Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes• Meridian City Council December 1, 1998 Page 8 Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to accept and approve the final plat for Stetson Estates, any discussion? All those in favor of the motion? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Rountree: All in favor. ITEM N0.6: FINAL PLAT FOR THE LANDING NO. 11 BY MALLARD LANDING LLC - SW'/4 SECTION 13 T. 3N., R. 1W: Rountree: Staff any comments? Mr. Collins is back there to answer any questions I think. Is that correct? Smith: Mr. President, members of the council, as far as our records show we have not received a written response from the applicant on the comments that were offered dated November 25~h, those were faxed to the applicants engineer that day. Rountree: Would you like Mr. Collins to address that? Smith: Please. DAVID COLLINS, 3350 AMERICANA TERRACE, BOISE. Collins: We received, or I received a fax of the memorandum of.25, November about 3:00 Wednesday afternoon before the turkey day. It was kind of, I didn't look them over thoroughly enough to see that this was a response in writing required prior to the council. I didn't read it, I saw that as a condition once you approved it, that we had to respond in.writing to them. We have no difficulty with the general comments, take exception to none of them. ON the site specific comments there is a couple of questions that my client requested that I bring to you. They deal with item no. 4 which reads "the Idaho Transportation Department in a letter regarding a development across the interstate commented that structure should not be any closer than 150 feet from the state right-of-way in areas of full (Inaudible) of access, which is a freeway configuration, or separation of 100 feet in all other areas". The question is, is this-it's a statement, it doesn't require anything of us, so far as I can see in reading it. If it doesn't, then the client would like to have that removed because it doesn't condition us to do anything, it just makes a statement that they sent a letter. We don't know what the development across was, but my recollection is that it's commercial directly across from the Landing there. No. 5 is documentation request regarding minimum house size-I won't read the entire thing, but this has to do with the compliance with the provisions of the previous ordinance under which the preliminary plat was approved, or compliance with the current ordinance in the R-4 zone as it exists today. In here it states that the previous legal council indicated that the property was zoned under a previous version of the • Meridian City Council December 1, 1998 Page 9 ordinance, those ordinance provision should prevail. My developers attorney concurs with that-that we should be complying with the previous ordinance conditions under which the preliminary plat because we've kept the preliminary plat live and valid, we haven't allowed it to lapse. So those are the only two, everything else, we have no problem with what so ever. Typos will be corrected on the plat and all as usual. Rountree: Any questions? Bentley: Comments back to staff. Shari, do you have a response to those two items? Stiles: Councilman Bentley, Councilmen, no.4 because we did not get any response from the Idaho Transportation Department, I'm not sure that it was transmitted to them and whether they had an interest in commenting. Due the non-response we did take the comments we received about the Roaring Springs Waterpark and I would assume that those comments-maybe it's a false assumption but I would assume that the same would hold true no matter which side of the interstate that you are on. Number 5 we have requested minimum house sizes and have not received that information. There was discussion of the percentages that were presented. They never proposed percentages on the minimum house sizes, until we got to late phases of this project. It was never proposed in the preliminary plat stage. Only at the final plat stage. That is when they started designating the minimum house sizes. This project currently does not meet even the old ordinance provisions. There are numerous other items that need to be addressed and staff would fee much more comfortable if they would address these in writing and take care of some of the problems prior to your action on the plat. One thing that was not mentioned from the applicants representative, No. 3 is a particular concern. I would like to see some details on that berming that they are proposing, it should be made a common lot. There are extensive HUD and FHA standards that apply to any kind of funding/financing for those homes if they would propose to have that kind of financing and we would like to see that is a consistent treatment there, particularly since it's also an entrance corridor into the city. I'm not sure they can provide the proper line of site restriction barrier within a 25 foot wide area either. Rountree: Any other questions staff? Bentley: I don't have any more questions thank you. Bird: I have none. Rountree: Any discussion? Bentley: Yes, seems there is a couple of serious items here that need to be corrected in my estimation before we can act on this. One, I feel they need to developer and the Meridian City Council December 1, 1998 Page 10 staff need to get together and work out these site specific comments and then respond in writing as the requirement for the final plat and my feelings would be to table this and see if they can get it worked out by the next meeting. Rountree: Would you like to make that a motion? We'd appreciate that. Bentley: I would move that we table the final plat for the Landing No. 11 for Mallard Landing LLC and request that the developer and staff get together and work out the disputes and site specific comments and have the developer respond in writing as required for the plat on the 15~" of December. Bird: Second. Rountree: It's been moved and seconded that we table Item No. 6 the final plat for Landing No. 11 by Mallard Landing LLC until our next regularly scheduled meeting December 15t" and that staff and applicant get together and resolve the outstanding comments that have not been resolved at this point. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Rountree: All in favor, motion passes. Next item on the agenda, David? Collins: My developer has not received the comments yet. So if you could direct staff to be sure the developer gets the copy. Rountree: They've just been faxed to you. Collins: Yes, and it didn't have a cover sheet to me either on it. So there was a little confusion (Inaudible). Stiles: There was a cover sheet included and the packets are available Friday prior to the meeting and are made available to the applicant. Rountree: We know there was a cover sheet because we have a copy of it, but if you (Inaudible). See that the developer got a copy. ITEM N0.7: VARIANCE FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY PACIFIC NORTHWEST ELECTRIC - NW'/4 SECTION 5, T3N. R1 E: Rountree: Staff do you have any opening comments on this? f ~` ~ ... • Meridian City Council ~ecerpber 16, 1998 Meeting Page 3 pR~q ~'R read this real quick) UG FREE IDgHO. I will entMAYOR CORRIE Drug Free Idaho. ertain a motion to READ THE Bird; Mr. approve the DECL,gR,yTION Mayor, 1 move Declaration for a that we declare a dru Bentley; Second. 9 free Idaho in the Cowie: C~tY of Meridian. Idaho Motion made b declaratio Y Mr. Bird second b n' Any further discussion? gllr. Bentle MOTION CARRIEp. All a those in favor o f declare the dru fr 2' TABLED yes. the motion say ayeee MALLARD LANDnIN ER 1, 1998; FINA G LLC - ECTIOT F Bentley: Mr. Nja Sw ~ S N 1 ~R 3NE LANDING 11 people from the yOr' question for staff. T. NO. BY problems. Landis Shari ~ R. 1 I/V: I want to g Number 11 ~ at the last know if that's get with you and meeting we re Stiles: Mr been done. Your department quested that the these ite Mayor and Councilman and work out the which we r• ecel ed b ve res Bentley, Council they brou ° 1 p°j ded with the ' ~ they did not get with ght with the ut 5. inf°rrnation requirements for m torsi guess. They have YOU had in me °n any of ease ght However it s ~ also submitte Your box tonight The the zone. k o till does not d a revised meet. I thin propOSin Y show a 25 fo ne thing we reap meet the plat that 9 to do is h of landsca Y need minimum that 25 feet on to ave a 4 foot hi pe ease to look at is this landsca e and the p of the 9h ber rr-ent on there now n their fence berm. - think the and then have ~ but what they're because then their lotsnd I understand 25 feet a w°°d fence revised would not what they don tds tO be exclusive pandsca ilhin there is plat although the meet the mini want to make p n9 at least on first y have made so mum square fo that a co frontage re glance, there ' °tage re -r-mon lot landsca quirements. I wold is st II six ots that nd did provide so Uirerrients. The pe bean on the ' like Council to do not meet the me closures approved until we interstate side makes minimu response i get one th there. qnd - don °ific requirements for m ndicates the at COnf°rrr-s to the t think this that works departure Y have provide °rdinance, plat should be nt does not d that infor House contain it in motion its saes, althou Bentley: Oka their files either. not in my files gh their Y~ thank y°u and the public Cowie; Any further discussio n on the request for final plat f°r Landings No. 11 ? ~'~ ,•-~ _ ,i ,~ Meridian City Council Meeting December 15, 1998 Page 4 Bentley: Mr. Mayor seein developer and staff to g that I speci ~OCally requested that the w other problems work out these p blems and y ould strai straightened out, I'm not in favor of aget the sites get together the ghtened out. pecific comments and pproving this until these items are Rountree: Mr. Mayor I concur with Cou situation where we subdivision ordinances appr°ve a final plat whe B helela I don't believe that we're i agree with Shari's concernsneed to have p t doesn t conform n a corridor. with the land capeclfic lot sizes to our It is a reflection of our meet our ordinance landsca a communit pe treatment along the interstate. It sna I p placed b Y~ It is an area where we ve that it's taken care of andet iseeflecti h coin we either table this ry g to get mercial and residential, andbn such Ia wa plat a °n up°n our communit . y gain or entertain the possibility of denyln I th uld su Corrie; Any further co pport that mments? g e final plat. I II entertain a motion to that affect. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I think Counsel h again. as some guidance that we need to hear yet Glgray. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Rountre table this which I think e, members of the Council if was made at the December 1 ry aptly could, because as I understood staff and then staff ~ y°U choose to meeting, they were su the motion that and I got the im was suppose to be ppose to provide their res received this res ression fro given an opportunity to sub p°nses to m the administrator's re mit their comments we're still within he 45 das evenin port this evenin 9~ The question we would have s whether °barely ouncil. If it is within the 45 da Y maximum of when this was originally sub table it one Y up to the next Council meetin mltted to the °t that limitation ore time. If not then If the You have to ask the developer If the ould move to Y would then you could still do it. Corrie: How Y would waive 1St the original tab edays w111 this pass the 45 days Clerk? Wtll was that December the Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council the first heari hg we've had. The a ' tt was first heard o November 24 pplication as far as our transmiDttals tuber 1St that agencies can~haveut me to have to have it out so man ~ That's was dated comment. Y days prior to the meeting so Rountree: Mr. Ma or I regularly scheduled 111e t1n a that we table the second item on our g January 5 , 1999, agenda until our next Anderson: Second. i • Meridian City Council Meeting December 15, 1998 Page 3 Corrie: I'll read this real quickly here. MAYOR CORRIE READ THE DECLARATION FOR A DRUG FREE IDAHO. I will entertain a motion to approve the Declaration for a Drug Free Idaho. Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we declare a drug free Idaho in the City of Meridian. Bentley: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bird second by Mr. Bentley that we declare the drug free Idaho declaration. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. 2. TABLED DECEMBER 1, 1998: FINAL PLAT FOR THE LANDING NO. 11 BY MALLARD LANDING LLC - SW %4 SECTION 13 T. 3N., R. 1 W: Bentley: Mr. Mayor, question for staff. Shari, at the last meeting we requested that the people from the Landing Number 11 get with you and your department and work out the problems. I want to know if that's been done. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Bentley, Council, they did not get with me on any of these items. They have responded with the information you had in your box tonight which we received about 5:10 I guess. They have also submitted a revised plat that they brought with them tonight. However it still does not meet the minimum requirements for the zone. I think one thing we really need to look at is this landscape easement. They show a 25 foot landscape easement on there now, but what they're proposing to do is have a 4 foot high berm and then have a wood fence placed within that 25 feet on top of the berm. I think the 25 feet needs to be exclusive landscaping and then their fence, and I understand what they don't want to make that a common lot because then their lots would not meet the minimum square footage requirements. The revised plat although they have made some changes and did provide some closures there is at least on first glance, there is still six lots that do not meet the minimum frontage requirements. I wold like Council to make specific requirements for that landscape berm on the interstate side there. And I don't think this plat should be approved until we get one that conforms to the ordinance. House sizes, although their response indicates they have provided that information it's not in my files and the public works department does not contain it in their files either. Bentley: Okay, thank you. Corrie: Any further discussion on the request for final plat for Landings No. 11? • Meridian City Council Meeting December 15, 1998 Page 4 Bentley: Mr. Mayor seeing that I specifically requested that they would get together the developer and staff to work out these problems and get the site specific comments and other problems straightened out, I'm not in favor of approving this until these items are straightened out. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I concur with Councilman Bentley. I don't believe that we're in a situation where we can approve a final plat when the plat doesn't conform to our subdivision ordinance. We need to have a specific lot sizes meet our ordinance, and I agree with Shari's concerns with the landscape treatment along the interstate. It is a corridor. It is a reflection of our community. It is an area where we've been trying to get landscape placed by developers, both commercial and residential, and in such a way that it's taken care of and it is reflection upon our community. So I would support that we either table this plat again or entertain the possibility of denying the final plat. Corrie: Any further comments? I'll entertain a motion to that affect. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I think Counsel has some guidance that we need to hear yet again. Gigray: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Rountree, members of the Council, if you choose to table this which I think you very aptly could, because as I understood the motion that was made at the December 1 meeting, they were suppose to provide their responses to staff and then staff was suppose to be given an opportunity to submit their comments and I got the impression from the administrator's report this evening, she just barely received this response this evening. The question we would have is whether or not we're still within the 45 day maximum of when this was originally submitted to the Council. If it is within the 45 day up to the next Council meeting, you could move to table it one more time. If not then you have to ask the developer if they would waive that limitation. If they would then you could still do it. Corrie: How many days will this pass the 45 days Clerk? Will was that December the 1St the original table? Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, it was first heard on December 1St. That's the first hearing we've, had. The application as far as our transmittals was dated November 24th. Obviously we have to have it out so many days prior to the meeting so that agencies can have time to comment. Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that we table the second item on our agenda until our next regularly scheduled meeting January 5th, 1999. Anderson: Second. • Meridian City Council Meeting December 15, 1998 Page 5 Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Anderson to table item number two, the final plat for the Landing No. 11 by Mallard Landing, LLC until January Stn 1999. Any further discussion? Rountree: Mr. Mayor on the record and for the developer one consideration that I think that they must place on this development since it is right on the interstate right-of-way is to do a hard look at the hardship you are going to be putting the future residents in if you don't do a reasonable noise berm or barrier, something more than 4 feet. So that would be something that I would be looking at. Corrie: Is the developer or the representative here tonight? Okay, did you get the message then what he said? (Inaudible -off the microphone) Corrie: We're not a public hearing. The question was -okay identify yourself and just make sure that you understand what he was saying. B. Blaser: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, represent Mallard Landing LLC. I understand the comment. If you'll notice on the comment that we made in written response, we would like a higher berm. The comment from staff was a 4 foot berm. But we would like to do that. We understand the need to beautify the freeway and I think if you read our comments there, you will notice that we are proposing a solution for that. Corrie: Okay thank you. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: VARIANCE FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY PACIFIC NORTHWEST ELECTRIC -- NW %4 SECTION 5, T3N. R1 E: Corrie: This variance for the continuation of the one year a~proval for the preliminary plat to go from the Stn day of August 1998 and ending the 4 n day of August 1999. Rountree: Mr. Mayor if there's no discussion I would move that the City Council hereby adopts and approves the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the Order of Decision. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 6 Anderson: So we could send them all in one group and not interrupt our service? Shawcroft: Right. We were just using 8 because that's what Census used was 8 people for training you know training 8 people and so we wanted to make sure that dollar figure actually represented what we're getting, so that we weren't favoring one vendor over another. Anderson: So the money that's in their bid for travel, lodging, meals, transportation, that's for their people. Shawcroft: If it is for Census, it's for their people. And I think it depends on how you look at it. If we send our people remotely to the remote location, then the city will pay that out of pocket and the vendor won't receive anything. But if they come on site, then they will have their fee plus their travel expenses. Corrie: In my mind if we send out our people, we've got a $13,000 bill to send our people roughly. I mean it doesn't come out that high, but - Shawcroft: No. I think you know you actually can put two people in a motel room. Meals are not that expensive and flights from here to Salt Lake aren't that bad, so I think it would be considerably less. Corrie: Any other questions on the item number two? Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none. Corrie: Entertain a motion on the results of the government utilities billing system. Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that we approve the bid for the government utilities billing system in the amount of $43,100 with Cassell, Inc. Bentley: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Bentley to accept the price of $43,100 of Cassell, Inc. for the training. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. 3. TABLED DECEMBER 15, 1998: FINAL PLAT FOR THE LANDING NO. 11 BY MALLARD LANDING LLC - SW'/4 SECTION 13 T. 3N., R. 1 W: Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 7 Corrie: Staff comments first. Shari? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council we received the revised plat you just had placed before you tonight. I have had discussion with the developer and we worked out some of the issues. On the revised plat there is still a discrepancy in the ordinance it needs to be changed. It's minor and I think it can be completed. I would like on the record there to be some additional conditions on this plat that some of the issues may have to be worked out during the development plan review process as far as the landscape setback. Review that application I would want - I do want it on record that I am requesting and recommending that the 25 foot landscape setback beyond the right-of- way of the totally landscaped setback and that the fence be beyond that and that that is subject to design review approval by the Planning and Zoning Department. I would also like a note put on the plat that the homeowners association is responsible for maintenance of this landscape easement and that no fencing is to encroach the easement and that before recording of the final plat -before signature on the final plat that we review the recorded license agreement with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and make sure appropriate notes are put on the plat about encroachment of that easement of fencing or any other structures. What you don't have in your packets is an additional page from the developer that has changed some of the square footages on Landing No. 10, which has already been approved. However we did not get the square footages of the housing resolved upon approval of that. It hasn't been signed yet. So they have submitted revised minimum square footages of the housing for Landing No. 10 and Landing No. 11 with this submittal that we are requesting to meet the ordinance requirements from 1991. Corrie: Any further comments from staff? Rountree: Are you going to repeat your statement or do you want me to read it again? Bentley: Shari, on this plat map we have here, I have a question on it. The title on it is Landing No. 11 and down in the bottom of it, it shows Landing No. 10, Landing No. 9. Where is Landing No. 11? Stiles: The lots that are shown are Landing No. 11. That is what the plat is of. A requirement of state code is that they list the adjacent whether it's platted or unplatted or what those subdivision names are. Bentley: Okay that clarifies that and then a follow up at my request the previous meeting they were suppose to get with you and get all the problems straightened out. You're saying that hasn't been done? Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 8 • Stiles: We haven't had a meeting in person. We discussed over the phone and discussed a lot of these issues. One of my - do you have my list of comments? Just to clarify where the questions were on the comments, on site specific number two, we had requested a six foot high permanent perimeter fence be required. And they have asked that phases ten and eleven be combined if they are going to develop those at the same time. Staff has no problem with them constructing the perimeter fence around the entire without requiring the temporary fencing. Number three, we had asked that the buffer area be platted as a common lot, however they would be below the minimum required square footages for the lots so we didn't request that, but we do request that the 25 foot landscape berm be provided and the fence be at that landscape setback. Site specific comment number four was in reference to the Idaho Transportation Department and what they had quoted about another project. We had not had a response from them on this project, but seeing as the approval was so long ago, I don't know how we could impose that requirement. I am very concerned about the buffering for this project. Everyone knows there is going to be another lane constructed westbound to Nampa, and I just don't want to see tax dollars spent on an 8 foot high concrete wall at that time when everyone knew full well when the development went in that that would be a requirement and that that would happen and that it would impact this development and that is why I'm so concerned about the buffer. The documentation, they have revised their house sizes as I said for Landing No. 10 and Landing No. 11 to meet the ordinance of 1991. It appears that all of the lots sizes now meet the minimum requirement. And I ask that all other comments stated here tonight and in our written comments would be incorporated into the approval. Rountree: Shari you had some comments previously and I'm not sure if it was on this one or one of the adjoining ones about the number of lots and sizes of houses on the particular lots as indicated on this plat. They have the house size shown, but minimum house size that would be shown allowed on the lots. You obviously haven't had this long enough to compute if that is consistent with our ordinance. Stiles: Councilman Rountree, Mayor and Council, I did receive a revised square footages for Landing No. 10 that I did not have in your packets and they have - I have computed the percentages and they do meet the requirements of the 1991 ordinance. Rountree: Okay. Corrie: Any other comments from Council? Questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I would have a question of the developer or his engineer. • • Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 9 B. Blazer: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, Bruce Blazer represent Mallard Landing LLC. Rountree: My question centers around the specifics of the barrier on the southern side of the proposed subdivision adjacent to I-84 and there's been some confusion about what's going to be there and what it is we want and I know you had some comments at the last meeting that we had only wanted a certain height barrier and you were proposing something more significant than that, and I would just like to know specifically what is being proposed there in terms of height of berm, fencing, and landscaping. B. Blazer: Well the plat requirement shows a 4 foot berm and 25 foot easement and in the letter that I gave you last time I indicated that we would like a much higher berm than that. I think currently we have a berm that's between six and eight feet tall. We have additional dirt that we were going to take out of the roads of phase 11 and place on that berm. To make it even taller, because we recognize that we need a barrier there to help take the noise away from the houses. The problem arises I think between our concept and staff in that staff wants us to place the fence on the 25 foot line and landscape the full 25 feet to the southern boundary to the property. We are proposing putting the fence on top of the berm and landscaping from the fence to the southern edge of the property. In discussing this with staff, we came to the conclusions we could move the berm to the north. It would encroach into the backyards of the homes that are there. To do that we wouldn't place as high a berm as we would if we could use the full 25 foot easement for the berm so there's sort of a trade off there. I think in design we're open to just about anything. We have to protect a little bit the backyards of the homes that will be built there, so we aren't in opposition to any advice that the Council wants to give to us and any direction that you want to place on us. Rountree: I personally would like to see that berm as high as you can get it and if you place the fence on top of the berm and landscape from the fence to the roadway right- of-way, that's consistent with some of the treatments that are further east along the interstate. My concern with that would be how would the homeowners or the homeowners association maintain that area. B. Blazer: The area within the 25 foot easement would be maintained by the homeowners association. Shari wants it placed on the face of the plat. We're also putting it in the covenants of the plat. So it would be maintained by the homeowners association. Rountree: And you indicated that the berm height at this point is approximating eight feet and going to be higher depending on how much more material you have to waste. B. Blazer: That's what we were planning on doing, yeah. r: Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 10 Rountree: Approximate ten feet? B. Blazer: Very easily could. If we take the slopes one to one, we could get a ten foot berm there. Rountree: That's a pretty steep slope to try to maintain something on. B. Blazer: It is on the freeway side you could landscape it to where your upkeep would be minimal. On the homeowners' side yes it would create a greater burden on the homeowners. Rountree: Thank you. Corrie: Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Bentley: None. Corrie: Thank you Mr. Blazer. Shari do you have any further comments in this from what you've heard? Stiles: I would just like to reiterate I would like the fence at the 25 foot line at the apex of whatever berm is provided and that it not be a one to one slope which would be pretty much impossible to maintain. Corrie: Any other questions Council? Rountree: I have none. Bentley: I have none. Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay, I'll entertain a motion on the item number three, final plat for the Landing No. 11. Either approve the motion, deny the motion, amend the motion and have the attorney prepare the proper order on it. Bentley: Mr. Mayor I move we approve the final plat for the Landing No. 11 by Mallard Landing LLC with the conditions stated forth in the previous letter from Shari Stiles, P & Z Administrator and incorporate the conditions referred to tonight and order the attorney to prepare proper order. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 11 Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion is made by Mr. Bentley second by Mr. Bird to approve the Landing LLC with the amendments asked for condition of staff and that the attorney ordered to prepare the proper order. Any further discussion? Rountree: Mr. Mayor just a point of clarification the specifics as far as the conditions go. We talked about some modifications and different kinds of conditions particularly as it related to the berm and slopes probably for the applicant as well and staff and Mr. Gigray. Tell them what you meant Glenn. Bentley: With regards to the berm as suggested by Shari and Councilman Rountree to have the berm raised to height to what they were discussing and have the fence on the berm and at the apex of the berm and at the 25 foot property line without the one to one slope. Rountree: Thanks. Corrie: Any further discussion? All those in favor as outlined by Mr. Bentley's motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR OLIASON PARK SUBDIVISION BY TONY HICKEY -EAST OF 603 PINE: Corrie: Direct staff to the notice that we got from Mr. Gigray, City Attorney, that states that you could take up item 4 and 5, then item six of the Council should receive the same approval and approve the draft form and then request the development agreement be submitted to the applicant for approval and further action of the City Council in this matter, and then item seven (Inaudible). Staff comments first. Shari? Stiles: I'm sorry Mr. Mayor and Council, I have not reviewed the Findings the variance however they were regarding the frontage on the lots. These lots are very deep and they've asked for a variance on the frontage for that reason. They do meet the minimum lot size easily for the zone they have requested which is R-8. It's a fairly straight forward project I believe. I have not looked at the development agreement either. I don't know if I have that in my packet. Items 4, 5, and 6 and 7 I have no particular problems with.