorry about that. Our new fangled technology. This is a request for a -- the project is located on the -- north of East Pine Avenue and west of Eagle Road as shown on the slide before you. Borton: Mrs. Canning, can you hold on one second. Canning: Okay. Borton: We are going to grab the door real quick. Canning: The requested vacation -- am I good to go now? The requested vacation is for the platted property drainage and utility easement located on portions of Lot 5 and Lot 6, Block 5 of Gemtone Center Subdivision No.5. So, here are those. The properties have been combined through a property boundary adjustment and they are just vacating the easement. Staff has received all necessary relinquishments and there are no outstanding issues before Council. Borton: Thank you, Anna. Is the applicant here? Please come forward if you have anything to add for us. Kirkpatrick: Good evening. Wendy Kirkpatrick, I'm with Stanley Consultants. My business address is 1940 Bonito Way here in Meridian. And this is all very straight forward. We did a lot line adjustment, so we could build an office building on these two lots and we were not able to move the easement along with the lot line, so we are asking to have it vacated and all the agencies said it's fine and staff said it's fine and they recommend approval. Borton: Thank you, Wendy. Kirkpatrick: Any questions? Borton: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Borton: Thank you. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone from the public here to provide comment? Seeing none. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 14 of 48 Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing on VAC 07-003. Zaremba: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item No. 11. All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: Don't hear any conversation; I move we approve VAC 07-003. Zaremba: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 11, VAC 07-003. Any discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 06-062 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.12 acres from RUT to a C-C zone for Hovd Annexation by Kendall Hoyd - east of N. Meridian Road and north of E. Fairview Avenue: Borton: Thank you. Item No. 12 is a Public Hearing on AZ 06-062. We will begin this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: President Borton, Members of the Council, this is the Hoyd project. It's located on the northeast corner of Meridian and Carmel Drive, approximately a quarter mile north of Fairview on Meridian Road. It is just north of the Albertson's. The application that they have submitted is for annexation and the development includes request to annex 1.12 acres to community business district, which is C-C, and the applicant intends to construct a two story office building on the site. Hours of operation will be from approximately 8:00 a.m. to approximately 6:00 p.m. The building that's proposed on the site -- I should explain that just to the north is Hartz's Music and, then, to the east there is attached single family homes. To the west is the empty pasture that's designated mixed use. And, then, you have some higher density residential to kind of the northeast. This is the proposed site plan. The project is a little unusual in shape, because of this little triangle thafs within the drainage basin. The one corner -- the one office they propose is -- is brought forward to the streets and the parking is tucked behind. The concept plan that you see before you shows access only from Carmel Drive, with no direct access to North Meridian Road. The driveway also stubs to Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 15 of 48 the north boundary for future cross-access with the Hartz's Music property. That property is currently requesting the annexation and you will see that request before you soon. Staff has recommended a development agreement associated with this and that includes the cross-access easement to Carmel Drive shall be provided to Hartz's Music. Hours of operation for future businesses on this site would be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and that's in recognition of the residential properties immediately to the east of this one. Any future building on the site needs to comply with the conceptual site plan and the elevations that I'll show you in a moment. There are also several provisions related to the points I have talked about so far, the no direct lot access to Meridian Road and, then, also the 25 foot wide landscape buffer along Meridian Road, ten foot wide landscape buffer along Carmel Drive, and, then, the 25 foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to any existing residential use. And, then, finally, sidewalks along Meridian Road and Carmel Drive and an elevation certification is required, because a portion of the site is within a flood plane. So, we do have elevations and these elevations are new since the Planning and Zoning Commission and they have really stepped it up quite a bit since the Planning and Zoning Commission saw this, so this is the east and west elevations that would face the neighborhood and face Meridian Road. And, then, this is the side elevations. So, that would face Carmel Drive and it would face Hartz's Music. The Commission recommended approval at their February 1 st, 2007, Public Hearing. Kendall Hoyd spoke in favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition or commented. Key issues of the discussion by the Commission were the design of the building and the appearance from Meridian Road and the key Commission changes to staff recommendation, there were none. Outstanding issues before the City Council, they were required to submit a rear building elevation and, as I said, this is what the revised elevations they have proposed and they are substantially improved from the last elevations. There has been no additional written testimony since staff's report was written and I will answer any questions you may have. Borton: Thank you, Anna. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Zaremba: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Just one for Director Canning. I like the building forward I guess we'll call it, moving it closer to the street and putting the parking lot on the other side. Did staff take into consideration that Meridian at some point will be five lanes wide at that point? It may be 20 years off in the future, but are they out of that right of way? Canning: I will have to check the staff report or maybe the applicant can answer that. Zaremba: Okay. I will ask the applicant. Canning: Okay. Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 16 of 48 Borton: Thank you. Would the applicant care to come forward? Hoyd: Good evening. My name is Kendall Hoyd, I'm the owner of the property in question. And the setbacks from the property line as described in the preliminary site layout that we gave to the P&Z staff incorporate the additional 18 feet for the widening of Meridian Road north of Fairview and also the 25 foot setback. So, that's also incorporated in the site plan already. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Hoyd: Any other questions? Borton: Council, any -- Bird: I have none. Zaremba: Mr. President, I would only comment that I appreciate the elevations and treatment given to the Meridian side of the building. I know when you think that's the back of the building you don't always want to dress it up, but I -- Hoyd: Yeah. We made the mistake of bringing in a barracks last time and -- I turned somebody very expensive lose on this one. It's much better now. Borton: We appreciate the effort. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone from the public that wishes to provide testimony? Seeing none, Mrs. Canning, any additional information? Canning: No, sir. Zaremba: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 12. Bird: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-062. All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 17 of 48 Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number AZ 06-062 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 6, 2007, with no modifications. Bird: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 12. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 06-057 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.91 acres from RUT to an R-15 zone for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River Development, LLC - 6055 & 6185 N. Jericho Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 06-056 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 residential units and 10 common lots on 9.52 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River Development, LLC - 6055 & 6185 N. Jericho Road: Item 15: Public Hearing: V AR 06-024 Request for a Variance for zero lot line side setbacks and 4 foot rear setbacks for the attached units within the proposed Jericho Subdivision for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River Development, LLC - 6055 & 6185 N. Jericho Road: Borton: Thank you. Item No. 13, AZ 06-057, request for annexation, Jericho Subdivision. We will begin this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: President Borton, Members of the Council, this is the Jericho project. Ifs located on the west side of Jericho Road about a fifth of a mile south of Chinden -- Borton: I'm going to interrupt you again real quick. We are openings Items 13, 14, and 15. I apologize. Canning: That's okay. Jericho Road currently takes access from Chinden Boulevard and, then, it swings down into Arcadia and connects over to Saguaro Canyon and, then, provides access for Westborough Subdivision on the east as well. The applications before you tonight are for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and a variance, but please note that the initial application required the variance to a rear setback that has since been substantially revised, partially to meet staffs and neighbor concerns such that it no longer requires the variance. Highlights of the proposed development include annexation and zoning of 9.91 acres to the R-4. And that would be along Jericho Road on the east side of the property and that's 2.41 acres. And to R-15 on the remainder of Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 18 of 48 the property, 7.89 acres. And then -- did I say R-15? R-15 on those 7.89. And preliminary plat approval of 68 residential lots and, then, approval of two -- the project also includes two private streets. The subdivision will provide a mix of housing types, including a common MEW. And this is the MEW area that's a minimum of 50 feet wide. It should be on the landscape plan there. It shows up a little better. And there will be attached single family homes facing that MEW and, then, also taking access from the private street. And there is also detached single family housing wrapping around the attached lots and, then, also on Jericho Road. Lots range between 2,300 square feet and 8,725 square feet. The average lot size is about 6,400 square feet. 6.5 percent of the site is in open space, which equates to .586 acres, and these R-8 lots, there is a pedestrian crossing -- or a pedestrian micro-path through the project to connect to Jericho Road. The intent of the separation between the R-4 lots and Jericho Road is to -- I need to go up here. You see the large one acre lots that currently take access from Jericho Road, the 8,000 square foot and up lots are intended as the transmission between that and the smaller MEW lots and, then, the kind of medium density residential lots surrounding those. The project will take access -- and I have forgotten the name of this subdivision. Hightower. Thank you. So, the intent is that when Hightower went through you mayor may not remember, they agreed to request vacation of Jericho Road as it connects to Chinden. So, what will happen is folks will go up Jericho Road, come through Hightower, and access Chinden at this point here in the property. This -- we do anticipate that this access to Chinden will go away. There was initially some concerns when Arcadia went through and -- that this Jericho Road would become very heavily used as an access to get out to Chinden, but now it's not as direct as it will be to come through Hightower. So, we are not expecting those high volumes of traffic we were originally. So, folks will come -- the rest of the project feeds into Hightower and out to this exit as well. Okay. The gross residential density is 7.14 units per acre. It has a net of 8.56 units per acre. And this is consistent with the neighborhood center designation, which calls for a minimum eight dwelling units per acre. These are elevations of the single residences and floor plans. And, then, these are the proposed townhouse elevations. So, these are the lots that will face the MEW and, then, take access from the private street. The Commission recommended approval at their February 1 st Public Hearing. Becky McKay spoke in favor of the application. No spoke in opposition or commented and there was no written testimony. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the variance submitted for the rear setbacks, the fact that it was no longer needed, and perimeter fencing. The applicant does wish to coordinate fencing with the adjacent developments of Arcadia and Hightower Subdivisions. And mitigation for existing trees on site. The key Commission changes to staff's initial recommendation was that the applicant would not be required to donate 50 trees to the local park, that, instead, the number would be determined by the Meridian Parks Department after closer inventory of the existing trees. There are quite a few trees on the property at this time. Staff's -- and, then, as I said before, staff's initial recommendation was for denial, but the applicant went back and worked with the property owners and staff to come up with a revised plan and I believe they came up with that before it actually went to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the first time. So, it is substantially revised from their initial submittal. The outstanding issues before City Council -- you know, the staff report notes two items, but they weren't really Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 19 of48 outstanding issues, it was more of issues that had been recently resolved. So, to my knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council. And we have not received any additional written testimony since the staff report. And with that I will answer any questions Council may have. Borton: Thank you, Mrs. Canning. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Zaremba: Mr. President -- Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: -- if I can just clarify one thing with Director Canning. What the Planning and Zoning Commission saw on February 1 st is the version that we are looking at? Canning: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Borton: Thank you. Would the applicant care to come forward? McKay: Thank you. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. I'm representing the applicant on this particular application. Just to give the Council a little brief history on this project. It is on the periphery of a mixed use community neighborhood center, so even though this is nine and a half acres, it was a challenge for us to, obviously, meet the intent of criteria set forth in the Comp Plan under that neighborhood center section. One of the things that we struggled with was, obviously, that density of trying to hit eight dwelling units per acre. We had more preapplication conferences on this nine and a half acres than I typically have on projects that are hundreds of acres, just because of the complexity and the fact that it is in-fill. With Hightower wrapping all the way from the north to the west, Arcadia on our south and, then, Westborough Estates on our eastern boundary, we had stub streets that we had to interconnect to as you see here and here and, then, we had the issue of Jericho. We submitted what we thought was a good plan and, then, the staff reviewed it, the neighbors reviewed it, and they were not satisfied. So, we asked the Planning and Zoning Commission to defer us for I think about a month or two to give us the opportunity to have a roundtable discussion with both the staff and the neighbors on Jericho and what you see before you is what we came up with~ The primary concern of the Jericho residents -- there are five one acre lots on the east side of Jericho Street. They were very concerned with the fact that Jericho is their neighborhood street, but, yet, it was not being treated that way. It was being treated more like a collector and we had two entrances that came out onto Jericho and they said, you know, we realize this property is going to develop and we are supportive of some high density here, just complete our neighborhood. That's all we ask. And they said if you could give us just eight single family detached lots, 8,000 square feet and up, and try to send your traffic Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 20 of 48 into Hightower versus accessing Jericho, we feel that that would be a good plan and we could support that. So, that's what we did. We went back to the city staff, met with them, they were supportive of it, and Ada County Highway District was supportive of it. The fact that they vacated this northern portion of Jericho, the whole transportation in this section is very well interconnected according to ACHD staff and that primary focus up to Chinden is the new collector that will be -- is being installed with Hightower. So, that's what we utilize as our primary vehicular access and we did go through and complete that Jericho neighborhood, so now they have homes on the west side. We told them we would go in and, obviously, make improvements to match what they have and do a nice subdivision. The other thing they asked is that if we had attached units, that we put them in the center, so that there was kind of a transitioning of the larger lots than smaller detached lots and, then, the attached units right here in the center. We have got some alleys here that will allow us a little more creativity on our front elevations with the rear access and, then, we have got these lots here that are on the MEW or an open space. These have to be private roads, they can't be alleys under Ada County Highway District's definition, because for these lots on the green that is their primary access point. This project, if you look at Hightower, it blends, it meets that innovative flexible design which is encouraged by the Comp Plan and it also encourages kind of a grid-like pattern. We think we found a good compromise and we ask the Council to support it. And we did -- this is R-4 here, for the record, and, then, this is R-15. And that was also at the request of the Westborough neighbors, that we have a transition in that zoning designation, too. Any questions? Borton: Thank you, Mrs. McKay. McKay: Thank you. Borton: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Borton: I have none. Just for a comment, I appreciate and I know you know that we appreciate efforts towards the transition phases that you have done in regards to the various densities. It's greatly appreciated. McKay: Thank you. Borton: This is a Public Hearing -- this is a Public Hearing. Would anyone care to provide comment or testimony? Hearing none, Council, any additional information needed from staff or the applicant? Bird: Not me. Zaremba: Mr. President, I would just -- they work for the neighbors, that's clearly shown by the fact that nobody's here to object to it, even though there are larger properties around, and I think it's a project that could be a good addition to the city. Meridian City Council March 6,2007 Page 21 of 48 Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: Hearing that, I move we close the public hearings on AZ 06-057, PP 06-56, and V AR 06-024. Zaremba: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on Items 13, 14 and 15. Before we vote, Mr. Nary, Item 15 is a variance request, which it sounds like it's being withdrawn. Do we -- well, at what point do we address that? Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council -- and, I'm sorry, I know Mrs. Canning stated it. I don't recall -- I didn't think I heard Mrs. McKay state she didn't need it anymore. I know you closed the Public Hearing. As long as we have some confirmation that they don't need that any longer, you can certainly just move to, essentially, vacate that request. That would be fine. Borton: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Items 13, 14 and 15. All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borton: Thank you. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve AZ 06-057 and incorporate applicant, staff comments. Zaremba: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 13, AZ 06-057. Any discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borton: Thank you. Item 14. Bird: Mr. President? Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 22 of 48 Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve PP 06-056, preliminary plat for Jericho Subdivision and I believe the date on that is 1/18/07. Zaremba: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 14, PP 06-056. Any discussio.n? Seeing none, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we vacate VAR 06-024, as it is no longer needed. Zaremba: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to vacate Item 15 at the applicant's request. Zaremba: Might we want to state that as accept the withdrawal of it? Borton: Thank you. The variance. Berg: Vacate a vacation. Borton: That's as muddy as we can make it. Zaremba: Okay. Borton: Vacate the variance to vacate -- all those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 16: Public Hearing: VAR 07-003 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3B-7C2 to count 15 feet of existing right-of-way for Eagle Road towards the landscape street buffer in the C-G zone, for Centre Pointe North Subdivision by W.H. Moore, Co - northwest corner of Eagle Road and Ustick Road: Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 23 of 48 Borton: Thank you. Item 16 is a Public Hearing on V AR 07-003, request for variance for Centre Pointe North Subdivision and we will begin this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: President Borton, Members of the Council, this is the Centre Pointe North project. It's located on the northwest comer of Eagle and Ustick Roads, actually just north of Centre Pointe, hence the Centre Pointe North name. The application before you tonight is for a variance. They are requesting a variance from portions -- from the portions of the Unified Development Code that require a 35 foot landscape buffer along entryway corridors and that landscape buffers along streets be in a common lot or within a permanent easement. If approved the variance would allow the applicant to count some of the adjacent ITD right of way towards the landscape street buffer width. The application -- the applicant is proposing to reduce the area of the landscape buffer on their property to 20 feet and, then, use approximately 15 feet of ITD right of way towards the remainder width. On June 22nd, 2006, the Meridian City Council approved the same request for a landscaping variance for Centre Pointe Subdivision No. 1 and that's, obviously, just to the south of this project. The subject proposal is for the balance of the project. Staff did recommend approval. We felt that given the previous approval that we could, again, make the findings. The first one being that the variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district. The applicant is actually proposing up to -- to landscape up to 27 feet of IDT right of way, so the total width will be 47 feet in some places and, then, down to a minimum of 20 feet that would be on the applicant's side. The second finding is that the variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site. And, again, when ITD purchased the right of way what we have heard is that they were anticipating additional lanes, but that they are not moving forward with those lanes, so they do have a fair amount of remainder right of way that in other cases may have gone just unimproved, but in this case the applicant is willing to improve that landscaping in exchange for waiving some of his -- the requirement for a zone. The variance shall not be -- the third finding is that the variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare and, again, there was no concern that granting the variance to the buffer width would cause any public's health safety concerns. So, to our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council and we have not received any written testimony since the staff report was finished. And I'll answer any questions you may have. Borton: Thank you, Mrs. Canning. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Zaremba: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Just to clarify, the 15 feet of their buffer that will be within the existing right of way, they are still going to landscape; is that correct? Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 24 of 48 Canning: The 15 feet -- Zaremba: They will, actually, have 35 feet of landscaped buffer, 20 of it's on their property and 15 is in the right of way. Canning: Yes, sir. Zaremba: But it will be landscaped. Canning: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Do they need any kind of a license from ACH -- or from ITD? Canning: Yes. And the staff report talks about that. It had a couple provisions tied with it, one of them being that they get a license agreement. Zaremba: I thought I saw that someplace and that's why I thought of it. Canning: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Borton: Any other questions, Council? Bird: I have none. Borton: Thank you. Would the applicant care to come forward? Seal: Good evening.. Jonathan Seal, W.H. Moore Company, 1940 Bonito, Meridian. If I can, first, what I would like to do -- and I will pass these around. Anna: Jonathan, make sure you talk into a microphone. I'm sorry. Mr. Seal. Seal: Anna, if you could put the concept map up, really, very briefly. And I will try to keep this short. What you're looking at -- you see that kind of green line, that is the right of way line. Just a very brief history on this. As you may be aware I have been in front of the Council on this before. We have done the improvements along Eagle Road. If you have driven down this lately, we have put in the curb and gutter, we have done the widening along here the entire length of this. So, at this point all the curb and gutter, the right-hand turn lanes, the dual left-hand turn lanes, all the striping, the approaches are all in place. If you look at that -- that copy that I gave you, if you have to look at number two, you will notice that -- that we got anywhere from about 21 to 27 feet of excess right of way, which we would landscape and in answer to that question, yes, we would landscape it; yes, we do have to have a license agreement -- in fact, this is the license agreement we got with the other phase. So, what we would do, as we have done with the other one, which, I guess, you know, the proof is in the pudding and you can see if Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 25 of 48 you have gone out there before, is we have landscaped that right of way in what we call Centre Pointe Sub No.1. So, right now you're looking at -- and, Councilman Zaremba, you had asked -- youlre looking anywhere from -- if I'm doing my math right, 40 to 47 feet of landscaping in there. Again, I think it captures the intent of the city's desire to have that 35 feet, we are, actually, giving you more since we have landscaped it. So, I think it's very attractive and, again, it would continue on from what we have done already. So, I think unless there is any questions, we are in agreement with it. We would, obviously, get a license agreement. As I say, we have added for that. We would submit another one. It's kind of an administrative thing and it will be fairly easy to do. We will put that in a 20 foot landscaped area and we are prepared to honor the conditions that are set forth in the staff report. So, unless there is any questions, I will sit down. Borton: Thank you, Mr. Seal. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Borton: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to provide comment or testimony? Seeing none, any additional information Council needs from staff or the applicant? Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: Hearing none, I move we close the Public Hearing on VAR 07-003. Zaremba: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 16. All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve VAR 07-003, the variance for Centre Pointe North Subdivision. I think it's number two. And to include staff and applicant testimony. Zaremba: Second. Borton: Itls been moved and seconded to approve Item 16, VAR 07-003. Any discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Berg. Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 26 of 48 Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 17: Public Hearing: AZ 06-052 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.17 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Portico Place Subdivision by Portico, LLC - 1780 E. McMillan Road: Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 06-053 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 26 single-family residential building lots and 3 common / other lots on 5.17 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Portico Place Subdivision by Portico, LLC - 1780 E. McMillan Road: Borton: Thank you. Item 17 is a Public Hearing on AZ 06-052 -- De Weerd: You were on a roll. I will go ahead an open the two public hearings on AZ 06-052 and PP 06-053 with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is the Portico Place project. It's located at 1780 East McMillan Road on the north side of McMillan Road just east of the intersection of Locust Grove and McMillan. The applications before you tonight are for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and alternative compliance. This is a reconsideration hearing, so staff, as is always an awkward process, will present the application as it originally came forward from the Planning and Zoning Commission. You did receive a memo responding to the applicant's request for reconsideration and the new material presented with that, but my presentation will be largely on the recommendation as forwarded by the Planning and Zoning Commission. So, the proposed development includes annexation and zoning of 5.17 acres to R-8 and, then, preliminary plat approval of 27 -- or 26 single family residential and townhouse building lots. The alternative compliance request is for reduction to the street buffer width along East McMillan Road from the 35 feet down to now 30 feet. The original hearing the request was down to 25 feet, but now they are requesting just a five foot reduction. And that would be along the south side -- excuse me -- of the existing home. The building lots consist of 20 attached units, five detached units, and the one existing home. A gazebo, pathway, and parking areas are proposed within the common area located centrally in the subdivision. The existing home is on the southwest corner of the property. The gross residential density is 5.03 dwelling units per acre. The net density 6.98 dwelling units per acre. The development agreement includes the following provisions that were added by the Planning Commission. I'm sorry. This is where it gets a little confusing. When the Planning Commission reviewed this project, the applicant was still asking for access to McMillan Road, so the Planning Commission added some provisions to the development agreement that addressed resubdivision of that property. The applicant has withdrawn that request, so those provisions will need to likely be removed by staff. So, the development agreement could -- as presented from the Planning and Zoning Commission, they are recommending some items regarding re-subdivision of that property, but I think that they are no longer necessary. The applicant has submitted revised elevations and those are before you. Mrs. Watters Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 27 of 48 summarized some of those changes in her memo and I think that -- 11m sure the applicant will want to focus on those in his presentation as well. Planning Commission did recommend approval at their December 21 st, 2006, Public Hearing. Ron Sargent spoke in favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition or commented. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the retention of the existing access to McMillan Road. Key Commission changes to staff recommendations were to require development agreement that included provisions for that 35 foot landscape buffer to be installed upon redevelopment of the property. And, again, this gets to those items that are probably no longer necessary. Since the original staff report was written you have received applicant's response letter to that and a subsequent request for reconsideration that contained new information. The key point of that, though, is that the applicant no longer requests direct lot access to McMillan Road and no longer requests a full ten foot reduction in the landscape buffer, it's only a five foot now. With regard to outstanding issues before City Council, it is always a little difficult for staff to get the appropriate documents before you for these reconsideration hearings, so if Council chooses to approve this request, we would ask that you give us three weeks to prepare the Findings, instead of the usual two. That will give us a chance to do the Findings and run them by the applicant to make sure we haven't missed anything, since he doesn't have those before him tonight to respond to. And we are confident that we can do this, but it would just be -- we'd need the extra week to coordinate with the applicant on the wording of any revisions that Council may have for us tonight. And with that I will answer any questions that Council -- Mayor or Council may have. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions of staff at this time? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. I was asked by Mr. Bird to get clarity on the young members in our audience. If you're high school students, you're trying to gain extra credit, I do have City of Meridian pins up here for you, so you might even get extra credit. 1111 give it to Mr. Berg and he will deliver it to you. Bird: They have sat through the whole meeting. And didn't have to say the pledge or anything. De Weerd: Now, see, we think we are very entertaining, but 11m sure without me it was pretty boring. I have to -- John, sorry, you don't qualify. I will ask if the applicant is here this evening and would like to make comment. Sargent: Ron Sargent. 1883 North Wildwood Street in Boise, I'm the applicant, and I have some handouts I guess to -- okay. I'll try to simplify this as best I can. Before from the Planning and Zoning Commission there was forwarded a recommendation for a development agreement and part of this came up -- Anna, could you put on the site -- no, the landscape plan from before. Yes. There we go. Thank you. There is an existing house in this location and we had requested a direct access to McMillan Road, which we are now requesting -- or no longer requesting and we are pulling that off and Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 28 of 48 so we plan on landscaping all the way along the McMillan Road area which is located here. I think you can see better on site plan is that we are proposing that there -- we will only have a five foot distance between the house and the landscape buffer, which would mean that that would be a 30 foot landscape buffer, rather than the code requirement of 35. We are also doing an alternative compliance where we are going to plant an additional 44 shrubs and an additional three trees. We are also going to berm that area in there and we think when people travel along McMillan Road they will not be able to tell that there is only a 30 foot buffer there, rather than 35, because with the berm, the additional shrubbery, the additional trees, we think that that will blend in and they won't be able to see very much of a difference. The reason that we are asking for a five foot setback alongside the house is that we need that to be able to meet the setback requirements of the zone and we need a minimum of five feet on the side yard setback. And so that's what -- that's the minimum so we meet the building requirements to be able to build a house there. So, that's -- so because of those reasons, we do not feel that the development agreement that was originally proposed -- is no longer necessary and that we feel that the UDC code more than covers any future development on that property. If that house was to be torn down, then, we feel that that would be the opportunity at that time for the city to ask for the additional five feet in the landscaping. I have also included at the back of the handout a photograph of the existing house and it's a red brick house. We think that -- De Weerd: Anna, do you want to put that up. Sargent: We think that is a very -- it's a very nice house. We think it's going to be around for a number of years and that's why we are proposing that we have that five foot setback, because without the five foot setback I think it would be a nonconforming use and the only thing that we could think of that we'd have to tear the house down, which we don't think there is really a need and we think the house kind of fits in with the character of the neighborhood as well. De Weerd: Mr. Sargent, where would that house take access -- have access? Sargent: It would come up Beethoven, which is the road here off McMillan and, then, it -- meeting the highway district's setback it was -- it would be -- there would be a driveway approximately -- I think it's 120 or 150 feet back from McMillan. We would also move the garage doors from the south side, which faces McMillan, we'd move them to the west side, so they'd face directly towards Beethoven, the new proposed road. Does that -- De Weerd: And currently it takes access off of McMillan? Sargent: Yes. Today the access in approximately in this location right here. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we have a new technology and to be able to move it onto the one that projects up there I have to be able to minimize it and I Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 29 of 48 can't do that, so I can't figure out how to get it over there. I apologize. We will try and perfect our system. Sargent: Madam Mayor, maybe I could -- De Weerd: No. I have it in front of me. I was hoping to show it to those that are sitting out in the audience. Sargent: Oh. This is the existing house. De Weerd: That's technology. Here it is. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: On that subject, the access to the main street closed and taking it off of -- was it Beethoven? Sargent: Beethoven is the name of the new street. Zaremba: The new street. Speaking for fire, police, and post office, they probably would want that house readdressed to a Beethoven address. Is that in the works? Sargent: Yeah. I assume that's what would happen, because the front of the house would face Beethoven, so there would have to be a change of address. So, I'm assuming -- I'm assuming that's what would happen. We submit the plat to Public Works and they determine the addressing for us. So, we don't have input in the addressing process. Zaremba: Okay. So, it wouldn't be a surprise of that happened. Sargent: No. We were -- in fact, we were sort of anticipating more than likely that would take place. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Sargent: Okay. The other -- let's see. The other issue, before I look at the elevations, is -- also on the landscape plan I wanted to point out is that in the middle we have created a large green area to be shared by all the homeowners. We primarily sell our houses to seniors and we probably sell 60 or 70 percent of our houses to seniors and what we do is we set up a homeowners association that does all the maintenance for the front and back yards and so that they don't have to do any mowing or weeding or any exterior landscape maintenance and so they share in that common area that's in Meridian City Council March 6f 2007 Page 30 of 48 the center. We also feel, because we are primarily selling to seniors that we have to have single level homes. We feel that's really important to do that and a lot of our designs I think are driven toward that. Anna, I guess you're offline. And the other thing I guess I wanted to point out with this map that's on the very front of the handout, which I guess is -- it's something similar -- is that our project's approximately right in the middle of the map -- oh, here we go. Yes. And this area around here is R-8. This is R-8 in this area. This is also R-8. And this is an Idaho Power substation, so it's not going to be developed in the future. And, then, as I understand it, there is an application to change this to a commercial -- an L-Q use. I think there is a proposal in for that. So, I guess the point I was trying to make is that the areas around the subdivision are built out. We find that that is very good for our product, because of the seniors that we sell to, what they want to be is near their kids and grand kids and the fact that there is a lot of subdivisions around this area being sort of near where the rest of the family is, tends to -- typically is very important to our type of buyer. So, I guess what I'd like to do is move on to the elevations and what we have designed and we have tried to do our best -- this is some of the existing product and we have included this in a handout, because this has been a very popular item and we still feel that we'd like to continue to build that and we have tried to change some of the roof lines over the garage, added some more stone, changed -- added a couple different roof lines here and because this is so popular we wanted to continue this in our product offering to our seniors. If you will go to the next slide, Anna. And this one we have attempted on the roof lines to make it look as much as we can somewhat like two houses. We have even talked about the possibility of painting them slightly different colors to -- even though they are attached to make them look as separate as they can. And so this is kind of the basic idea here. On this one we had added dormers in the front to change the elevation that way that looks and in your handout there is one additional design that we have been working and, once again, we were trying to -- we are attempting -- it's the one with the -- it's colored somewhat yellow. We are attempting to have it look like two separate homes, but that they are attached on a zero lot line. It's very difficult to do that on a -- on a single level home, but we feel that that's -- we have been to three different designers and these are some of the ideas that they have come back with. With that I guess I'd stand for questions. De Weerd: Council, any questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Ron, do you have -- do you have something in writing -- I just would love to see it -- from this elderly blind homeowner to have the right of way -- or, excuse me -- some landscaping buffer five feet from her existing front door and moving garage doors from the south to the west and totally redesigning this lady's house. Is that a particular concern for her? Meridian City Council March 6,2007 Page 31 of 48 Sargent: In our purchase agreement in our contract we actually put in there that if we were denied direct access through the application process that we would, at our expense -- we own the house, but we had to clarify that, that we would move the garage doors from the south facing to the west facing. So, we in our -- so, contractually, we have actually, you know, gone to her and she -- her big concern was that she didn't want a major disruption in her home as we did all this work, but she agreed to the fact that we could move the garage doors and we, actually, have a specific time frame within which we do that and I think it's at the beginning of the site construction or at the end of the site construction, I don't recall exactly when it was, but we were going to delay it for a reasonable period of time before we actually moved those garage doors. The other thing is in the house -- it's better to -- I don't know if you can see it over here. This is kind of a -- this little wing that fits out to the north, that's kind of a big living room area and, then, the kitchen is next to it. It was an addition to the house. Most of the access by the family is kind of through this back door area in here. So, we even -- don't know if she will -- you will want to consider that as her front door. One of her concerns was -- is that the people -- that we wanted the sidewalk as far away from the windows as we possibly could have it, because she didn't want people walking on the sidewalk and being able to walk up to her living room window and look in. So, if -- I don't know if you can -- it's really small. We have a meandering sidewalk here and, then, about this area here we have it right along McMillan Road. We tried to keep -- so, at her request we tried to keep the sidewalk as far away from the house as we could. So, we have done -- you know, she's aware that there is going to be some fairly significant changes and we have -- we tried to anticipate as many of those changes as we could in our agreement. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: A follow-up concern. Was there any concern either from this homeowner or from our staff with regards to a possible driveway access right there? You have got, you know, your entire community accessing McMillan from this new street. You have got, you know, a larger berm, heavily landscaped, and now a driveway. Is there some safety concern with a driveway popping right around the corner? Sargent: Well, I guess, you know, first of all, is that we will comply with the city and the highway district's ordinances as far as your sight triangle is concerned. You know, both into the driveway and, then, McMillan onto Beethoven. And they have some specific requirements that back a certain distance we can only have a three foot high shrub or berm or other type of landscaping. So, it's going to be free and clear. So, in this area in here we need to -- we have to make sure that we comply with those requirements. The other thing is that we also have set the driveway to ACHD standards of a local road off a -- I believe McMillan is a collector. So, there is certain distances that we are required to be back before we can set the driveway. So, we have -- we are designing it to all those requirements. So, we are in compliance. We are not asking for any variance to any of those. But I do see your recommendation as I think it's important that that is free. The Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 32 of 48 other thing is -- maybe it's easier to see over here, if you can. There is quite a bit of distance from what will be the garage doors to Beethoven. My assumption is that they will be able to pull out of the garage, turn around, and go onto Beethoven facing forward. There is enough room in the driveway to turn around in that area. It's quite -- it's kind of -- I don't know the exact distance, but there is quite a distance from Beethoven over to the garage doors. Borton: Thank you. De Weerd: Anna, did ACHD make comments on this new design and did they raise any concerns about the clearance from the driveway to McMillan Road? Canning: Madam Mayor, they have not commented on the new design. I think their concern was more with the access staying to McMillan Road. I can check through the staff report, but I don't -- I mean we were always advocating that they actually take access from Beethoven and I don't remember there being a concern about -- expressed about that at all. De Weerd: Okay. I guess my concern, too, would be -- and I don't want to stereotype, so -- but that is an extremely busy road and this is still fairly close to the intersection of Locust Grove and McMillan and you have an older population and if they are anything like my grandparents, it's frightening. They shouldn't be driving. But, you know, with that access -- I guess I just have concerns with the access out onto McMillan and I don't think that stub to the north goes anywhere yet. Sargent: Correct. De Weerd: But there is a stub from -- Edinburgh? Is Edinburgh to the east of this? Sargent: Sheridan Place. De Weerd: Sheridan Place. Do they have an access just north and east of your upper- Sargent: Their road -- let's see where -- oops. Yeah. Their road ends right about there and our road from the south is -- does not allow connection at this point in time. When this property to the north of us is developed, then, that road will go on through. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think the applicant has proposed a good solution to the problem of backing out onto Beethoven and that's just to -- I do think -- still think we need a development agreement to include the elevations that the applicant has proposed and the Council could just include that he provide a turnaround on site in that yard, so that they can exit facing front. De Weerd: I guess that doesn't answer my question. I think what you had indicated is Ada County Highway District did comment about their access onto McMillan, then. Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 33 of 48 Canning: And they -- yes. They required that it be -- De Weerd: If that helps for the entire subdivision. Sargent: If I could address it, because in ACHD's report specifically we had requested this direct access from the house to McMillan. And ACHD -- De Weerd: Oh, so you'd have two accesses. Sargent: Yeah. And ACHD declined -- or they did not approve that direct access. De Weerd: I guess my comment is as we look at these arterials we need to look at them almost just as much as we need to look at the Chinden corridor as to how many accesses do we continue to allow onto these arterials and still have a safe driving situation. Canning: Yes, ma'am. De Weerd: I guess that's my concern. Canning: I understand now. I'm sorry I didn't understand you the first time. And we were concerned with that and that's why Mr. Sargent's project has the entrance road immediately along the western property boundary. The intent is that all three of these properties will share that access eventually. You may remember with the Woodland Springs, although the project was denied, one of the specific provisions were that that driveway access would go away over time and would connect through to this proposed access. So, we have been working to consolidate the access points for the remainder of this area. De Weerd: So, with that consideration, then -- and I appreciate that clarification, but, then, does it make sense to have the existing house access at that particular point on Beethoven, rather than to the north, where everything else is converging on that one road, does it make sense putting the driveway there? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, is it ideal? Probably not. Would it make sense to run a driveway parallel to the street? Probably not either, because it would create an odd -- awkward circumstance where you brought it over. Short of tearing down the house there aren1t too many options there. You know, I have to say that the applicant, although he advocated for the access to McMillan perhaps longer than he should have or would have normally, he has tried to accommodate the existing structure into the subdivision and meet the needs of that particular property owner. Sargent: Madam Mayor, could I maybe make a recommendation to resolve this is that, first of all, is that we in our agreement have said that if we couldn't direct access to McMillan Road that we would have access to Beethoven, you know, to the west, so they could access their garage from the west side. We did say that we would place that in a Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 34 of 48 location that was recommended by a government agency. If the city so desired, we could move that access further to the north in that direction to get it further away from McMillan. I guess as long as it's requested of us by a government agency, then, I think we have fulfilled the -- our part of the agreement. So, if that's your desire to move that forward, I guess there is -- there is a considerable amount of room in this area here, as I said, to do a turnaround and so we could -- we could certainly design an access to the garage in that area to allow a turnaround and to move that driveway further to the north. Would that be a -- De Weerd: How deep is the lot? Sargent: Excuse me? De Weerd: How deep is that? How deep is that lot? Sargent: My guess is it's probably 150, 170 feet from this side of the lot to this side. Somewhere in that area. I think this area from the house to the driveway is probably 50 feet, maybe, maybe more than that. Fifty, sixty feet. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Can I ask a question. Can you put -- can you put the -- do the garages go all the way through? Does the garage go all the way through from south to north? Sargent: No. There is -- Bird: There is another room? So, you can't put the entry into the garage on the north side. Sargent: No. That would be very awkward to do that. Bird: I'm like the Mayor, I think the farther north you can get it to come out on Beethoven would certainly be my recommendation. I would -- I wouldn't want you real close there to the -- Sargent: We designed it according to the highway district standards and that's what -- that's how we have proceeded and we -- I mean as I said, if we are mandated to move it further to the north, we -- you know, I think we can still feel -- fulfill our agreement to the owner of the property and give her access off that -- Bird: If it's that far down, I see where the things come from, but, you know, with the front landscaping and stuff a guy turning right in there isn't going to see that car until it's right down the street if it's that close. I would -- if you got that kind of area between the house where -- or the garage doors from that deal, I don't know why you can't go up a Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 35 of 48 hundred feet or so, at least give some people time to stop when they turn, because, you know -- Sargent: Right. Bird: -- you're going to have that landscaped and I just -- it's got to go north. It can't stay there. De Weerd: And ACHD standards are defined minimum standards. It doesn't mean you can't do more. Sargent: Yes. And as the applicant we are willing to move it further to the north on Beethoven and also to create a turnaround, so that they would be facing forward going out. We could also -- I mean look at this entire landscaping area in here and even though it may meet the site triangle requirements, we can make sure that this area in here is -- only has three foot or lower shrubs and that would I think also make it a lot more visible of somebody turning off here to see a driveway up in this area. Bird: What we are creating -- excuse me, Madam Mayor. What we are creating is another Locust Grove and Pine where you can't see what's coming like you can't from the west coming down Pine there on Locust Grove and I don't -- I mean Lieutenant Trakel could probably tell us, but I think there is -- have a lot of wrecks over there with that, even though they did cut the fence down to three feet, it's still -- it's horrible. I mean if you're in a big pickup or something it's not so bad, but if you're in a little Tracker like mine or a car it's tough, you have to get halfway out in the deal and I can see this same problem starting here and, then, to dump a driveway right there close to it, no way. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Zaremba: Madam Mayor, just a comment on the same subject. That as I recall the ACHD report did, as well as the city, say no access to McMillan, so the choices are either Beethoven or the cross street. The difficulty that I see with the cross street is the applicant's drawing over here, in order for a driveway to come out onto that cross street, you'd have to deal with a setback from Beethoven and either a setback or an alignment with this other piece of the street, which means you end up with more driveway than not driveway. I mean they would have to pave three-quarters of that lot to take access onto the cross street. So, I realize it's not a perfect situation, but I think with the applicant agreeing to move it further and further from McMillan and to reduce the height of the shrubbery right at the corner, that's not a happy compromise, but it's probably the best compromise. Canning: Madam Mayor, I have some numbers for you, too, if you'd like. It's about 140 feet from right of way on this street -- I can read the name right now -- to the right of way along McMillan. So, 30 feet of that is the landscape buffer. So, you have got -- Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 36 of 48 Bird: One hundred and ten -- Canning: -- about 110 feet. I thought it was more than that. Now I'm confused. Bird: You've got 140, you're taking 30 out. Canning: Thirty out, it would be 110, but I thought it was more than that, so now I got to check it again, so -- there is a fair amount of distance there. If the applicant were to have the back out area heading south and, then, move it up a little bit that may work. Bird: You mean heading north, don't you? Canning: No. You would want them to have -- well, it depends on how long you want them to back out. Bird: I mean you want him to go up, don't you, Anna? Canning: Yes. Bird: Yeah. I agree with that. Sargent: As a compromise, what if we put it half -- you know, began the driveway going north halfway between McMillan and this other -- and this street is Whitehawk. Bird: That's approximately 70 feet off of the right of way and you're taking out 30 feet of landscaping, which is going to be not visible. It's a blind corner. I would take it a hundred feet from the right of way on McMillan. Sargent: Okay. Bird: That will give -- that will give you 70 feet from the landscaping for people to see, get a car -- you know, what is cars running now, 22, 24 feet, something like that, long. I don't know. I think it should be at least a hundred feet off of the right of way -- Sargent: Okay. Bird: -- where you start to turn out. Zaremba: In support of what Councilman Bird is saying -- Canning: It's about right there. Zaremba: -- that would further encourage anybody that's trying to use that driveway to turn around. They are not going to back up that whole distance. Bird: That's right. Meridian City Council March 6t 2007 Page 37 of 48 Zaremba: And it would encourage them to use the turnaround and come out forward, so I think that's a good suggestion. Bird: Madam Mayor? And I think with the carry he's got there, you can back up and just turn and come out. Just back out of the deals, bring it out, and I realize it's going to be a lot more asphalt. Then, just turn and go north up there and, then, come out. I can't accept anything any closer than that myself personally. Sargent: We are not -- we are not opposed to that recommendation. De Weerd: Okay. Well, you know, I -- I see Kristi here and I thought she was still with Garden City. I kind of was trying to figure out what she was doing here. Now that I understand you're no longer with Garden City now it makes sense. If you would like to comment, we would love to have you do so. Richardson: Thank you. Kristi Richardson representing the Ada County Highway District. Madam Mayor, Council members. De Weerd: Well, welcome back. Richardson: Thank you. It's good to be back. We do have a condition in our staff report related to the internal streets and we do have a requirement for 50 feet from any intersection. So, while we agree with you, if we can get more than 50 feet off of McMillan, we also have to be concerned about Whitehawk and we got those same site distance issues for those people exiting the subdivision, making the corner around Whitehawk. So, my preference would be if the condition could just be that the driveway be located 50 feet south of Whitehawk, that's close to the hundred feet, but not quite, and that would still meet our conditions and would still get you away from McMillan a little bit further. But that way the sight distance should be okay for both the McMillan intersection and the Whitehawk intersection. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Bird: And that's -- you want 50 feet from the road there that goes east-west? Richardson: Correct. That's Whitehawk. Bird: So, that gives us 90 off of the right of way. Richardson: Approximately. Bird: I could probably live with that. Meridian City Council March 61 2007 Page 38 of 48 De Weerd: Kristi, as you look down the road -- I forget the -- but as the other properties kind of converge to that point, is that even going to give them very good access with the stacking or anything else? Richardson: I think with the applicant's willingness to install a turnaround on site, just the ability of the vehicles to pull out into traffic, rather than backing out we will be fine. De Weerd: As long as they don't have guests there that eliminates that ability to -- you know, there is -- there is all those worst case scenarios and don't want to be doom and gloom, but I guess trying to design a subdivision around an existing house always proves to make a very difficult application and -- and sometimes not real ideal. Richardson: We are pleased the access is off McMillan. Removed, not off of. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: No longer. Yes. Zaremba: Is the assumption that Beethoven would be treated like a collector and there would be no parking on it? Richardson: Madam Mayor, Councilmember Zaremba, I don't think we had any conditions at the present time. In the future as those properties to the west develop that's a very good possibility. We will have to see what the future of this house holds. If it stays a house, you know, we are certainly sensitive to the needs of the resident, too, and making sure there is adequate parking for gatherings. As those properties to the west develop, if there are more of a nonresidential type use, we will look at restricting parking. But not with the present application. And, of course, we do have requirements about restricting parking off of streets. So, parking will be restricted for a short period on Beethoven off of McMillan. De Weerd: Would you allow parking on Beethoven? Richardson: Because this is so short here with the requirement coming off of McMillan and, then, the -- and, then, the driveway, yeah, that leaves us with little and the short distance between intersections. So, you're right, probably nothing on Beethoven right now anyway and with the west side being unimproved. Good point. De Weerd: Okay. Don't want to kick a dead horse. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I would have one more question for the applicant. De Weerd: Mr. Sargent, we have a question for you. Zaremba: As Director Canning suggested that your Beethoven is designed to think of the future uses of the two properties to the west and combining the accesses, the Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 39 of 48 mechanics of accomplishing that and -- I was on the Planning and Zoning Commission when it came through there, but refresh my memory. I see on one of the drawings what is apparently a landscape strip. Is that put in a separate common lot that can be sold into right of way when it needs to be? Sargent: One of the requests from Ada County Highway District is that that landscaping strip along here be removed and that we have a gravel shoulder, so that when the street is finished out there isn't landscaping that will have to be removed. So, our design didn't meet the highway district's requirements, so they have requested us to put gravel in that location and take out the landscaping. So, does that -- Zaremba: You have resolved that. Sargent: Yeah. And on this newer version we met their requirement. We removed it. I did nit -- Zaremba: Thank you. De Weerd: Anything further? Okay. Sargent: Okay. Thank you. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: If nobody has anything, more public testimony or anything, I move we close AZ 06-052 and PP 06-053. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 17 and 18. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Any comments? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I guess the question is one of mechanics and maybe our attorney Mr. Nary and Director Canning need to chime in on this, but I'm satisfied with the changes that have been made, but how do we incorporate that into the motion? Can we reference the applicant's letter of January -- I think it was 26th. I'm trying to get to the date portion Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 40 of 48 on it. And does that mean that we should put that into the development agreement or are we satisfied to eliminate the development agreement and reference January 26th? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, what I would suggest is that probably the easiest thing is for Council just to state their desired changes or their desired facts regarding this case. If it's no driveway to McMillan. The driveway from the existing house shall be 50 feet south of Whitehawk Street. The development agreement -- or those would be more -- no, that would be the development agreement. That the elevations be tied to the development agreement, if that's what you want. That there only be a five foot reduction in the street landscape width. So, that's probably the easiest thing to do. Then, we will go make all the necessary changes and if you want me to present them to Council I can, but I can work with the applicant and I'm sure he will tell me if I got something wrong. Or Mr. Nary will. And, then, we will accomplish it that way. I think that's the easiest thing to do. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: For purposes of discussion there really isn't, from my perspective, been something that's changed with this application sufficient enough for me to be supportive of it. We might have a mix of opinions. I appreciate the applicant's efforts in trying to resolve this issue. I think from my mind I agree with the Mayor's comments concerning the challenges in developing a project around an existing home and this is one that is uniquely difficult. I understand that, by my concerns several weeks ago really haven't been alleviated by the changes. 11m not -- 11m not presently ready to accept the application as submitted, even with these changes. De Weerd: Council, any other comments? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: If not -- Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would just comment that I am, of course, on record as a Planning and Zoning Commissioner of having voted to recommend approval of this, with the conditions that were originally asked for in the development agreement. My biggest bugaboo at the time was the 25 foot landscape buffer and making that a permanent thing. I felt that the rest of the development pretty well complied with the Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Code. But the biggest issue was the access and, again, as the Mayor states, designing around the existing house, how do you do it, how do you access it, how much property do you have. And when this Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 41 of 48 Council denied it, I voted to deny at that point, because I was not satisfied that the buffer issue was being addressed. I now am more satisfied -- I can live with a 30 foot landscape buffer. As the applicant has said, they are going to berm it some and 30 years from now somebody driving down McMillan may not even be aware that it's five feet less buffer than the rest of it, which was my biggest concern that we have variations as somebody drives along McMillan. So, contrary to Councilman Borton, I would have to say that my issues have been pretty well resolved and I could be satisfied with this project. De Weerd: You know, Mr. Zaremba, I appreciate those. I guess I, too, would say someone might not notice that the landscape or setback was five feet less, but you have a meandering sidewalk that now is all of a sudden straight and we like the meandering sidewalks, because it brought the pedestrians further away from the busy street and because of, again, designing around an existing residence, it's dictated where the sidewalk has to be, because they don't want them peeking in their house. I understand that. But one of the reasons that Meridian has supported the detached is to keep the pedestrian away from the busy street. McMillan is a busy street and it certainly has it challenges. I just -- you know, I'd like the interior park design, it just -- there is just still a couple of concerns that I have. Mr. Bird, did you -- I'm sorry. Bird: Oh, no problem, Mayor. I can't think of where we got meandering sidewalks on McMillan Road. I know the subdivisions to the east don't, because 1 have walked them a few times and I don't remember them being a detached deal and I could be wrong there. I, too, agree with Councilman Zaremba. I -- the applicant went back -- 1 don't know -- and I understand why that lady wants to stay in that house and I'm not for one for her having to move out. I think he's went and done everything we asked him to do, in my opinion. The landscape buffer. No access from McMillan. He is willing to go 50 feet south with the driveway from Whitehawk or whatever street that is. I can support it now. De Weerd: Okay. Well, do I have a motion, Council? Zaremba: Refresh my memory. Did we already close the Public Hearing? Bird: Yeah. De Weerd: Yes, we did. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. In that case, Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we approve AZ 06-052 for Portico Place Subdivision to include all staff comments and to include a development agreement, but to make some changes to the development agreement, to eliminate the requirement that if Lot 17, Block 1, ever redevelops, re-subdivides, et cetera, that the landscape buffer will have to Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 42 of 48 be changed and to accept the applicant's revision to make the landscape buffer be 30 feet, instead of the 35. The development agreement directed that the existing access to McMillan be dropped. The applicant has already agreed to that, so I would rephrase that to state that the access to Beethoven will include both a turnaround and a driveway that meets the street as close to 50 feet south of Whitehawk as possible. I would include in the development agreement a reference to the elevations that have been provided to the Council tonight and let me interrupt to ask staff, am I missing anything? Bird: Three weeks for the -- three weeks for Findings. Give her three weeks for Findings. Zaremba: Oh, yes. And staff has asked for three weeks for Findings and that's acceptable. Okay. End of motion. Bird: I will second it. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 17 with the changes as noted. Any further discussion? Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, nay. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we approve PP 06-053 for Portico Place Subdivision and, let's see, what preliminary plat do I reference? They have made some modifications. Bird: Whafs the date on it? Canning: The landscape buffer. The landscape lot along the street being 30 feet wide, instead of 25. Zaremba: Okay. So, we are accepting the original preliminary plat, but the changes are that the landscape buffer will be a minimum of 30 feet along McMillan. Is that the only change to the plan? Bird: Before I second that, David, would you add something in there. I believe that we need a drawing of some sort showing the turnaround and the exit and entry of the driveway for the existing house, that that be shown to the staff before -- before the Findings are done. Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 43 of 48 Zaremba: I would incorporate -- Bird: The final plat, definitely, yeah. But I'd like to see it -- I'd like to have staff see it as soon as possible. Zaremba: I would incorporate that into the motion. Bird: I would second it, then. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, clarification. There was thrown out prior to adoption of the Findings and prior to final plat. Either of those would work, but could you specify which one it is? Zaremba: Lefs see. I think you have already said that you're going to work together with the applicant to get to the Findings and I would include it as part of that discussion. I don't think Councilman Bird was saying that we had to see it. Bird: No. No. No. No. Zaremba: Yeah. That's -- we want staff to see it and agree. Canning: So, prior to adoption of Findings? Zaremba: Yes. Canning: And not to further muddy things, but did you want that also included in the development agreement? Bird: Yes. Zaremba: That probably should be. Canning: Okay. Zaremba: Do we need to revote -- well, let's finish this vote, I guess. Do we need to revote on the AZ? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: We probably should. Just to be safe, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. If you would like an additional condition placed on the development agreement, then, clearly on the record, if that's your direction that would be the easiest. Zaremba: I would suggest that when we conclude with the preliminary plat and I will amend the AZ issue. Meridian City Council March 6f 2007 Page 44 of 48 Bird: We need to pull the preliminary plat first. De Weerd: If you could probably withdraw the motion. Zaremba: Okay. I would withdraw the motion on the preliminary plat. Berg: Just a question. De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Berg. Berg: Madam Mayor, could you approve the motion and vote on it and, then, amend the previous motion and -- Nary: Well, he's withdrawn it. Berg: But he could have -- Bird: No. Berg: -- amended the motion, because you can amend a motion -- Bird: But we might not have passed with the amendment to the AZ -- it might not pass and, then, you have already passed the preliminary plat, so you have got to wait and do it in order. De Weerd: Okay. So, since we do not have a motion -- Bird: I'm listening to the boss. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that -- De Weerd: You know, guys, you really ruin things. You know, Mr. Borton just whipped through that agenda so fast, I got here and now it's just really stuck. Bird: I wonder why? Who come in? De Weerd: I don't know, but you don't hear me talking. Zaremba: I know. I know. I'm the reason that the Planning and Zoning Commissions went so long, so -- De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Zaremba. Meridian City Council March 6J 2007 Page 45 of 48 Zaremba: Now that I'm here aren't you all sorry. We had a previous motion on AZ 06- 052. I would make that entire motion stand, but add one addendum and that is that a provision of the development agreement is that applicant will work with staff and show staff a rendering of how the driveway is going to have a turnaround and access Beethoven. Bird: Of that existing house. Yes. Zaremba: With the existing house. Bird: Second agrees. De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion on the annexation as stated previously, with the addition, and that's on Item 17. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, nay. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we approve PP 06-053, to include all staff comments with no changes. Bird: Second. Canning: No. Zaremba: I'm sorry; do we need to reference the development agreement stuff again? Canning: No, sir. You need the 30-foot landscape buffer. Bird: Yeah. Zaremba: I'm sorry. Okay. De Weerd: And second agrees? Bird: Second agrees. Zaremba: To include the 30-foot landscape buffer. Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 46 of 48 De Weerd: Thank you. Any further discussion? I'm almost afraid to ask. Okay. Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, nay. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Item 19: Ordinance No. 07-1299 : RZ 06-008 Request for a Rezone of 8.96 acres (Lots 41-45, Block 49, Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12) from R-4 to C-N zone for Lochsa Falls Office I Commercial Addition by Farwest, LLC - south of Chinden Boulevard and west of North Linder Road: Item 20: Ordinance No. 07-1300 : RZ 06-004 Request for a Rezone of 5.49 acres from R-4 to R-15 (2.17 acres) and L-O (3.32 acres) for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC - 1021 West Pine Avenue: De Weerd: See, there was just nothing easy about this one, even the motion. Okay. Items 19 and 20 are ordinances number 07 -- Bird: -- 1299 and 1300. De Weerd: 1299 and 1300. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read these ordinances by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 07-1299, an ordinance finding that Lochsa Falls, LLC, the owners of certain real property has made a written request for rezone of zoning classification for real property being Lots 45 through -- 41 through 45, Block 49, Lochsa Falls No. 12 located in the northwest quarter of Section 26, Township 4 north, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A of this ordinance and rezoning certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, and rezoning the land use zoning classification of these lands from R-4 to C-N and L-O in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date. Berg: Ordinance No. 07-1300, an ordinance finding that Meridian Friends Church and Berr International, Inc., the owners of certain real property has made a written request for rezone of the zoning classification for real property being situated in the west one half of Lot 2, West Lawn Subdivision, situation in a portion of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Meridian, Ada Meridian City Council March 6,2007 Page 47 of 48 County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A of this ordinance and the rezoning certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, and rezoning the land use zoning classification of said lands from R-4 to R-15 and L-O in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date. De Weerd: Well, after that stimulating reading of these two ordinances, is there anyone who would like to hear them read in their entirety? It would be even more stimulating. Hearing none. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve Ordinance 07-1299 with suspension of rules. De Weerd: Do you also want to do -- Bird: Oh, we want to do both? Yeah. 07 -- also approval 07-1300 with suspension of ru I es. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to pass these two ordinances. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Council, I would invite you and anyone else who has an interest -- I do -- our youth council has been involved with the Treasure Valley Youth Partnership and I have a DVD that has a number of PSAs on here that were developed by the youth of our community and our valley at large, 30 second PSAs on the March -- for the March Against Meth. Their schools developed 30 second PSAs to lead up to the March Against Meth and these will be showing in the high schools and I do have the DVD that shows all 12 of them. So, we will take ten minutes and it will be at the conclusion of this meeting. If you would like to view the talent of the youth of our valley, I would be more than happy to share them with you. With that said, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Bird: So moved. Borton: Second. Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 48 of 48 De Weerd: Thank you. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:26 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: MA ..~ DE WEERD \\\\\\111 rll;(,' \\\ ", ""\~J of ME~b:fbl~.//// ~ ",-' :\"' ~.IJ... /..../..... ~'a r;~:'tPoP~ /; V.Y ~ f r <to ~ ~ TTE~~)J~ ~ ~Gn_ ~ G. BERG JR., ~ "1'A '-~r 151: ~ "'"" $' "/ ~ ..c\' ,...... '...." ~j' CboN "fV ,v v/1 -rV t \,\ III "\\\ 1IIIItl11H n\\\\\\ 4-1 J7 1 tfJ7 DATE APPROVED