Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 03-13 Meridian City Council Meetina March 13. 2007 A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:09 P.M., Tuesday, March 13,2007, by President Joe Borton. Members Present: Charlie Rountree, Joe Borton, Keith Bird, and David Zaremba. Member Absent: Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Others Present: Ted Baird, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Len Grady, Gene Trakel, Joe Silva, Ron Anderson, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X David Zaremba X Charlie Rountree o X Joe Borton X Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd Borton: Welcome, everybody. We will go ahead and begin the City Council meeting for Tuesday, March 13th. It's a little after 7:00 p.m. We will begin this City Council meeting with roll call attendance. Mr. Berg. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: Jared Watts and Franklin Watts Borton: Thank you. Item No.2 is the pledge of allegiance. Please join us. Jared and Franklin Watts, please, lead us in the pledge. (Pledge of allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Shawn Ragan with the Church of God Seventh Day: Borton: Thank you, Jared and Franklin and as we try and do anytime a youngster comes to welcome city government and participate, we try and provide them handfuls of chocolate. So, please, come forward. When I get a chance to do this I give out chocolate. Thank you, guys, for helping out. We appreciate it. Item No. 3 is our community invocation. We will be led tonight by Pastor Shawn Ragan with the Church of God Seventh-Day. Pastor Ragan. Ragan: Members of the Council, let us pray. Our Heavenly Father, we come before you at this time thankful for all that you do and all that you are. We thank you for your mercy, love and grave. Thank you for your forgiveness and for the life you offer. We thank you for the city and the county we live in, for the peace that we have in Meridian and for all blessings that you have bestowed upon us. I ask you now that you provide Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 2 of 49 wisdom to leaders of our community, our Mayor, and our City Council, various city employees for taking part in this meeting. Ask that you would guide them in their decisions, that you would help them make the right decisions for our community and on our behalf. Bless this meeting and provide the insight and discernment needed. Please continue to be with our city, our governmental leaders, our businesses, our churches and schools and our individual citizens. Bless them in their endeavors and help them stay true to your desire and will for them. Be with our police and fire departments, keep them safe and bless them in all that they do for us, in the name of your precious son Jesus Christ we pray, amen. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: Borton: Thank you, Pastor Ragan. Appreciate you being here. Item No.4, adoption of the agenda. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: On the agenda, I believe it or not, we haven't had a single thing ask to be removed, so -- and Item 10, proposed number for that ordinance is 07-1301 and also Item 20 is an ordinance and the proposed number is 07-1302 and with that I move we approve the agenda. Rountree: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda as published. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of January 23, 2007 Pre-Council Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of February 6, 2007 Pre-Council Meeting: c. Approve Minutes of February 13, 2007 Pre-Council Meeting: D. Approve Minutes of February 13, 2007 City Council Regular Meeting: E. Approve New Beer and Liquor Licenses for Todd Asin dba Sa Wad Dee Thai Restaurant at 1890 E. Fairview Avenue: Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 3 of 49 F. Approve New Beer and Liquor Licenses for Shirds, Inc. dba The Courtyards at the Mariotte Cafe Indiao at 1789 S. Eagle Road: G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for Approval: AZ 06-047 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.3 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Waverlv Place Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E. Magic View Court: H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for Approval PP 06-049 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 multi-family residential building lots consisting of 24 multi-family units, 1 clubhouse building lot and 3 common / other lots on 5.3 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E. Magic View Court: I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for Approval CUP 06-030 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval for a multi-family development in a L-O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC - 2510 E. Magic View Court: J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for Approval: RZ 06-013 Request for a Rezone of .43 acres from an R-8 to an 0- T zone for Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene Property by Paradigm Real Estate Holding - 39 W. Pine Avenue: K. Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for Approval RZ 06-014 Request for a Rezone of 15.58 acres from an R-4 zone to an O-T zone for Joint School District No.2 by Joint School District No.2 - 911 N. Meridian Road: L. SHP 07-001 Request for Short Plat Approval for 21 condominium units in 7 buildings in an R-8 zone for Sprina Creek Condominium Short Plat by Douglas Clegg - 175 E. Calderwood Drive: M. Approve Change Order No. 1 with BRS Architects for New Water Division Buildina (Design) for $8,206.47: N. Approve Memorandum of Understanding for Sevoy Antiaues by Paul Sevoian, Fairview Terrace and City of Meridian: o. Approve Task Order with DC Engineering Services, P.C., for Wastewater Treatment Plant Sludae Blanket Monitor Installation for $4650.00: Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 4 of 49 P. Approve Permanent and Temporary Easement Contract for Troy A. and Dana J. Mannina for Bitter Creek Lift Station and Pipelines: Q. Approve Permanent and Temporary Easement Contract for Wirt Edmonds for Bitter Creek Lift Station and Pipelines: R. Approve Permanent and Temporary Easement Contract for Warren Waite for Bitter Creek Lift Station and Pipelines: S. Approve Permanent and Temporary Easement Contract for Frank A. and Erma E. Smartt Trust for Bitter Creek Lift Station and Pipelines: T. Approve Task Order for Miscellaneous Master Plan Support Services with JUB Engineers, Inc. for $7,500.00: u. Award Bid I Approve Contract with Senske Lawn and Tree Care Company for a three year contract with amounts for 2007 of $34,646, for 2008 $35,340 and for 2009 $36,400 for a total of $106,396.00 for Landscape Maintenance Services: Borton: Thank you. Item No.5, Consent Agenda. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: 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 second to approve the Consent Agenda as published. Mr. Berg, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Department Reports: Borton: Thank you. There are no department reports. Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 5 of 49 Borton: There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda. Item 8: FP 07-004: Request for Final Plat approval for 10 single-family residential building lots and 11 common lots on 5.22 acres in an R-8 zone for Paramount Subdivision No. 15 by Paramount Development, Inc. - West of Meridian Road and North of McMillan Road: Borton: Item No.8, FP 07-004, request for final plat approval for Paramount Subdivision 15. Canning: President Borton, Members of the Council, we have a letter from the applicant stating they are in agreement with the conditions of approval. Borton: Thank you, Anna. Rountree: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve Item No.8, FP 07-004, final plat for Paramount Subdivision No. 15. Zaremba: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to approve FP 07-004. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Any oppose? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from March 6, 2007 for Written Testimony: Proposed Fireworks Ordinance: Borton: Item No. 9 is the continued Public Hearing from March 5, 2007, for written testimony concerning the proposed fireworks ordinance. We will begin this continued Public Hearing with comments from legal counsel. Baird: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. As you indicated, this was continued for receipt of written testimony only. You have taken all of the public testimony last week. So, I think it would be appropriate at this time to have Joe Silva present and let you know what written testimony he did receive and, then, allow you to ask any questions while you still have the Public Hearing open. Borton: Thank you, Mr. Baird. Deputy Chief Silva. Silva: Mr. President, Members of the Council. Before you we'd like to acknowledge the receipt of two letters from T&T, dated March 8th and Outlet Fireworks, which we will Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 6 of 49 testify and comment on those written responses that you got com'mentary on our proposed ordinance. It's pretty apparent that when we celebrate the Fourth of July here in Meridian, Idaho, and throughout the Treasure Valley, that we have a lot of legal fireworks being used properly and cautiously, but we also have seen a lot of abuse of illegal fireworks being possessed -- purchased and possessed and discharged illegally in the City of Meridian. So, with that what we are going to do is kind of recap what we have done to date and how we got here, just for your consideration in this ordinance this evening. Basically, the root cause is a flaw in our state law that allows for the purchase and possession of illegal fireworks, dangerous fireworks, that -- that are defined as anything that goes -- that shoots above a 15 foot height or 15 foot diameter circle or emits sparks outside of a 20 foot diameter circle or above a height of 20 feet. We encourage every Idahoan and all of Meridian citizens to enjoy a family celebration and to enjoy a family barbecue as part of the celebration of our freedom. However, we don't think that they should do that at the expense of perhaps putting another person's -- another Idahoan's property at risk by careless use of either legal or illegal fireworks. At about one year ago we had in front of Council -- what brought this issue about -- about one year ago we had two Conditional Use Permits, one for a Conditional Use Permit for a tent -- temporary tent to sell fireworks at 1 ,500 square feet and one at 2,800 square feet. Realizing the problems associated with that, we were directed by Council to work with the other adjacent agencies to see if we couldn't standardize the requirements for fireworks within our fireworks ordinance, paying particular attention to the size of the sales standard tent. And pretty much the other agencies were all over the board with respect to size and we were able to reach consensus at 600 square feet. The fire code as it's adopted in our city and in the future, the next version of the International Fire Code, would still have a concern for any tent over 200 square feet or any canopy over 400 square feet. So, there is still -- you know, those would be things you would want to consider when we -- how it would be potentially affected by the future adoption of any future codes. But you have to consider the fact if we had allowed -- or if Council seated at that time had allowed that 2,800 square foot tent to sell illegal -- or, excuse me, legal fireworks, it would be full of Class C fireworks and you have to envision what a 2,800 square foot house would look like. That would be a pretty good size structure. We have also had tents collapse in high winds that we experience during the month of July while a tent was up and that was one of our other concerns about allowing very large tents to be erected and for the sales of fireworks. Included in our proposed ordinance is you have to be age 16 to work within the stand and the reason why we arrived at that is we had one stand operator who was operating a stand that had very small children, including one child in a playpen that really troubled us when we were doing our field inspection and that was one of the concerns we -- how we arrived at the age 16 to have a minimum age to work inside of a stand. We also thought that it might be troubling that if we had a very -- a smaller child, say for example a 12 year old working inside a stand, who, in turn, is asking a 16 year old for proof of ID, that might be somewhat intimidating, because, obviously, there is a -- can be a variation in size there and that would be very difficult for that 12 year old to probably accomplish, so we identified that as a potential concern. Included in the ordinance this evening in front of you is also age 16 to purchase the fireworks -- legal fireworks. We have -- we want parents to be responsible for their children and we want those fireworks purchased and used under the Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 7 of 49 supervision of a parent. We have also reviewed -- we have also removed the liability cap for any damages that may occur as the result of a fire from the use of fireworks. One of the things that we debated at length was the ability to touch the product. That's included in our current fire code as we have adopted the limited consumer access to any fireworks within a retail sales stand. That's clearly stated in our fire code and we have enforced that and put that -- included that in a provision in the ordinance before you this evening. Our concern is that there is the potential for an accident or intentional ignition of a fuse on one of the fireworks that may be contained in the stand and that that could cause quite a display for fireworks that may not be intended. One of the things before you also was the fact that there may have been some issues raised with respect to being able to touch the product if they are fully encapsulated within a package. The majority of the products -- almost all the products are manufactured overseas and there is no consistency in the packaging or the packaging may be damaged in the course of transport or movement into the fireworks stand, so we could never guarantee that that very dangerous fuse is protected as it should be to prevent any accidental ignitions. Borton: Deputy Chief Silva? Silva: Yes. Borton: If I could interrupt you and I apologize for doing so. One of the things that, you know, we wanted to specifically address from the last time -- and, again, this isn't -- we are not going to start from scratch and have an entire public hearing concerning the entire ordinance. One of the issues we had last time -- and the reason for the continuance was there were some specific changes which were made and reflected in that most recent version, which some members of the public hadn't had an opportunity to review at the time of that hearing. With regards to any of those specific changes -- and we have received some public comment and invited that public written comment on those items, is there anything with regards to those that you had discussions since the last hearing that you could provide us information on? Silva: A few of those items would be something that probably legal counsel should address, but with respect to that, I have got two letters in front of us, one -- one was the dustless material in the parking lot and that was a requirement of the UDC. The covered fuse was an issue that I just talked about, because of trouble associated with that fuse being exposed to potential ignition. They didn't want any vehicles parked -- we were requiring the vehicles be separated by at least 25 feet from the stand and that was included in there. That's in our current ordinance and it's, actually, something we built off of in the existing state law. The majority of the issues raised by Bob Brown of T&T was -- the majority of the items I discussed that with our legal counsel Ted Baird and he can respond to that, but one of the things in there was also merchandise not readily accessible to the public and as I stated just previously that we are concerned about the potential ignition of any of those products that have direct consumer access. I had already addressed on the size of the stand at 600 square feet. And we had only allowed one short-term storage container per site and that was something that had been Meridian City Council March13,2007 Page 8 of 49 included in one of the comments from T&T. And, basically, those are items that were included. Legal counsel should probably address a couple of things that were brought up that were more technical in nature. Borton: Okay. Thank you for that information. And we have received written information from Bob Brown of T&T, Bob Ingersol representing Fat City Fireworks. Mr. Fred Mann, Lee Family Fireworks. Ralph -- is it Chappell? Ralph Chappell. Scott Thompson. Spencer Martin. Wendy Campbell. I think that covers the written comments that we have received and all of us have had an opportunity to review. Mr. Baird, do you have other information? Baird: Mr. President, Members of the Council, there are a few items that have not yet been addressed that were brought up in Mr. Bob Brown's letter dated March 8th and I will go through those. Mr. Silva just went through most of them, but there are a couple of them that are more technical in nature. There is the objection to requiring a Social Security number of the applicant and the city is suggesting that that stay in, because we can't run a background check without it. It's a standard requirement for any kind of a background check that you do need to require a Social Security number. Requiring the tax permit number on the application, they have to have it anyway. It's just a housekeeping measure to know that they have got it. We think ifs reasonable to ask for it, so we are suggesting that it stay in. There was a suggestion that Section 5-4-05 sub B, sub 11, allowed the city clerk to require, quote, unquote, other information. The suggestion was that that was too vague. We agree with you. We will take that out. There should be a specific list of the requirements and by adding that in it does leave it open for discretion that is not really necessary to have. So, we will take that part out. Section 5-4-05 subsection C, subsection 2, the term will likely endanger, the statement was made by Mr. Brown that that's not specific enough. That language was taken directly from the state code, so we suggest that we leave that in, since the state code is using it. The permit application currently is set for April 15th. The suggestion was that it be changed to June 10th to be closer to the date when they are hiring their personnel and having the contracts with the organizations to run the booths. The city clerk needs that April 15th deadline to properly process the applications. Ifs an administrative requirement of the city, so we are suggesting that you leave that April 15th date in. Another use of language, Subsection 5-4-05 sub H, the language that something constitutes an unreasonable -- that's also state code language, so if there is any problem with it, ifs also in the state code and we suggest that we remain consistent with the state code language and leave that in. Section 5-4-05L.4, permit may be revoked if used by another person other than who the permit is issued. Mr. Brown's suggesting that language be allowed to permit transfer from one operator to another. Allowing that would sort of do away with the whole purpose of a background check. We have clarified, though, that the people running the booths on behalf of the operator could be interchanged, you know, one charitable organization over another, but the actual person in charge needs to be the person who submits the application and who we perform the background check on. I think Mr. Silva has already talked about the one stand per site. Sign requirements. Those are UDC requirements. I think everything else in Mr. Brown's letter has been addressed. I would stand for questions at this time. Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 9 of 49 Borton: Thank you, Mr. Baird. Council, any questions? Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none. Zaremba: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I don't really have questions, but I have a couple of comments that I would offer before getting to that stage of the discussion. Borton: Okay. Zaremba: Well, it's obvious that I want to thank the chief and other fire and safety officials that participated in producing the new ordinance. I also want to thank the fireworks distributors who have gone through carefully and given some of their good thoughts. There were a couple of comments made in the letters that aren't actual technical things. One of the comments was made that this ordinance is a much larger ordinance than previous ordinances and that the opinion was given that this is just a step in the direction of eventually prohibiting all fireworks entirely. And while I appreciate that observation, it seems to me that the work that has been done has been done to provide a good compromise between something that lacks public safety, which is the unsafe fireworks, which do seem to be available, a compromise between that and totally banishing fireworks and there is precedent for making total banishments. In one neighborhood -- or in one subject there has been a total ban on celebrating the Fourth of July by shooting guns and firearms into the air. So, there is precedent in defining how people can celebrate. But my observation is that I believe that this is an excellent compromise between what is needed for safety and still allowing people to celebrate the Fourth of July in a safe manner. The second observation is that there was an opinion expressed about this ordinance being presented in Meridian first as the place that it's most likely to pass before it's taken onto the regional jurisdictions and my comment on that is that I would be proud to have Meridian be the leader in all regional activities that need to have support from other entities around it. I have no problem with this one coming to Meridian first. I don't think that's a negative at all. I'm proud that it's here and I hope we are first in many other regional activities in the future. Borton: Thank you, Councilman Zaremba. Rountree: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Council March13,2007 Page 10 of 49 Rountree: I would move that we close the Public Hearing on Item No.9, the fireworks ordinance. Bird: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item No.9. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borton: Thank you. Open for discussion. Rountree: Mr. President, I just have a question for legal counsel in terms of process. I know the next item is the ordinance itself and the first reading. Is that simply a reading, no action? Baird: Mr. President, Council Members, Councilmember Rountree, that's correct. Now that you are on Item No.9, if you would like to direct any changes to the ordinance, now would be the time to put those on the record. You could proceed with the first reading tonight with the direction to bring back any changes you desire for the second reading. If you take no further action, this will go to first, second, and third reading with up for your passage on the third reading. But once you get to Item 10 it's just a matter of having the reading. Rountree: Thank you. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. Baird, did you incorporate the ones that you agreed with in Mr. Brown's into the ordinance that we got in front of us? Baird: Mr. Council President, Members of the Council, to be honest with you, I'm not the attorney in our office who has been doing the work on this. We will -- I'd ask that if you agree with those suggested changes that you direct that it be brought back, if it's not already in the one that's in front of you tonight, that they be brought back for the second reading, so that what will be in front of you for the second reading is what you intend to consider for the third reading the following week. Bird: Thank you. Borton: To throw out my two bits of where I am on this particular position and the efforts of the City of Meridian to try and do something to improve the safety of the public and from everything that we have seen take a leadership role in doing so throughout the Treasure Valley, I appreciate the detailed input from the various vendors and members Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 11 of 49 of the public, both opposed to certain portions of the ordinance and support of certain portions of the ordinance. It's never an easy process an undertaking of this size. From what I have seen it's kind of a messy, arduous, difficult, lengthy thing, but the end result is intended to provide the best product for the City of Meridian. From what I have seen presented throughout the various public hearings and, again, most recently with lots of written comments provided by members of the public and lots of the vendors who raise some legitimate points, the ordinance as a whole is something that I think is good for Meridian. If there were an area of concern, I think it creates great strength in improving the safety of our citizens. I think it does so in such a good manner, the only area that I wrestled with at this point is the age requirement. The 16 year old age requirement, in light of all of the measures taken to improve the safety of these facilities and the manner in which they are going to be regulated in the city, the age of 16 versus an age of 14 has always been wrestling -- I have always wrestled with. The age of 14 seems appropriate to me. That's on page ten of the ordinance. And having said that, you know, I do have to comment -- and not to belabor the point, but anytime you receive public comment ideally intended to educate and persuade Council, the vast majority of it is helpful and constructive, but in this particular issue I do need to make at least my opinion known that anytime there is a presentation orally or in writing to the Council, doi-ng so in a constructive way and providing facts and logical argument and disagreement is the way to do it, but anytime in this particular issue in going forward that there is an argument that implies that the Council rubber stamps things or doesn't look into it with great detail or it's the lay down easy route to go and it's not an honorable course or it lacks integrity, by doing so you have got one Council member who is absolutely irate with your intention to persuade in that manner. So, those very very few that participate in this process in that manner, you have done an absolute disservice to your intent to try and educate and persuade Council and I hate to see it and anyone in future cases who chooses to go that route only hurts themselves. So, I know that's sort of a side issue, but I was a little upset to see instances of that in this difficult process. So, having said that, I think it's -- I'm mindful of the concerns of the vendors. I would like to see a report from our fire department, public safety perhaps, late summer or this fall, which is going to show some sort of statistics of improved safety and how this has helped our citizens. I think we will be able to have that information, but I think we owe it to our citizens and all of the concerns that were raised to look for that and make sure that this actually does work and we are accountable and if there is problems with it, we come back and fix it as soon as we can. So, I'm comfortable going forward as long as we keep an eye on it. Rountree: Mr. President, your ending comments are my thoughts precisely. This is a potential ordinance, we have not acted on it at this point in time. We recognize that ordinances do get amended once they are in place if issues are created by the ordinance that are unfair either to the public or to a vendor. This isn't an end all. I think it's the first step if we move forward. My concerns about the language of the ordinance in terms of some of the vagaries of the language and some of the subjectivity and some of the criteria have been addressed and I think some of those comments were certainly identified and submitted by the vendors. My concern, as I see an increase every Fourth of July of emergency call outs of both the paramedic and fire department, though there Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 12 of 49 may not be a critical issue, anytime those folks' time is taken and put out on the road, those folks are in danger, the folks that are driving the roads are in danger, and they are taken away from a potential situation where they actually may really be needed someplace else. If we can reduce the call outs on the Fourth of July, I think we have started towards success. So, at this point I'm inclined to be favorable. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: I agree with the previous comments. I'd also like to -- we are not -- this ordinance isn't taking away safe and sane fireworks by any means and we don't want to and coming from the small business climate throughout my life, we don't want to cost anybody their business either. I do agree with the 16 years of age, because most of the jobs you find, if there is any kind of equipment or anything around it -- and to me fireworks is an equipment and it can be dangerous, you're not allowed to have 16 year olds -- under 16 working it. So, I feel that this is a step. I agree with Councilman Rountree that the less call outs we have on that for running down complaints and stuff of the illegal fireworks, while this probably won't take it away, hopefully, it will cut it back a little bit. I can support this as it sits right now and I do appreciate what the vendors, all our safety personnel, have put forward in this and I certainly appreciate it. Borton: Thank you, Councilman Bird. Zaremba: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would only -- I made some comments earlier, but I would add one more, again, in support of what the other Council members have said, but also there was one very good point that vendors made, I don't think it was in writing, I think it was during verbal public testimony, that in any business where you have competitors, there needs to be a level playing field and I admit that Meridian as being the first one to take the step of making a stronger ordinance than is in the cities surrounding us and the issue that small businesses can have is, okay, I'm going to obey all the rules, but my competitor may not or my customers can go next door and buy what they can't buy here. 11m very sensitive to that. But I do feel somebody has to be the first one to make the step and I guess what I'm going for is that Meridian needs to be very strong in our advocacy to our neighboring cities to make sure that the playing field does end up level for the vendors and that they pass a similar ordinance, so that our local in-city vendors are not punished for us having a good, strong ordinance. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council March13,2007 Page 13 of 49 Bird: And that would include county, too. Zaremba: Yes. And county. Both counties and cities. Borton: Okay. Mr. Baird. Baird: Mr. President, I have had a chance to confer with the city clerk and confirm that the version before you does not have the changes that we discussed tonight, so if you concur with the recommendations of Mr. Silva and myself for some minor changes, we'd ask for a motion to that effect, to bring that back for the second reading. We believe that those are changes of the sort that do not require you to change the reading schedule, as long as you go on the record tonight what your desire is to be brought back with the second reading version. Borton: Thank you, Mr. Baird. Council, if there is no further discussion, I would entertain a motion on Item No.9. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we move forward with the first reading of Ordinance 07-1301 and that we - - before the second reading of next week we get incorporated the comments of our legal staff and Deputy Chief Silva for the second reading. Rountree: I have a question for the maker of the motion. Borton: Second? Rountree: I will second. Borton: Okay. There is a second. Discussion? Rountree: No discussion. A question for the maker of the motion. Is your intent of the first reading by title only? Bird: By title only. I'm sorry. Yes. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. Borton: Any further discussion? Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 14 of 49 Item 10: Ordinance No. Reading: 07-1301 New Fireworks Ordinance - 1st Borton: Thank you. Item No. 10 is Ordinance No. 07-1301, our new fireworks ordinance. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, read this ordinance by title only. Berg: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. Ordinance 07-1301, an ordinance of the City of Meridian repealing Chapter 4 of Title 5 of the Meridian City Code relating to fireworks, providing for a new Chapter 4, Title 5, to be known as the Meridian fireworks ordinance, providing for a short title, definitions, sales, storage, possession, and/or discharge of fireworks, inspections by fire chief, permits for retail sales of non-aerial common fireworks, retail sales of non-aerial common fireworks, storage of non-aerial common fireworks, general provisions, liability of parents or guardians, violations, penalties, permits for public fireworks displays and public fireworks displays. Borton: Thank you, Mr. Berg. Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from February 27, 2007: AZ 06-046 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.7 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. - 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive: Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from February 27, 2007: PP 06-048 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 61 single-family residential lots and 6 common lots on 21.7 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. - 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive: Borton: Items No. 11 and 12 are continued public hearings from February 27th, 2007, on Harcourt Subdivision. We will begin these continued public hearings with staff comments. Canning: Mr. President, Members of the Council, this is a continued Public Hearing on Harcourt. As you will recall, it is located on the south side of Victory Road, approximately a sixth of a mile east of Eagle. The applications include annexation and zoning and preliminary plat. At the previous hearing you heard testimony from the property owners on the southern end of the property, southwest actually, that they'd like to see one lot removed. Council asked the applicant if they could accommodate that. They said that they like would some time to reconfigure the lots, so that they could relocate that lot. They have done that. This is the new preliminary plat. Staff has evaluated the proposal. The applicant is proposing -- they have relocated one of the lots from the southern end up into this block up here between the drainage facility and the micro-path. If we go down to the landscape plan you can see the previous lot configuration here. So, this is where they added the lot and as you see as you get down to the bottom, they have provided information -- these lots are 14,566 square feet, Meridian City Council March13,2007 Page 15 of 49 14,762 square feet, 14,776 square feet and, then, 10,410 square feet and this is 11 ,000 square feet. So, these lots are substantially larger than previously. As I mentioned before, staff has revised the staff report accordingly and to our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council. We did receive an e-mail just before the hearing and I forgot to look to see if you had gotten a copy of that. Will, did they get a copy? Okay. So, did you get an e-mail from today and if you'd like to you could incorporate that into the Findings. We can just attach that a-mail from Mrs. Kruzinski. And with that I will answer any questions Council may have. Borton: Thank you, Anna. Council, any questions of staff? Bird: I have none. Borton: Is the applicant here? Fluke: Mr. President, Members of the Council, thank you. My name is Daren Fluke, JUB Engineers, 250 South Beechwood in Boise. Anna did a fine job summing up what's gone on with this application, so I won't belabor it any further. We did as requested and eliminated a lot. If the definition of compromise is that both sides end up unhappy with the solution, then, we probably have a good compromise here. We ended up with three lots across the bottom, each of those in excess of 14,000 square feet, which was not the layout that we preferred. Our neighbors to the south did request that we go to 18,000 foot lots there and, obviously, I was not able to do that without losing two lots and making just a very odd configuration there on the southern boundary. So, we did what we could to address those concerns. We have agreed to a 25 foot setback in the rear there and I think we have got a compromise that hopefully will make the Council happy, if not the neighbors and if not the applicant. Are there any questions? Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: Daren, I just want to thank you. You guys did go back and do exactly what we asked. We'd like to have got a little more square footage, but that looks nice and I appreciate that. Fluke: You're welcome. Thank you. Bird: Appreciate it very much. Borton: Daren, can you give us an update on the e-mail that was just referenced from Mr. and Mrs. Kruzinski? Fluke: Yes. Thank you. The Kruzinskis live right here. They are on this five acre lot, arguably the most impacted property owner in the neighborhood. We have worked with them extensively to address their concerns with regard to layout and with regard to this Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 16 of 49 existing cul-de-sac that's here right now. One of the issues is that they have some pretty mature landscaping that's encroaching within the right of way and so we have worked with Ada County Highway District to scootch the radius back a little bit in that direction and, then, down to the south to not encroach upon their landscaping and to build curb, gutter, and sidewalk in front of their property as well, which we would not be required to otherwise do. So, they, essentially, sent a letter saying they support the project and thanking us for working with them on their concerns. Borton: Thank you, Daren. Fluke: Thank you. Borton: This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to provide testimony or comment? Please come forward and state your name for the record. Turner: Good evening, Members of the Council. My name is Brady Turner, I live in the house directly to the south of the property. My address is 3678 South Caleb Place, Meridian, Idaho. I'm the president of the board of directors for Dartmoor Subdivision. I want to start by thanking the Council for taking -- or giving the opportunity to the applicant to address some of our concerns and I do think that we have agreement with the applicant tonight that if the definition of compromise is that both sides are unhappy, I think we agree on that. But I do want to thank you for intervening and helping to provide some improved buffers. We would have liked to see larger lots again, but we have what we have. So, thank you for intervening on our behalf. Borton: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the public -- Mr. Aldridge, we have seen your written comment. If you would care to come forward. Aldridge: Mr. Chair -- Mr. President, Members of the Committee, I would just like to reiterate what I said in that -- in those comments. I had hoped to be here last time, but I was in the middle of a large traffic wreck in Salt lake City, so I didn't quite get here. I live in -- let's see. It doesn't show on this part. I'm 3300 South -- on Falcon Drive. I'm immediately to the west, so right there. And my sole concern was, as addressed in the letter, that there would be a fence surrounding the entire property or at least on the adjoining part with other areas. That was a six foot privacy fence, vinyl, and continuous. My understanding is that that's been agreed to and has been incorporated. The only other issue is that we have some interesting irrigation issues that we will have to have worked out. That will be for final plat, but I do want to say that Mr. Fluke has been most easy to work with on that and we should be able to work those things out. Borton: Thank you. We have a number of people who have signed up to provide testimony. Mr. Aldridge had signed up for. Mr. Turner I believe who just testified has signed up against. And is it Terri Turner? Okay. Do you have any additional comment? Okay. Is there anyone else in the public that wishes to provide testimony on this? Council, any additional information needed? Daren, anything further to provide? Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 17 of 49 Fluke: Not unless the Council has questions. Bird: I have none. Borton: I would entertain a motion. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-046 and PP 06-048. Rountree: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to close the pubic hearings on Items 11 and 12. Any discussion? All those in favor. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Just as a comment before we proceed, I, too, appreciate the applicant's willingness to reconsider and to change some of configuration to make the neighbors a little bit more comfortable. And, again, I repeat that I realize this is a strange shaped lot to have to work with and there are many things I'm sure that were difficult about the planning the layout of the plat, but I must also say that ( still have heartburn about having four cul-de-sacs and real strong heartburn about etching in stone that access to Eagle Road. I realize there isn't much that can be done about that, unless there are a couple more pieces of property incorporated in this, and I guess ('m going to have to say what's the hurry. I'm not sure it's in the best interest of Meridian to establish what currently serves five residences to establish that road as a future use for much greater traffic without changing it to align with the roadway that approaches Eagle on the other side of the street. Borton: Any additional discussion? Bird: I have none. Rountree: None. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 18 of 49 Bird: Hearing no more discussion, I move we approve AZ 06-046 with staff, applicant, and public comment. Rountree: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 11, AZ 06-046. Any discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, nay; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Bird: I move we approve PP 06-048 and note on that that the preliminary plat date is 3/8 of '07 or March 8th, 2007. And to include staff, applicant, and public testimony Rountree: Second. Borton: Ifs been moved and seconded to approve Item 12, PP 06-048. Any discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, nay; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Canning: Sir? Borton: Oh. Canning: Just to clarify, by public comment does that also include incorporating the Kruzinski detailed requirements into the Findings? Bird: Yes. Canning: Thank you for the clarification. Item 13: Public Hearing: VAC 07-004 Request for Vacation of the water service line easement located on Lot 15, Block 1 of Bonito Subdivision No. 3 for Bonito Subdivision No.3 by Toothman-Orton Engineering - 2971 E. Copper Point Drive: Borton: Thank you, Anna. Item No. 13, Public Hearing on V AC 07-004. We will begin this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Thank you. President Borton, Members of the Council, this is the -- the challenge of new technology. There we go. This is the Bonito vacation project that's before you. It is just a vacation of a platted water service line and meter easement Meridian City Council March13T 2007 Page 19 of 49 located in Lot 15 of Block 1 of Bonito Subdivision. Staff is recommending approval. We have received all the necessary relinquishments and to our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council. I'll answer any questions you may have. Borton: Thank you, Anna. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Borton: This is a Public Hearing. Does anyone wish to provide testimony on this application? Please come forward and give your name and address. Hovde: I'm the applicant, Jay Hovde, Toothman-Orton Engineering, 9777 Chinden Boulevard. And I just wanted to say we have reviewed the staff report and we don't have any comments or surprise. Borton: I apologize for omitting the applicant's opportunity to provide comment. Hovde: And I would be happy to answer any questions if there are any. Borton: Thank you. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. Borton: Thank you very much. Anyone else from the public who might care to provide any testimony on this application? Council, I'd entertain a motion on 13. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing for V AC 07-004. Zaremba: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 13. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we approve V AC 07-004. Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 20 of 49 Bird: Second. Zaremba: End of motion. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 13, V AC 07-004. Any discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Public Hearing: AZ 06-064 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 27.05 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Normandy Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. - 4145 South Locust Grove Road: Item 15. Public Hearing: PP 06-065 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 110 residential lots and 7 common lots on 27.05 acres in the proposed R-8 zone for Normandy Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. - 4145 South Locust Grove Road: Item 16: Public Hearing: VAR 07-001 Request for a Variance to the UDC standard of maximum allowable length of 750 feet for Normandy Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. - 4145 South Locust Grove Road: Borton: Thank you. Items 14, 15 and 16 are public hearings on AZ 06-064, PP 06-065 and VAR 07-001, Normandy Subdivision. We will begin this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Thank you, President Borton, Members of the Council. This is the Normandy project. It's located on the west side of Locust Grove Road, approximately a half mile north of Amity Road. The annexation -- or the applications include annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and a variance. The project consists of annexation and zoning of 27.05 acres to R-8 and a preliminary plat approval of 110 single family residential lots. Lots range 5,200 square feet to approximately 12,000 square feet. The average lot size is about 6,500 square feet. The applicant has supplied 4.2 acres or 15.5 percent of the landscape open space. Of that, 1 .41 acres is considered usable open space and that's located generally in the center of the project and it includes a tot lot and basketball court. The gross density -- the rest of the open space lot is taken in the - - into the canal on the south side of the property. The gross residential density is 4.06 units per acre. The net density is 5.32 units per acre. The application does not directly comply with the future land use map designation of low density residential, it is medium just to the north and, then, it is low -- the low designation begins right there at the north property line, although as you know the Comp Plan doesn't require a Comprehensive Plan amendment to consider higher densities when deemed appropriate by the Council. So, with regard to the variance, the proposed subdivision has two blocks that do exceed Meridian City Council March13,2007 Page 21 of 49 the 750 foot block length. Block 1 is about 900 feet long and Block 2 is 875 feet long. As you know, to grant the variance Council must find the following, that it doesn't grant a special right or privilege, that it relieves an undue hardship, and that it's not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. The developments surrounding the proposed Normandy Subdivision do not provide stub connections or pedestrian pathways, so they did connect to the stub streets where they were available at the two locations, but because of the physical constraint of the canal on the south side of the property that they weren't able to get additional cross-connections into the surrounding property. So, it is a case that warrants approval for the variance and staff has recommended that. We do not have elevations for you tonight. The Commission recommended approval at their February 1 st, 2007, Public Hearing. Matt Schultz, the applicant, spoke in favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition or commented and there was no written testimony. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the transitioning lot sizes to Reflection Ridge Subdivision and that's on the south side of the property. The key Commission changes to staff recommendation were that staff had suggested that the applicant remove one of the lots in this block, but the Commission eliminated that condition of approval. The only outstanding issues for City Council, staff still supports removing one lot to provide a better transition to the south where the building lots are about 9,600 square feet over here. And there has been no additional written testimony since the staff report was written. And with that I will answer any questions Council may have. Borton: Thank you, Anna. Council, any questions? Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none at this point, no. Borton: Would the applicant come forward? Schultz: Good evening, President and Council. My name is Matt Schultz, RMR Consulting, 2127 South Alaska here in Meridian on behalf of the Normandy Subdivision. All in all, this project has been a little bit easier than some, just because our -- everything surrounding us is there, either approved -- either in the ground or under construction. To the north it says Chatsworth that should actually be marked Green Valley to the north, that's all in. To the south is Reflection Ridge, which is the -- which is, actually, approved as an R-4, but it is an R-4 PUD. There is, actually, a mix of lots in there that today would be some R-8 lots, but it was an R-4 PUD at the time. So, in looking at that, we started with what was around us first when we did our layout and tried to blend in nicely with the area and had a mix of lots, which is consistent with what's out there and try not to be -- be too radically different in anyone direction and fit in nicely. We match lot for lot here with Chatsworth, as you can see. I mean we just line up lot for lot with them. We do connect to a stub street. You can see there is no other way to connect in up here on the north, just the way -- this came in first, this came in second, and maybe at that time there was a thousand foot block length rule and it's since been reduced to 750 and I will have to admit I -- when I laid mine out I was still Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 22 of 49 using the thousand foot rule, but it really didn't matter, but I did put this curve in here to -- so it will feel like two blocks, even though it is technically one as you're driving through there, it breaks that up from being a real long straight street and kind of have a traffic calming measure if you will. On the south we will be building the bridge across the Ridenbaugh Canal for some good interconnectivity. Reflection Ridge had to trust fund for half of it. we will build it and get back the other half when it's done and ACHD signs off on it. There is a regional pathway on -- with Reflection Ridge, because they came in first that will have good access, too, across the bridge. We do have a pathway interconnecting to our open space in the middle and a pathway out. So, we feel like we have got good circulation, good 'pedestrian interconnectivity, we feel like the variance isn't a special thing that we are going to come in asking for, it's kind of due to the surrounding -- what was approved before us and our overall density -- we didn't go to the max on the R-8. We tried to do about, you know, half, 6,000 or above, and half 5,200 or above, and our biggest lots are, actually, here abutting up to these lots that Reflection Ridge put in, they are 80 by 120. We have some ten thousand, 12 thousand square foot lots here. So, really, the area of concern, I guess, would this area. There is four lots to our five, but one thing that made us not feel so bad about that was across the street from their own lots they have six lots to their five, where -- or to their four, where we have five. So, we felt like it blended in. We could have got a couple more in here if we would have went to the minimum. We decided to back off and make them our bigger lots, however, with the Ridenbaugh Canal there, the hundred foot buffer, instead of houses backing up lot line to lot line, they would be 50 feet apart, they are 50 yards apart. They are three times the normal distance from house to house. So, we really felt like that if there was any issue with our lot sizes that would be a good mitigating factor. So, you know, with that variance and just -- we respectfully disagree with staff on this and Planning Commission, you know, did agree with us that they didn't think we needed to lose the lot, we agree with staff's conditions a hundred percent, with the exception of that one lot and, then, we did need to talk about the variance. At Planning Commission I did show some elevations of Tuscany Village in the -- I have got a packet here. I went through and Tuscany Village is an assemblage of 50 and 60 foot lots like we have. There is a good selection of architectural types to have quality exterior materials of stucco, wood -- or stucco, stone, or brick, architectural diversity, highlighting the porches. We do not know who is going to build the homes in here, but we are -- my partner and I will be in charge of enforcing the CC&Rs to at least the standard of what's out there, if not more. It's a really ideal spot in town, in our opinion, the Locust Grove overpass is going in here soon, it's going to provide a nice inter -- you know, interconnectivity to some of the shopping up in Meridian -- north Meridian and I'm really excited. I live in south Meridian. The Locust Grove overpass is really going to help a lot of people I think get off of Meridian Road and really improve things and help this project and everybody that lives kind of down in this area that for now is going down Meridian or Eagle. So, we feel like we fit in. We feel like the variance isn't a special circumstance and on the one lot issue, if this Council feels strongly that we should, we will go with that. We would hope that you would side with us. It's not worth getting a denial over, but at the same time I think it's worth asking that we keep it as submitted. So, with that we would ask for your approval. Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 23 of 49 Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: Matt, I was going to ask you -- and you volunteered it. If you only had ten lots I wouldn't ask you, but I -- I would sure -- it's just something that we have done and you sat through the previous deal and the closer you can make those -- I realize there is 50 yards, instead of 50 feet, and there is a canal between them and a pathway and everything, but -- and it probably wouldn't make my decision one way or the other, but it would sure be nice if that was 8,000 square foot lots there that backed up. You would lose one lot. But that's -- Schultz: I want to go with the Council's decision and we will do whatever you want. Bird: I'm only speaking for -- Schultz: All right. Borton: Council, any other questions of the applicant? Rountree: None at this time. Zaremba: Not at this time. Schultz: Thank you. Borton: Thank you, Matt. This is a Public Hearing. No one has signed up to provide testimony, but does anyone care to provide testimony or comment on this application? Anna, anything to add? Canning: No, sir. Borton: Mr. Rountree? Rountree: I have a question for Matt. Borton: Matt, would you -- Schultz: ('II stand for any questions you have. Bird: That's what you're going to get. Rountree: It mayor may not be okay. Are there any improvements that would be included in the open space tot lot or -- and is that drainage or is that, in fact, going to be usable space? Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 24 of 49 Schultz: We have very good subsurface drainage out here and where we are going to be able to use seepage beds and it will all be flat and nice usable open space with a -- with a bigger -- you know, a tot lot doesn't do it any justice, you know, a bigger playground and, you know, we have shown a basketball court. I can go back and forth on whether it's that or a covered picnic area, but we have proposed a basketball court, just -- those have some use issues with some of the bigger kids scaring away some of the littler kids, so we are kind of debating what to do there, but we propose the basketball court for now. Rountree: Thank you. Schultz: Thanks. Zaremba: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I guess I would ask a question of staff. Director Canning. The request that they lose one lot in that one area, it's pretty clear part of that reason would be the transition to the larger lots behind it. Are there any additional reasons to that? Canning: Not that I'm aware of. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Borton: Council, any additional information needed on these applications? Rountree: I have none. Zaremba: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move the public hearings on AZ 06-064 and PP 06-065 and VAR 07-001 relating to Normandy Subdivision be closed. Rountree: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on Items 14, 15 and 16. All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borton: Thank you. Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 25 of 49 Zaremba: Mr. President, I just would comment on discussion that I think it blends in well with the existing subdivisions around it and would be an addition. I could support the reduction of one lot in that area. I don't feel strongly that way, but I don't think it's a bad idea and we certainly have made that request in other places. On the other hand, there is nobody here from Reflection Ridge hounding on us to do it, so I could go either way on that one. Rountree: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I'm not quite as settled as the other two councilmen, but my position is that I think the lot reduction is a requirement for my favorable vote and that's based on being consistent with the processes and decisions that we have been making in the past several years, so -- Borton: Councilman Zaremba, I -- Councilman Rountree. Excuse me. Rountree: That's okay. Borton: I agree as well with regard to the removal of a lot. I think the applicant's acknowledged a concession in that regard. I think it's important and we have always tried to stress these transitions and that helps accomplish that. I would also hope that a motion, we were to -- for an approval to incorporate the elevations represented by the applicant, that those would be incorporated as elevations that this development will be consistent with. Canning: Sir? Bird: Mr. Canning: I'm sorry, Councilman Bird. To do that you will need to recommend that a DA be included with the annexation. There is not one currently. Bird: It's with the annexation, isn't it? Canning: Yes. Bird: And it's public record now anyway. He's turned it into the clerk, so -- Canning: Yes, it is, but we haven't currently proposed a development agreement. That's alii was trying to emphasize is that you need to make that clear. Zaremba: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Meridian City Council March13,2007 Page 26 of 49 Zaremba: To reinstate the staff's recommended condition of approval 1.2.5, which says eliminate one building lot, should that be part of the development agreement or is that a preliminary plat issue? Canning: President Borton, Members of the Council, Councilmember Zaremba, that would be a preliminary plat issue. That's fine. We don't need it in the development agreement. Zaremba: I didn't hear that. ('m sorry. Say it again. Canning: Just the preliminary plat is fine. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Borton: Any additional discussion? Rountree: I have none. Zaremba: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we approve AZ 06-064 and add to the requirement that there be a development agreement formulated with the city clerk to include the elevations that were presented at this meeting tonight. Rountree: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 14, AZ 06-064, with a development agreement incorporated. Does the motion -- I presume it includes that elimination of that one building lot? Bird: No. Borton: Any other discussion on Item 14? Seeing none, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Meridian City Council March13f 2007 Page 27 of 49 Zaremba: I move we approve PP 06-065 relating to Normandy Subdivision, to include all staff comments and to reincorporate or to add back in staff condition 1.2.5 relating to eliminating one building lot in a specific area. Rountree: Second. Borton: Ifs been moved and seconded to approve Item 15, PP 06-065. Any discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we approve VAR 07-001 for Normandy Subdivision. Rountree: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 16, V AR 07-001. Any discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 17: Public Hearing: MI 07-004 Request for a Miscellaneous application for a third amendment modification to the previously approved Development Agreement for the Tree Farm Annexation (AZ 06-004) by including a provision to adjust the zoning boundaries to generally align with lot lines or the center lines of streets for Tree Farm Development Aareement Modification by Treehaven, LLC - north side of Chinden Boulevard on both sides of Black Cat Road: Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 06-058 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 277 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 27 common lots on 142.97 acres in existing R-2, R-8, R-15 and C-N zones for Jayker Subdivision by Treehaven, LLC - north of Chinden Boulevard and west of Ten Mile Road: Borton: Items 17 and 18 are Public Hearings to be opened together. Anna? No? Baird: Separate. Borton: Item 17, I will open the Public Hearing -- Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 28 of 49 Baird: Mr. President, I'm getting a wide gapped mouth look from the planning director. We discussed this this afternoon and I know they are related somehow. She might have a better idea about how we should proceed. Borton: Mr. Baird, I'm going to recuse myself anyway from 17 and 18 and turn it over to Councilman Rountree and let you guys figure it out. Rountree: Thanks, Joe. Canning: Councilmember Rountree -- or Vice-president Rountree, Members of the Council, it's probably a little easier to understand the development agreement modification if you open up both hearings at the same time. Rountree: Thank you, Anna. Then, we will open up public hearings for Items 17 and 18 together. Canning: Thank you, sir. This is -- Rountree: And hear from staff. Canning: Oh, sorry. Thank you, sir. This is the Tree Farm and Jayker project. They are located on the north side of Chinden Boulevard, approximately a half mile east of Black Cat Road, extending east to approximately Ten Mile Road, if it existed on the other side of Chinden. And the applications do include a development agreement modification on the preliminary plat. I'm going to go over the preliminary plat. That's the concept plan. Here is the preliminary plat. The preliminary plat approval request is for 277 single family residential building lots, 27 common lots, and one commercial common lot, which will contain the proposed community center. And that's located on the west side of the property. There we go. And those are all in the existing R-2, R-8, R-15 and C-N zones. All of the homes within the development are proposed to be single family and can be broken down in the following categories: 28.2 percent or 78 building lots are in the R-2 zoning. Estate homes. And, then, 33.6 percent or 93 building lots are in R-8, single family detached house. And 38.2 percent or 106 building lots are in the R-15 and those -- they have termed them lifestyle housing and those are attached units. So, as you can see, there is a great range of lot sizes being proposed, with lots as large as 29,000 square feet and as small as 4,000 square feet. There are approximately 39.1 acres or 27 percent of the site is being set aside for open space. The gross residential density is 1.93 dwelling units per acre. I wanted to talk about the stub streets for a moment, because that's the only thing that's perhaps an outstanding issue. There is two stub streets that both connect to this 28.85 acre parcel and the Hankies own this piece of property. So, as you see there is one stub coming in from the north and one coming in from the west. Originally, when this came in staff asked the applicant to locate the stubs there, so that they would line up with -- this one would line up with this Double Eagle Lane and we were hoping to make that lane go away that way. After further reflection, we think that that's probably not the best way to do it and it Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 29 of 49 would be better to actually shift this stub street over here and we will try and get a different connection into that lane and, then, it may just remain as a private lane, but accessed, hopefully, through the Henkle property in the future. And, then, the other stub street, because it's located so far to the north, if we shift this one over, the size of the property is -- we try and separate out those two access points, so that the fire department has a little -- aren't as constrained when they go in there to fight a fire. So, we'd like to -- that stub to move further to the south to just provide a greater distance and it's related to how Joe Silva calculates his needs for access. He's not here anymore, so -- sorry. So, we are asking that that Silverlace Drive stub street be relocated approximately 300 feet from the northern property line. And that would just help future redevelopment of the Hinkle property. I'm sorry. It needs to shift 300 feet south. Sorry about that. Okay. Now, the development agreement modification. This is -- I'm going to spend a little bit of time talking about this, because it's a little out of the ordinary. We haven't addressed this before. As you may recall, the applicant came in with a concept plan for annexation and they also proposed zoning districts at that time and that's why you don't see any zoning before you today. It does have zoning. The preliminary plat was very close in meeting -- in lining up with that -- those zoning districts, but they hadn't gone through the full plat process yet when it came in. They brought it in. Some of the lots have split zones on them. They are minor, but there are some lots that have a little bit of one zone and a little bit of another. Staff has asked that the applicant revise their concept plan for their zoning map as part of the development agreement modification for Council and, then, we will just do kind of a clean-up amendment ordinance. The alternative would have been to do full rezoning applications for each property that may be affected and because it's all internal to this project and they are adjustments from lot to lot, we didn't feel it was necessary. The UDC, actually, says if a zone line approximately follows a lot line, it will be deemed to be the lot line. So, all we are trying to do is do a clean up so that these get done and it doesn't change the nature of the original annexation and zoning, it just cleans it up to correspond with the lots that they are now coming in with. The staff report lists a number of reasons why it's beneficial not to have lots bisected by the zoning and, then, not the least of them is setback requirements for our purposes, but also the tax designation for the state purposes or the county purposes in assessing valuation. We don't have -- actually have the elevations with this project. They are incorporated as part of the development agreement we already have with the applicant. The Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval at their February 1 st, 2007, Public Hearing. Gary Henkle and Sherry Ewing and Tuck Ewing and Linda Lazarus all spoke at that Public Hearing. There was no written testimony. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the access to properties served by Basco Lane, which is at the very north end of the site, and the crossing the Phyllis Canal, which is located further north. It's off site. And the location of the stub street to the Henkle property to the east, as I mentioned previously. The key Commission changes to staff recommendation is they did modify condition 1.1.11 to allow the ten foot pathway along Chinden to be placed within the ITD preserved right of way area. So, ITD has left room for that ten foot pathway there and that condition was changed. To our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council and we have not received additional written Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 30 of 49 testimony since the staff report was done. And with that I will answer any questions you may have. Rountree: Any questions for staff? Bird: I have none. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I have one if I may. Can we show the aerial view I believe would be that one. This was a question from way back in my memory when I was on Planning and Zoning Commission. As I recall there was some discussion -- and I don't always recall everything correctly either, so -- but wasn't there discussion of when this eventually came in of connecting to the stub street in Spurwing up here, so that there would be a further connection to the benefit of both projects? Canning: Vice-President Rountree, Members of the Council, there is -- actually, that stub street does not actually go all the way to the property line. There is a common open space that is between the end of that cul-de-sac and the subject property, unfortunately. Zaremba: So, no can do even if we wanted to. Okay. Canning: Yeah. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Rountree: Any further questions? Anna, just a procedural question. It seems to me that we will have to take action on Item 18 before we can make any decision as it relates to the rezoning in Item 17; am I correct? If we fail to approve the preliminary plat, there is no rezoning. If we modify the preliminary plat the rezoning is going to have to be modified. Canning: That does have some logic to it, sir. I would agree to that, yes. Rountree: Thank you. No further questions? The applicant? Canning: More than some logic even, sir. Thank you. Rountree: Sometimes it works. O'Neill: President Rountree, Members of the Council, Derick O'Neill, 2242 East Riverwalk Drive, Boise, Idaho. I'm here representing Tree Haven tonight. I'm going to give you a few comments and maybe answer a couple of questions that were discussed. I want to start with a little history and process. It's been nearly a year and a half since we were last in front of P&Z when we started this process. So, we have spent the last year and a half working diligently with all agencies, staff, neighbors, to come to you tonight with what we feel is a very good resolution and a very good project. You Meridian City Council March13,2007 Page 31 of 49 guys approved the concept plan and development agreement and we have kept very consistent with that as we put this preliminary plat in front of you. As I mentioned, we have had I think over 18 meetings with your city staff and the highway district and various agencies to make sure we cover the issues that are necessary. We feel the result of that is a staff report that we agree with. That doesn't happen very often for us and we are proud to say on your staff's behalf that they have worked very diligently and we have come to a solution that we think is very good. We also have had a unanimous approval from the highway district as it relates to all these issues, so we feel good about that. In addition to that, P&Z unanimously approved the project. A couple of questions that were asked for clarification. We are totally in support of and met with legal as it relates to this modification request. It is cleaning things up and in the long run it will make it a whole lot easier. Councilman Bird, you had a concern with that, and I think we are dealing with that right now, because in the long run we are not going to have to deal with someone that says, well, I have half a zone on this property, half a zone on the other property. So, we are very comfortable with that and agree with those recommendations. As it relates to the comments on the stub streets, we are also totally in agreement with that. We have already started making those changes as we will come to the first final plat. It makes sense. We are comfortable with it. We have worked with the Henkle family on it and we are comfortable with that as well. That's an important issue to them and we understand it and realize that. As it relates to the Basco Lane -- I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time on it, because I have spent literally hundreds of hours on it and we come to a solution -- one with the highway district and are comfortable with that. The other is I think it was mentioned earlier tonight I guess if you -- if both parties are not happy with the solution, maybe you have a good solution, and I said that last time and Tuck said, well, I'm not sure that we are unhappy. So, I think we have worked very hard with the Ewings and Aldapes to come to a solution that works there. As it relates to the connection to Spurwing, Councilmember Zaremba, I -- that never was a part of a hearing that I can remember. It was some early discussions with staff. A golf cart path goes right between that and the common area and I think if that was suggested -- we were even having a hard time suggesting connectivity pedestrian-wise with the Spurwing neighbors. If that was suggested, you would have a room full of Spurwing neighbors here that would be absolutely crazy. So, I don't think it's possible. I think the plan works well. There will be easements there to allow sewer and water connectivity, so I don't know if that answers your question, but I think it deals with it. Zaremba: That helps. Thank you. O'Neill: I could spend the next day putting this project in front of you and explaining and showing you -- I spent a lot of time when we brought it in front of you for the annexation and development agreement. In respect of your time -- I have 30 slides here, but in respect of your time and with the fact that we are in concert with the staff, I'm going to -- I'm going to answer questions for you, if you have specific ones. I have tons of slides to show you, but I don't think I need to do that. If you want me, I would be happy to do that, but I will leave that at your pleasure. Otherwise, I'll let the public testify and, then, I can answer questions. Thank you. Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 32 of 49 Rountree: Any questions of the applicant? Zaremba: Not at this time. Rountree: Thank you. It is a Public Hearing and we have some sign-up sheets. I'm going to start with Linda Lazarus and she's indicated that shels both for and against the project, so -- do you wish to present testimony or just make your position known? Thank you. Baird: And, Mr. Vice-president, for the record she indicated that she thought she only checked that she was in favor of it. I wanted to make sure we got that on the record. Rountree: Next is Gary Henkle. Indicated for. Henkle: Council members, Gary Henkle, 9109 West Burnett Drive, Boise. Not to say on this. I think I'm in agreement with everything that has been presented. I just wanted to have that put on record. So, we are in a -- we have a preliminary temporary access agreement with Derick OINeill on the -- coming off his property onto ours right now and we are in the process of getting that finalized, so appreciate all your considerations and it's been an interesting process and thank you. Rountree: Any questions for Mr. Henkle? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have a question for you. You heard the comments from staff about the changing of the stub street. Henkle: Yes. Rountree: Do you have any issues with regards to that? Henkle: No. That's preferable. Rountree: Thank you. And Mr. Tuck Ewing and he has no position on this, according to the sign-in sheet. Tuck. I know you must. Ewing: Council members, Tuck Ewing, I represent TieD One, LLC, 1500 EI Dorado, Boise, Idaho. I do have a position on it. I believe we are for this project. I wanted to make sure Derick did not wing off on me before I checked my box, but we are for this project and the only comment that I do have is the same issue we have had as far as Basco Lane is concerned and I think that through ACHD and working with the applicant we have come to an agreement. I agree with Derick that I don't think either party was completely pleased with it, but I think that it is acceptable to us at this point. The only comment that lid like to make concerning the Tico One property, there is approximately Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 33 of 49 nine acres there and we anticipate moving forward with our project in the near future and with that being said, I know that in ACHD's staff report they talked about setting aside the money to improve that strip through there into a road trust type scenario and I don't know if this Council has any pull over this or not, but if we do achieve getting through the process of getting preliminary plat approvals and all that stuff, we would prefer just to have that road built and not deal with a road trust situation. I think that we are a little concerned about inflation and all that stuff. So, if we do get to the point that we can construct that before such time as the road trust is created, we would like to do that and, then, as far as the access points into the Tico One property, they are yet to be determined, but we will come with something on that. But that's, really, about alii have. If there is any questions? Rountree: Any questions? Ewing: And I would like to also commend the applicant. I know they did spend a lot of time and I know we were a pain, but I think that they worked diligently with us and I think it will be a good project. Rountree: Questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: Tuck, to allay your concerns about Derick winging off, Senior O'Neill is sitting there with a rather large chalaly that would straighten him out, so -- and Sherry Ewing has also signed up and, again, we will find out what your position is. S. Ewing: I am Sherry Ewing. He's a little taller than I am. I am Sherry Ewing and I reside at 2934 East Lake Hazel Road and my parents are the Aldapes. And I am totally for this project. However, I would like -- and I -- first of all, I apologize for not sending you written testimony. The letter must have gone to -- well, it always goes to my mom and dad and somehow between an 87 year old and me, it didn't get to me. So, I didn't know about this until about 4:30 this afternoon. What I would like to do, though, is talk about the bridge and I know it's an old subject, but I feel like beings we didn't get our two accesses, which we would have gotten had this land been flat, we would have had two accesses and we did nit get the second access and I just listened to the testimony on the Normandy Subdivision and that developer was putting in half of that bridge. So, I'm wondering why we are not getting half of our bridge coming down. So, I know you're going to hear that because they put the traffic light in out at Chinden that cost lots and lots of money and we benefit from that, but, you know what, my parents don't really care about that traffic light, they don't really want to go the circle getting down to their lane, they just want the lane the way it is and that really isn't for them as much as totally for the subdivision that the developer is working on. So, anyway, that's my request is to get part of a bridge. Or at least come to the property line. We are not -- I mean the developer is not coming to my parents' property line at this point. Rountree: Comments? Questions? Meridian City Council March13,2007 Page 34 of 49 Bird: I have none. Rountree: Thank you. Any further public testimony? Don't see any. Any comments? Discussion? Bird: The applicant's reply. Rountree: Okay. Applicant. O'Neill: Vice-president Rountree, Members of the Council, I will try to quickly go through those issues. Number one with Tuck, you know, if they get their project and are ready to go with it, we are probably in favor of getting that built as well. That agreement allows to do it either way. If the cost is ready to go and we can do that and there is a benefit to that, we are okay with that. The agreement states that that can be done. So, I think highway district conditions address that. As it relates to Mrs. Ewing's comments, we have spent an awful lot of time on this. I'll go through a couple comments. I would like to read conditions and comments from the Ada County Highway District approval. Mr. Inselman is here, too, if you so require him to talk, but let me read a few comments. The Phyllis Canal is along the northern property line on the site. The applicant has not proposed to either construct a bridge across the canal at the terminus of the above- identified stub street or provide a road trust for a portion of the cost of the bridge. District staff is supportive of this proposal for the following reasons: The site has adequate access with the new roads being constructed within the development and the site -- new signalized intersection on Chinden Boulevard. The site does not require an additional access point that the bridge would provide. Second. The property on the north side of the Phyllis Canal will need a bridge in order to provide adequate access for any development and the property owner should bear the burden for the bridge crossing the Phyllis Canal. Third. The canal is owned by the Pioneer Irrigation District and this applicant does not own the property to the center line of the canal. I think that's another key point. We can't build a bridge to the middle of the canal, because we don't own it. The irrigation district does. Which is different than the comment that was made in the previous project. So, I think that's important as it relates to Mrs. Ewing's comments that the traffic signal doesn't have any benefit to them. Without us putting the traffic signal in, without us putting a collector status road that abuts to that property, they don't have - - they don't have development rights to their property. So, there is a huge benefit for the improvements that we are putting in and we feel strongly about that. I'll answer questions on that, but I feel this is -- this issue has been definitely well studied and we are very comfortable with the solution. Otherwise, we would ask for your respectful approval. We hope to get started soon. We think this will be a wonderful asset for the City of Meridian and excited to start. And appreciate your patience and time on this issue. Rountree: Thank you. Any further questions? Bird: I have none. Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 35 of 49 Rountree: Okay. That brings the Public Hearing to a close. I'll entertain a motion. Bird: Mr. Vice-president, I move we close the public hearings on MI 07-004 and PP 06- 058. Zaremba: Second. Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on Items 17 and 18. All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Mr. Baird, it seems to me we probably ought to take action on Item No. 18 fi rst. Baird: Mr. Vice-president, I think the logic to that is apparent and the planning director agrees, so let's do it that way. Rountree: Okay. Let's consider Item No. 18. Is there any discussion or a motion? Zaremba: Mr. Vice-president? Rountree: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Before I make a motion, I would just comment that it has been a long process. I remember how long ago this first came to Planning and Zoning Commission and I know there has been a lot of work done on it even before that. Even, then, and continuing to today I am disappointed that there can't be a better more final solution to accessing the Aldape property, but know it involves probably several different property owners. The Tico One property would be involved and the Nampa Irrigation would be involved and apart from my wishes I w~uld bow to the final decision of ACHD, since they are the ones that have the authority over roads. That being said, I think the rest of the process -- the rest of the project is an excellent thing for Meridian. Therefore, Mr. President, I move that we approve PP 06-058 for Jayker Subdivision. Bird: Second. Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 18. Any discussion? City clerk, roll call vote, please. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, abstain. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. Zaremba: Mr. Vice-president? Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 36 of 49 Rountree: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we approve MI 07-004, relating to the Tree Farm development agreement. Bird: Second. Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 17. Any discussion? Seeing no discussion, roll call vote, please. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, abstain. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. Rountree: Mr. Clerk, if you would get the president back, we will move forward. Item 19: Public Hearing: MI 07-003 Request for a Miscellaneous application for Modification of the existing Development Agreement to remove Item 6.1 which requires procurement of detailed conditional use permit prior to development / use of each lot within the subdivision for Sparrowhawk Subdivision Nos. 1 & 2 by David Waldron - north of Franklin Road and east of Locust Grove Road: Borton: I will open the Public Hearing on Item 19, MI 07-003, request for a miscellaneous application concerning Sparrowhawk Subdivision No. 1 and 2. I will begin this Public Hearing with staff comment. Canning: President Borton, Members of the Council, this is the Sparrowhawk project. It's located on the northeast corner of Locust Grove Road and Franklin Road. The application before you tonight is for a development agreement modification. Just to give you a little background, in 2004 the City Council granted preliminary plat approval for an 11 build-able lot subdivision on 15.8 acres as shown here. The preliminary plat was called Sparrowhawk Subdivision No. 2 and that was because it was previously platted before that. This was re-subdivision of a portion of the property. Concurrent with that application was a request to modify the previous approved conceptual planned development to allow about 40,000 square feet of office space, 30 -- close to 34,000 square feet of commercial space, and 6,000 square feet of retail service space and 25,000 square feet of self storage space on those 11 lots. So, there is quite a number of specific uses proposed. The applicant now requests modification to the recorded DA for Sparrowhawk Subdivision Number 1 and 2 to remove the obligation for future uses on all lots to obtain Conditional Use Permit approval. Now, the applicant has provided us elevation and an artist's rendering for the building to be constructed on Lot 8, but not for all the lots. So, I'll show you the one for Lot 8. This is the artist's rendering. I will go back to that. We don't have a site plan. But as you can tell from the lot layout, it is kind of an unusual site plan and did have quite a variety in the drive aisles and the parking Meridian City Council March 13, 2007 Page 37 of 49 lots. We know that Council is generally reluctant to waive the conditional use requirement until they have some idea of the architectural appearance of all the structures. In this case you have one. Staff has proposed using the architectural and site design standards in the UDC in 11-3-9 -- or 3A.19. So, what we are proposing as a substitute, if the applicant agrees to design -- submit a design review application, along with their certificate of zoning compliance, that that be an appropriate substitute for the Conditional Use Permit that's currently required. We would say that the storage units that were proposed on the north side of the building should not be subject to that requirement. We do have some specific standards for that. It's kind of downhill and it adjoins the -- it transitions well to the industrial properties further north. So, we are recommending approval of that -- of the development agreement modification. You did receive written testimony since the staff report. It wasn't related, really, to this development agreement, it was from Diane Bagley and it was regarding drainage and flooding. Public Works did look at that. They reviewed all their plans. They have proposed kind of an additional condition that we can add to the development agreement, since we are modifying it, to address that concern and that would be prior to issuance of the next building permit within the Sparrowhawk development the applicant shall submit an engineered design, obtain city approval, and construct a drainage system to contain the drainage from the undeveloped portions of the project. This property does sit higher than the adjoining property to the northwest and that's where the flooding problems occufred and I think the Public Works -- or the city engineer can answer additional questions on that if need be. And with that I will answer any questions first Of you can ask him questions first, whatever Council would like. Borton: Thank you, Anna. Council, any questions for Anna or Len? Bird: I have none. Rountree: No. Borton: Would the applicant care to come forward. Waldron: Council members, my name is David Waldron, 80 West Cottonwood Court in Eagle. This request is a result, frankly, of an oversight on our part. This property, as Anna said, has quite a history to it. When I took possession of the property two years ago and we requested of you to approve an amended concept and we did get the approval, it was our intention at that time -- and we, actually, did present architectural representation of the buildings that we were planning to build there and -- but we had inherited a development agreement from the prior project and I think, frankly, it just fell through the cracks. When we made our presentation we made quite a point of showing you the quality of the buildings that we intend to build there. Anna showed you one building that's actually under construction and, then, there is a prior one that received a building permit that is also under construction and I have with me another rendering showing the building that we are planning to do next and just to represent to you that we are planning to do very high quality buildings. I also have examples of a prior project. Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 38 of 49 Borton: I hate to interrupt. Can I just have you show that to the public that are here behind you. Waldron: This is the building that we have currently under construction. And this is the one on the adjacent property that we are planning to move forward with. I think with that and this simply came to light on the second building permit that we were submitting for, so it caught me by surprise, because, frankly, it was not our intention to have to go through 11 CUPs and I guess my main pitch is that I feel that would be an extraordinary burden not only on us, but on the city to do so. With that I will answer questions. Borton: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Borton: Mr. Waldron, staff's made reference and the question that gets posed to you is whether or not you're in agreement to submit a design review application for the buildings which would comply with the UDC. Waldron: Well, again, I didn't hear that until just a few minutes ago, so that kind of catches me by surprise. I think if that's what we have to do, we are happy to do that. Borton: Okay. Waldron: But it's -- I guess the awkward thing is we actually have two buildings under construction right now, so it's just kind of an awkward timing issue for us. Borton: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. President, I would ask -- Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: -- the other question on the drainage issue. Are you in agreement with us adding that as a condition? Waldron: Well, I think we are. In fact, we assumed automatically that every -- every project we would submit an on-site drainage plan, so I think that's a given. I think the neighbor that's making reference to that is -- last summer we had two weeks of pretty heavy rain, some drainage did get down there for reasons of the existing condition of this site. When it gets developed out and each site gets built on, there will be on-site drainage for every project, so that's our intention. Rountree: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 39 of 49 Rountree: Question. Some of the testimony received from neighbors appears that the development that's occurred out there in land moving has been less than neighborly and created some problems and hardships in terms of flooding and irrigation that's not working. Waldron: Right. Rountree: I, for one, would not want to see any change in this particular project until those have been remedied throughout the entire property, not on an individual lot case. To me, the whole solution -- or the whole remedy needs to be in place. I believe you're probably in violation of the state. I believe you're probably in violation of EPA requirements and several others that relate to drainage and control of water and erosion, so I think, you know, unless what we are hearing and seeing is not correct, there is some issues out there that need to be resolved. Waldron: I think there is an explanation and I would like to have my partner, who is the contractor on the job, give you more detailed information about what that condition was, what the current condition is, and, you know, exactly where we stand. Borton: Okay. Please come forward. Give us your name and address for the record. Swigg: Dan Swigg, 2127 Overland Road, Boise, Idaho. Members of the Council. The flooding issue -- this whole site was engineered -- design engineered and approved by the city and it was installed per those drawings. Last year when we had an inch of rain in an hour, there was an old ditch and on the drawings originally that ditch still remained that collected the water, took it around the -- it takes it around here, down here to the irrigation ditch, and over to Five Mile Creek. This ditch was plugged up, we shoveled it out once and, then, the second time we went to shovel it out to prevent flooding, we were denied access to that property. As far as the irrigation ditch, the tiling that was put in, it goes right there. The contractor that installed that pulled that completely out this summer and replaced it at his own expense. It's put in per the manufacturer's specifications of the pipes, so it shouldn't leak and we don't expect it to. We did have a fence issue with this neighbor right here and the fence was on the property line there, came across the property line over here. The neighbor didn't want a cedar fence, but as part of the approved -- approval from city a cedar fence was required and he was concerned about his horses eating it. We moved our fence a foot off the property line and it's, actually, kind of between his fence and our fence, so we are trying to be neighborly as we can and take care of issues that -- those are the only three issues we've had. Borton: Thank you. This is a Public Hearing. Two people have signed up to provide testimony. When I call your name, please, come forward, state your name and address. John Anderson signed up against. Anderson: Council, my name is John Anderson. I live at 120 North Nola Road. I must be the bad neighbor. Right here in that property. That's mine. It sounds like they are Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 40 of 49 going to try and clear up the drainage. They talked about everything I came up to talk about. What occurred last summer that caused the flooding was -- Dan, I believe it was you -- one evening when it was pouring down rain -- they have reshaped all this property. It's now all draining towards my property. It's going into a ditch that used to probably carry that much in land and it would come back in. Since they have piped all this along here and they piped it on my property to go back in that ditch, it can no longer do it. They put the pipe in too high. My ditch now builds up in the borrow pit and it takes about, oh, I don't know, a foot and a half or two foot of height to even get back in the ditch that used to freely flow in there when it was all open. It was engineered properly, it was not completed and constructed correctly. The fence issue -- I just feel really compelled to talk about this. Part of the trade off when they came in is they allowed them to move the structure onto my property. It used to be on their property. Part of the agreement was they set the fence posts on the line where I was to build my fence. They set a railroad tie there and there. I built my fence. Brand new fence. I came home last fall -- fall before last, took my wife up to a funeral, they had my fence halfway down. Well, it was all the way on the ground and they were starting to pull posts. They told me the City of Meridian instructed them to do that to put up their wooden cedar fence. I went down to the city to stop. I was pretty angry and went down to the city. The city said, oh, no, we didn't tell them to do that. So, I don't know what I did wrong, other than I live there and I put the fence exactly where their engineers and their surveyors put those posts in there, I didn't set them. So, that was another issue. So, back on the drainage, what I witnessed here last year during a big rainstorm, they came in with a four-wheel drive truck and they went up and down and up and down and up and down and up and down the hill and made corrugates. I'm out there screaming at them going it's pouring rain, you're going to drop a bunch of water in that ditch, it can't handle it. And it did. It came a pouring down. I would guess conservatively 40 miner inches, maybe more -- probably more than that, which is somewhere around 280 gallons a minute, if you can picture this, and he came on over and said, well, we got to shovel out your ditch and, yeah, you bet you do and by then it's flooding across the fence. That ditch was never meant to handle that. It was only meant to handle what little bit of irrigation water came off the hill when that property irrigated. I have Jived there since '92. Very seldom in all the time it was irrigated prior to the development did I see this ever fill up with water, let alone have any water at all. All the trees on that driveway have died due to lack of water. Come over and see for yourself. We got some re-growth going back. The pipeline that was installed, I don't believe it was by the same original people that -- he's had about three different sets of people in there to fix that. It was installed improperly. They put in piping, I think they have resolved it, but personally I went upwards of 30 days more than once trying to accommodate these guys to be able to put their pipeline back in place, it just kept failing. I work for an irrigation district, Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. This impacts our district, too. This is what -- the end of the Barker Lateral. Every time we had to do this we really had to hustle to move water. It impacts a lot of people. So, if -- I really oppose you guys taking any regulation and restriction off these guys. I think they need to be watched, they need to be watched closely and held accountable for their actions what they are doing out there. Thank you. I took more than three minutes. Sorry about that. Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 41 of 49 Borton: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Anderson: Anybody have any questions? Borton: Any questions? Zaremba: Mr. President, I would just have a comment. I remember from when this project first came to Planning and Zoning, there was a letter from you stating that just this kind of thing was a possibility and I'm sorry that it has come to pass. We thought that through state laws and other things this problem should be prevented, but you identified the possibility of this a long time ago -- Anderson: It occurred. Zaremba: -- and 11m sorry that it appears that it has happened. Anderson: Thank you. Borton: Weldon Stutzman signed up for. Those are the only individuals who signed up to provide testimony. Is there anyone else that wishes to provide testimony on this application? Grady: Mr. President, I may have some clarifying information. We did do a little bit of site inspection this afternoon as we became aware of a drainage issue. What we noticed is in the storage shed area there is some future drainage beds, which mayor may not have been installed. We canlt really tell, but all vegetation in that northern area has been stripped away. That probably canlt help the whole drainage issue and that's kind of what we were getting at is we really need to get a site plan -- we did speak with the engineer of -- on record and she said, no, that this hasn't -- some of these areas haven't been designed yet. That was her impression. So, really, we need to pull it all together and our proposal was prior to any building permits or whatever criteria you see fit, so -- Borton: Okay. Thanks, Len. Council, any questions of staff? Canning: Sir? Borton: Anna. Canning: I did want to admit to one thing. We did issue a couple building permits in error, obviously. That's why the building permits are in progress out there. It was during the transition to the new staff and some of them didn't know about looking at development agreements, but they all are picking up quite quickly on things like that, so -- and they did catch it on subsequent submittals, so -- and we apologize that that didn't come to you sooner or wasn't addressed exactly as it should have been. Meridian City Council March 13, 2007 Page 42 of 49 Borton: Appreciate you sharing that, Anna. Question for Mr. Baird. Is there -- if the application concerns Conditional Use Permit requirements, is there any rules that prevent us from amending another section at the same time? 6.3 drainage is not really what brought us here. Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the -- Mr. President and Members of the Council, the development agreement is before you tonight and it is your opportunity to address the issues that have been raised in front of you. You do have the discretion. Borton: Okay. Would the applicant care to come forward with any final comments or testimony? Swigg: This area right here has -- Borton: Could you, please, state your name again. Swigg: Oh. Dan Swigg. 2127 Overland Road, Boise, Idaho. These areas -- these three lots right here -- they really havenlt done anything to those. We do have an approval from the city to do the roadway. I believe. Is that correct, Dave? I know I paid the permit on it. And take care of a lot of these drainage issues that we have been having and develop these lots. With the rainy season coming, if we tie these up in a -- in a -- if we go through a three or four month CUP process for this building lot, it's going to take us even longer to get these drainage issues resolved. When we do build these lots like we did these, we put in the roads and parking lots, the building, and all that drainage is contained and piped into a drainage bed underneath. This is not -- none of this was developed. This was built up and compacted to 98 percent compaction and it - - you can't penetrate it with water and that was per the engineer's recommendations, because that lot is built up about eight foot higher than these lots right here. So, the quicker we can move on it, the quicker we can resolve all these issues and we have a couple more projects coming through and we will take care of those issues. I would like to state that it was the exact same contractor twice, not three times, but he did take care of his problem and fix that drainage issue. And I apologize for the phone. I turned it off. That's alii have to say. Borton: Thank you, Mr. Swigg. Any questions? Waldron: Yeah. I'd like to -- Borton: You've got to state your name. Waldron: David Waldron, Eagle, Idaho. 11m a little taken aback about this lack of cooperation, because I think it's just far far from being true. You know, we have tried everything we could. The fence that Mr. Anderson's talking about was a requirement of the city and we were moving forward to do that and the fence that was there was on our property and I actually contacted Mr. Anderson and said, you know, could you either move the fence or do you want us to do it for you. Well, you know, he just blew his Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 43 of 49 stack and -- but it was not -- you know, nothing we could do about it and I have done lots of projects, you know, I just want to go on record as saying that we were not -- we are not trying to be bad neighbors, you know, we are just trying to get our project done and as John was just mentioning, you know, we'd like to move forward and be able to develop out those three middle lots and I think that's been resolved -- any issues, so -- Borton: Thank you. Canning: President Borton? Borton: Anna. Canning: With regard to your -- I think concern about the noticing about adding 6.3 to it, there is some logic to the idea that you're just adding -- instead of requiring a Conditional Use Permit, you're adding a condition that applies to all lots. So, I mean I think we are just trying to balance the need for a Conditional Use Permit on all of them by adding some additional conditions. Borton: Okay. Thank you. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, you say we have mistakenly issued two building permits out there? Canning: Yes, sir. Bird: Can you red tag them and stop them until everything is done right? I know one's - - evidently, one's basically built. Canning: The applicant submitted in good faith. We in error approved it. Generally, in those cases we don't penalize them for our mistake. We don't make it again, but if it were a safety concern or a big concern to Council, we could proceed that way, I believe. I'm getting some nods from behind you, so I think I'm speaking correctly. Zaremba: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: If I could -- and, again, if my memory is helping, which sometimes it doesn't, I would ruminate on the subject of why the CUP requirement was put in there in the first place. As I recall, this was one of the first projects that had a mix of commercial space and residential space pretty well combined in the same application. It may not have been exactly the same, but they were pretty well presented at the same time. And also having frontage along Franklin Road, which mayor may not have been officially Meridian City Council March 13, 2007 Page 44 of 49 established as an entryway corridor at the time, part of the reason for the CUP was because we had no design review process. There were a lot of new things about this subdivision as it was being presented and so some unknown things about how the future was going to develop around it. With the new Unified Development Code we have covered a lot of things that I think we thought were squeaky in this project to begin with. I would be perfectly comfortable substituting the CUP requirement for a design review requirement, since it's my recollection that that was the point of it in the first place. The water and drainage issue is a separate issue. I believe that needs to be resolved and we do need to put in some pretty strong wording that throughout the entire project there cannot be flooding onto neighbor projects however we solve that. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: And I think thafs where -- thafs my feeling of why you don't take away the CUP, is because that's how you can take and make sure the drainage and stuff is taken care of. ('m for leaving it just like it is and making sure that we adhere to the development agreement before building permits are issued. Borton: This is a Public Hearing. Is there any additional information we need from staff or the applicant? Canning: Sirs, one option we have got prior to issuance of the next building permit, but I don't believe occupancies have been issued, if that is a better solution for Council. Borton: Anna, are you suggesting that the 6.3 amendment reference that prior to issuance of an occupancy permit within the development the applicant shall -- Canning: It's a possibility. I don't know how close he is to completing it and how long the drainage plans would take to get approved and constructed is what it says now, so that would certainly light a fire under them. But it may not be fair to the person who is waiting to move in next week. Borton: In light of that, does the applicant have any comments on the proposed 6.3? Please come forward. And state your name. Swigg: Dan Swigg. Borton: Thank you. Swigg: This is a project that's under construction and this lot here. These two lots do have on-site draining. The parking lots are done. The drainage is installed. The roof drains are tied into those drainage systems, so -- we don't own this one and we don't own this one. But I think it would be unreasonable to put that requirement on these two people, since they already -- at least these six lots are already in compliance with the Meridian City Council March1312007 Page 45 of 49 drainage issue, it's just these three undeveloped lots that we haven't done anything with and we are working on taking care of that. That's all I have. Bird: Mr. Swigg? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: Where do those drain? Where does the drainage -- Swigg: Part of the overall plan is all these have underground drainage trenches put in in the parking lot and we haven't done anything with these three lots. They were just cleared and graded and the landscaping that was required was put in around the perimeter and that's all we have done with these three lots and this lot. Bird: Were are those drainage going to? Swigg: These go into underground drainage retention ponds. Bird: They have got retention ponds? Swigg: Well, retention swales underneath the ground -- Bird: Swales. Swigg: -- in the parking lot, so -- Bird: And they are staying right on the existing property? Swigg: Yeah. Yeah. If you look -- I have got a drawing here. If you look at the six lots, they are not there no more, but those are developed, they have curb, sidewalks, picnic areas, all the requirements for those lots. And we do -- we will correct the drainage problem and that's part of the next phase of development and, like I said, we already have a permit for that and it has been paid for, we just are waiting for Ada County to sign off on the plat -- Ada County to sign off on the plat, so we can finish that work Borton: Thank you. Bird: Thank you. Borton: Council, any additional information of staff or the applicant? I would entertain a motion on Item 19. Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing on MI 07-003. Zaremba: Second. Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 46 of 49 Borton: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 19. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borton: I'll throw out my thoughts. I don't have a problem with the staff's recommendation, both with adding the language to 6.3 that's referenced in the staff report and deleting I guess item five in the DA and changing it with the new requirement that -- that each lot within the subdivision be covered by the existing UDC and the design review standards that are set forth in that document. Zaremba: Mr. President that would work for me as well. Borton: Any other discussion, comment? Rountree: No. Bird: I have none. Zaremba: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we approve MI 07-003 regarding Sparrowhawk Subdivision to include all staff comments. Borton: lid second. Any discussion? By reference to staff comments the items 6.3 and 6.1 amendment? Zaremba: Yes. As you have stated -- Borton: Okay. Zaremba: -- previously. Borton: Any other discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, nay; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION FAILED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS. Rountree: Standoff. Where is the Mayor when you need her? Baird: You can certainly -- Mr. Chair and Members of the Council, you can certainly entertain another motion, but the motion passes because you have an even number on each side and nobody here to break a tie. So, you can attempt to make another motion Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 47 of 49 that would appease. You can continue it for a tie breaker. You can -- you have a range of options, except that you have made no decision at this point. Zaremba: The maker of the motion would consider alternatives. Someone else care to propose another motion? Rountree: Mr. President, 1111 take a shot at it. Borton: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: All right. Mr. President, I move that we continue Public Hearing MI 07-003 until our next regularly scheduled meeting, which would be March 20th, and at that time we will take additional comments from the applicant as it relates to the engineering design and potential implementation date of a solution for, one, the drainage issue, and, two, the irrigation issue. Bird: Mr. Rountree, before I second that, your motion did state that we'd reopen the Public Hearing and continue it. Rountree: We would reopen the Public Hearing and continue it. Bird: Second. Borton: Ifs been moved and seconded to do what Councilman Rountree said. Any discussion? Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borton: Thank you. Rountree: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I don't know that my motion necessarily stated that we open the Public Hearing. So, for clarification I move that we reopen the Public Hearing for a continuance until March 20th. Bird: I'd second that. Borton: That was incorporated into the motion and the vote. Meridian City Council March13, 2007 Page 48 of 49 Item 20: Ordinance No. 07-1302 : AZ 06-060 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.01 Acres from RUT to R-8 & R-15 zones for Arch Rock Subdivision by CTD Development - South of McMillan Road and East of Linder Road.: Borton: Item 20 is Ordinance No. 07-1302, Mr. Clerk. Berg: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. Ordinance 07-1302, an ordinance for annexation of property being situated in a portion of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 36, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said lands from RUT to R-8, R-15, 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. Borton: You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Anyone care to have it read in its entirety? Seeing none, Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: If nobody wants it read in its entirety, I move we approve Ordinance 07-1302 with suspension of rules. Rountree: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 07-1302. Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borton: Thank you. And to the two young ladies who have sat through the entire session, we have City of Meridian pins for you. Thank you for bearing with us, enjoying the evening. We will adjourn this meeting and, then, talk. I need a motion to adjourn. Bird: Mr. President, I move we adjourn. Rountree: Second. Meridian City Council March13,2007 Page 49 of 49 Borton: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:24 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: il ~~ \\\\\1111///11'1 ..GOUNCIL T Joe.:' ~ & MEir6>",/ " .'J' ut:J. ........ ~rn.IYvJ de..w~it-'rd... / tfllP . ~r~o '/V '\ 2 ~ - - - - - - ~/I/IP7 DATE APPROVED